We are “slowly becoming Homo plasticus,” scientist Megha Satyanarayana warns, citing increasing evidence of the pervasive presence of plastics in our bodies, water, air, and soil. In her argument, Satyanarayana describes how a consumer and convenience culture, a desire to make profits, and a slow regulatory process make it hard to address microplastic pollution.
- Satyanarayana describes scientific research that has identified widespread evidence of microplastics in human bodies and our environments. Give three examples of this evidence from her argument. Which research did you find most surprising, and why?
- Satyanarayana critiques how the U.S. government regulates the plastics industry. Why is the EPA’s strategy to regulate individual chemicals insufficient, according to Satyanarayana?
- Satyanarayana writes that calls to recycle or use reusable grocery bags are “wonderfully insidious ways that we shift the responsibility of environmental calamity onto individuals.” Paraphrase this statement in your own words. Who should be held responsible instead, according to Satyanarayana? Why?
- This argument responds in part to a recent medical study published in Nature Medicine. Look at and skim this journal article. What do you notice about this argument’s organization, types of evidence, language, and stance? What is one important similarity between this argument, published in an academic science journal, and the argument Satyanarayana published in Scientific American? What is one important difference?
- Satyanarayana asks in her title, “Why aren’t we losing our minds over the plastic in our brains?” Do you agree or disagree with her claim: that people do not seem concerned about microplastic pollution and its health effects? Explain your response.
They Say I Blog 
I fully agree with the warning of Megha Satyanarayana about microplastic pollution, as well as the corresponding challenges it poses.
At present, it has been widely acknowledged that the microplastics can be witnessed everywhere of human, such as the water we drink daily and the air we breathe. This invasion is quietly exerting influences on the human, and it is true that we are slowly becoming Homo plasticus. The main cause of this crisis can be attributed to the convenience culture derived from the consumerism. Plastic products are produced and used due to the low cost and high durability, but their flaw of being difficult to degrade is ignored. As a result, this spurs the scenario of the accumulation of waste in the environment and decomposition into microplastics.
What is more challenging is that the governance of microplastic pollution is about the engagement of a wide range of aspects such as production, consumption, recycling, and disposal. However, it should be noted that the interests of all parties are difficult to be met. For example, the corporations are reluctant to invest in environmental protection technologies to reduce costs, and consumers find it hard to change their usage habits due to their convenience. At the same time, the government faces significant difficulty in balancing economic development and environmental protection. This makes it difficult for measures to be implemented. Therefore, this scenario can demonstrate that we may not be able to find ways to address the significant challenges of microplastic pollutions.
On the basis of the aforementioned analysis, I am firmly convinced that microplastic pollution has become increasingly serious, and it is hard for us to find successful ways to address this. There still are a great number of significant challenges for us to mitigate the negative influences of microplastic pollution on us, as well as our brain.
LikeLike