[themagician]

It’s porn? No, it’s low testosterone. No, it’s cell phones. No, it’s plastic.

We are so adamant about finding the “one true cause” of any given thing that we don’t stop to consider that it doesn’t matter what it actually is.

If we pretend it’s all of them, what’s the worst outcome? We watch less porn, eat better food, spend less time with our phone and use less plastic? What a terrible scenario that would be. We might do all these good things for no good reason!

It’s the same problem we have with climate change. Always looking for the scapegoat instead of recognizing that the problem can be alleviated without finding the one true cause, assuming there even is one.

[gizmo686]

The problem is, how do you know those are good things?

Clearly all of those things have some benifits, else we wouldn't be doing them in the first place. To stop doing them because they might be harmful would make the world a worst place if they are not actually harmful.

And if we actually want to solve a problem, understanding its cause is generally important.

For instance imagine solving global warming without establish the cause is greanhouse gasses. Sure, we might make the world "better" by starting a campaighn to cure all the gay people, but that won't actually help with global warming, and would actually make the world worst (the first statement is fact, the second is a value judgement)

[themagician]

We know that excessive porn consumption is bad. We know that excessive cell phone use is bad. We know that excessive single use plastics are bad. You don't need a research study to confirm these things the same way you didn't really did a research study to know that smoking was bad. We all feign ignorance because we want to keep doing the thing that's convent or feels good.

Global warming is such a great example. Instead of doing anything we all argue about what's really causing it. Some people say it's a natural cycle, some people blame it on cars, some people want to blame it on livestock. It doesn't really matter. In fact, I hope somehow the "climate deniers" end up being right. I really, genuinely hope, that we find out that the rise in CO2 is part of a natural cycle. Because then there's a real sense of urgency. Reduced consumption is no longer a single solution. If it's part of a natural cycle we have to reduce consumption to zero immediately AND find a way to remove CO2 form the atmosphere or we will just be the next victim of mass extinction.

For a lot of problems the exact cause doesn't matter because we already know what the solution is. We just have to accept the fact that solution is bundled with a bunch of other things, and if we do them all we might accidentally do something excessive, like make the air cleaner in the process.

[strken]

Spending less time carrying a device that can call an ambulance in minutes would have serious consequences.

[themagician]

No it wouldn't.

You don't need to carry a phone with you everywhere you go all the time and keep it in your pocket. Hell, a lot of phones don't even fit in pockets anymore. You can keep it on your desk or in your bag. You can even do something crazy like leave it at home or in your car and go to the beach. You probably won't die. And because you live in a world with other people in it, it's possible that if you do set your phone down for a little bit and you have a medical emergency someone else could call for you.

[crankylinuxuser]

So, you're a science denier? Or do you have specific refutations of the linked GP paper to the NIH?

I also linked to a valid area, and asked if there were human studies in synthetic estrogens and plastic byproducts. You know... Science.

[themagician]

Did you respond to the wrong comment?