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.
Comments