I was lucky enough to spend the last two months involved in an EA Fellowship, facilitated by the Effective Altruism group in The Hague. Throughout, as we were exploring diverse dilemmas and discussing the prioritisation of these causes, one global issues stuck out to me above all - microplastics.

Even though plastic pollution is acknowledged to be a pressing problem, with many creative efforts made to mitigate it - such as the EU’s Climate Neutrality Goals - microplastics are a byproduct of plastic pollution which pose a danger that is fairly new and not so much researched or spoken about, and whose long-term effects are unknown to us currently.

In this exploration of why microplastics should matter to EAs, I will be using the ITN framework; more can be found about it under the eponymous topic on the present forum. However, in contrast with the quantitative, mathematics-based method that the ITN framework uses, I will be taking a qualitative approach to the ITN framework on microplastics. Essentially, I will try to use words instead of numbers to explain why microplastics should matter to EAs.

  1. Microplastics

Microplastics are plastic pieces smaller than 5 millimetres, which come from the breakdown of plastic objects. They encompass a variety of chemical and biological components.

According to the National Ocean Service of the US, microplastics pose a danger to our ocean and aquatic life. In 2021, Japanese scientists estimated 24.4 trillion microplastics in the world’s upper oceans.

Moreover, researchers have identified a risk to human health as well, which is problematic considering ‘humans constantly inhale and ingest microplastics’ (Vethaak et al., 2021).

Some years ago, when the scarcity of research on the matter was even more profound, the mayor worry was the danger of ingesting microplastic through shellfish. A team at the University of Plymouth debunked this, proving that one would inhale significantly more particles by breathing air in a typical home - fibres shed by their own clothes, carpets, and upholstery (Parker, National Geographic, 2023).

In 2022, scientists in the Netherlands and the U.K. found microplastics in living humans - in the lungs of surgical patients, and in the blood from anonymous donors.

Aside from the mere contamination, plastics are produced using a plethora of chemicals, which are regulated to different degrees in different countries. That is why the physiological and toxicological effects need to be measured as well; and that can draw guidance from research into the effects of microplastics onto animals.

  1. The ITN Framework

This section is based on the Forum Topic ‘ITN framework’.

The ITN framework is based on an estimation of the ‘importance, tractability and neglectedness’ of a cause.

2.1 Importance

As a byproduct of plastic pollution, it stems from a global issue that affects us all and it represents that as well. Plastic pollution has already shown its harms, suffocating lands and overpopulating bodies of water, being overly present in the city landscape from the Global North to the Global South.

As such, microplastics pose a problem equally, if not more pressing than plastic pollution, through its very nature - it is invisible. Microplastics pose a threat to human life - even if not imminent, they would still bring about a lot of suffering as a result of health issues. If there is one lesson we can learn from the general view on the crisis that Covid was, it’s that society does not care about an invisible threat. Most will have a problem with pollution as long as they can see it. Once it’s out of sight - or too small to be observed with the naked eye - it no longer is a priority.

Aside from the potential for neglectedness, which should show that the problem is important in and of itself - if a problem isn’t important, it doesn’t pose such an issue if it is ignored - microplastics are a currently under-researched topic that could prevent future health problems and possible suffering in the world.

2.2 Tractability

Microplastics can be monitored and observed, as highlighted in the aforementioned discoveries in living humans. There are studies examining the properties and characteristics of certain types of microplastics, as seen in Yin et. al (2023), and the impact of microplastics has been measured in relation with many species other than humans.

2.3 Neglectedness

Vethaak et al. (2021) acknowledges that one of the biggest questions pertaining to microplastics is the lack of research into their effects on humans exposed to them.

The transitory capabilities of microplastics are generally attributed to the size of the particles, but there are knowledge gaps pertaining to the ability of microplastics to penetrate certain types of tissue, and to the ‘absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion’ (Vethaak et al., 2021).

Currently, there are no studies that document a connection between microplastics and negative effects on human health, even though in laboratory research, microplastics have proven to cause damage to human cells - either by allergic reaction or cell death.

On top of that, all efforts against microplastics are focused on legislation or policies against wasteful plastic use or for plastic use reduction, so it would be interesting to see whether researchers can come up with technology to get rid of microplastics. There is much left to be explored when it comes to this topic.

  1. Conclusion

Maybe microplastics aren’t the number 1 cause to pursue, but I believe that they are a problem that is worthy of EAs’ attention and dedication. With so much room for research, it is only a matter of time before some team of determined EAs embark on a research journey together, or manage to fund a research initiative to figure out how microplastics can affect the human organism.

Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thanks for writing this. I think people might find it helpful if you made some estimate of the QALY impact of microplastics, and maybe described what you think are some of the more tractable interventions to affect it.

Thanks a lot for your post, Bianca.

I am currently listening to an episode by Dr. Rhonda Patrick where she discusses several studies showing alarming correlations between the accumulation of microplastics in various human organs and many diseases. Research indicates that these particles impact our health, affecting everything from brain function to reproductive issues. She argues that microplastics are not only an environmental pollution issue but also a serious health danger to humanity.

I also believe we should closely examine the problems microplastics pose to humanity. While more research is still needed, the problem is increasing exponentially as we use, ingest, breathe, and even absorb plastics through our skin, with the clothes we wear.

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
Recent opportunities in Global health & development
20
Eva
· · 1m read