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
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 31m read
 · 
James Özden and Sam Glover at Social Change Lab wrote a literature review on protest outcomes[1] as part of a broader investigation[2] on protest effectiveness. The report covers multiple lines of evidence and addresses many relevant questions, but does not say much about the methodological quality of the research. So that's what I'm going to do today. I reviewed the evidence on protest outcomes, focusing only on the highest-quality research, to answer two questions: 1. Do protests work? 2. Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Here's what I found: Do protests work? Highly likely (credence: 90%) in certain contexts, although it's unclear how well the results generalize. [More] Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Yes—the report's core claims are well-supported, although it overstates the strength of some of the evidence. [More] Cross-posted from my website. Introduction This article serves two purposes: First, it analyzes the evidence on protest outcomes. Second, it critically reviews the Social Change Lab literature review. Social Change Lab is not the only group that has reviewed protest effectiveness. I was able to find four literature reviews: 1. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018), Protest Intervention Report. 2. Orazani et al. (2021), Social movement strategy (nonviolent vs. violent) and the garnering of third-party support: A meta-analysis. 3. Social Change Lab – Ozden & Glover (2022), Literature Review: Protest Outcomes. 4. Shuman et al. (2024), When Are Social Protests Effective? The Animal Charity Evaluators review did not include many studies, and did not cite any natural experiments (only one had been published as of 2018). Orazani et al. (2021)[3] is a nice meta-analysis—it finds that when you show people news articles about nonviolent protests, they are more likely to express support for the protesters' cause. But what people say in a lab setting mig