Will microplastics in our testicles be an issue?

No not the obesity! You are hurting the slop gobbling agenda!

Yeah, the increasing likelihood of Russia or China using nukes to get their way was what I was thinking, especially with talk that the Western nations might be giving Ukraine the go-ahead to use those weapons to strike within Russia itself.

The plastic sperm issue actually doesn't sound so bad in comparison, bc fertilization treatments might work even if needing to extract outside of the body first. Overall, it still sounds less dangerous to me than e.g. a young woman living in Florida these days without access to money to leave the state for medical care.

I frankly have no idea what to expect about climate change at this point - we've blown far past all the targets and seem now to be in uncharted territory, according to what little I understand. I do notice far fewer birds, bees and other insect life, and I recall hearing how in the Antarctic a few months back there was a single day where the temperature spiked by +70 degrees F (~40°C). I can only imagine what that would do to e.g. Texas if it went from already 100 to then 170 degrees, even if only for a few hours. "Coral" is the least of the issue iirc, they were (by virtue of being sensitive) mainly indicators of the actual events, which we won't know until we see it, but scientists are saying that it's no bueno. Anyway, it seems like the changes could wipe out all mammalian life on the planet, but then again maybe not!?:-P i.e. it could be really bad, but it could be less so, we just don't know, and as you said, we mostly barely care ("we" meaning voters, so chiefly Boomers & evangelical Christians, as Trump and the Republican party's biggest bases).

And yet we seem to care a great deal about tHe EcOnOmY tHo - so it's a choice of prioritization to pick what "matters" to us.

If it makes you feel any better, modern climate and economic studies have shown that even a full scale nuclear war involving every nuclear power at the height of the Cold War and when nuclear stockpiles were far larger than today we still wouldn’t have come very close to actually killing off all the humans on earth, with the vast majority of the casualties being owed to famine in regions that were/are heavily dependent on western fertilizer. Indeed entire nations in the southern hemisphere tend to get through such senecios without much of an direct effect from world war three.

Mostly this change from earlier predictions came from being able rule out the theory of a nuclear winter as climate modeling became more accurate and we could be sure that the secondary fires from such a war could not carry ash into the upper atmosphere in significant quantities, which was practically shown when a climate change fueled wildfire in Australia got so large that it should have been able to carry the ash into the upper atmosphere under nuclear winter theory but none was observed, validating modern climate models.

Also, dispite what some less scrupulous journalists trying to drum up clicks have posted on the Ukraine War, the Russian government itself hasn’t really made any major signaling moves with regards to bringing nukes into the conflict, and indeed has maintained and repeatedly reiterated Putin’s 2010s no first use policy when asked.

Don’t get me wrong, this is not the result of some greater Russian morals or whatever, but just a consequence of the inherent risk that such posturing could lead to nuclear escalation and breaking the nuclear taboo or even just other nations actually believing they plan to, and such scenarios end very badly for Russia in general and Putin in particular.

I got checked. They’re as smooth as ostrich eggs.

I tried but the post office sent some nasty email about some dude they called Inspector General. I think it got autocorrected from Inspector Gadget but whatever, apparently they frown on the unfrozen body parts thing.

You think only humans are affected by microplastics? You think it got into our blood streams and no other animals?

Your statement is exhibiting a narrow anthropocentric point of view. Obviously, human beings aren't meant to be here forever. Just like any individual life form, we live for a moment and then die.

The question is not "how can we survive for the longest amount of time possible?", it's not even "how can I get the most out of my time living?", it's "what do I leave behind for those that remain?"

In the case of human beings as a species, our best selves are those that leave a positive impact on our environment, stewards of the Earth. But we obviously aren't exhibiting our best selves.

"The Earth will be fine." is a pointless statement akin to "The next generation will figure out this mess." Both statements hand wave away the complicated problem that needs to be solved right the fuck now.

A better statement to ponder is the difficult question of "how do we leave this place better than we found it even if we do go extinct?" And on a more individual level, "what decisions and actions can we take to make sure the world is better off for those that will come after me?" Which then begs the follow up question, "What does a better world look like?", and also "How can we get there?"

Whining about what you can't do, or isn't feasible in the paradigm that is modern civilization is pointless. You can't have modern capitalism and leave the Earth a better place than it was before.

Very soon, something major will have to change sociopolitically and economically if we're going to simply go extinct with dignity. Let alone preserve the climate for our children.

I think the implication is that 50% of people don't have testicles.

That sounds rough. Hopefully you can work it out.

But just to err on the side of caution, I wouldn't let her know about that Australian guy,

that must be heartbreaking for you, im so sorry. i hope you two are able to work it out.