When is sea glass not sea glass?
March 11, 2024 5:49 AM Subscribe
"Bizarre BEACHCOMBER war erupts over marbles deliberately tipped into ocean to be 'frosted', with purists saying its destroyed novelty value of finding one of the glass balls." A longer, more nuanced take from 2017 in Beachcombing Magazine. Also from 2017, "Is Seeded Glass Sea Glass?" Sea glass in the NYT back in 2010 [Archive]. Note that beachcombing is different when robots do it.
Bampas, Evangelos, Jurek Czyzowicz, David Ilcinkas, and Ralf Klasing. "Beachcombing on strips and islands." Theoretical Computer Science 806 (2020): 236-255.
Bampas, Evangelos, Jurek Czyzowicz, David Ilcinkas, and Ralf Klasing. "Beachcombing on strips and islands." Theoretical Computer Science 806 (2020): 236-255.
Man, if y'all looking for wave-toss'd glass, I invite you all down to Coney Island, where the beach is 80% busted beer bottles by volume. Don't worry, it'll be replenished.
posted by phooky at 6:04 AM on March 11 [8 favorites]
posted by phooky at 6:04 AM on March 11 [8 favorites]
Throwing glass vase stones into the ocean is wrong and it misses the point entirely.
But on the other hand, I'm not very sympathetic towards the purists who already look down upon "trash glass" and who only seem to care about glass that they can trace the provenance to some 19th century shipwreck. They don't seem to get that their high standards and demands for purity are the seeds of their own enshittification.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:37 AM on March 11 [6 favorites]
But on the other hand, I'm not very sympathetic towards the purists who already look down upon "trash glass" and who only seem to care about glass that they can trace the provenance to some 19th century shipwreck. They don't seem to get that their high standards and demands for purity are the seeds of their own enshittification.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:37 AM on March 11 [6 favorites]
There is nothing people can't take seriously that they can't take too seriously.
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:51 AM on March 11 [40 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:51 AM on March 11 [40 favorites]
I enjoy beachcombing and hunting for rocks and such, and it's cool to stumble across the odd "artifact" that's been weathered in interesting ways. And I feel like there's an intersection of "don't litter" and "don't valorize old litter" that applies here. Like this quote from the third link: "It is littering and has become pervasive because it’s lucrative, corrupting the mystique and allure of sea glass" seems like an issue that would be helped by discarding the "mystique and allure" bit.
posted by EvaDestruction at 6:54 AM on March 11 [2 favorites]
posted by EvaDestruction at 6:54 AM on March 11 [2 favorites]
I think this is a really interesting matter!
So in theory should there be anyone left to hunt for sea glass in fifty or a hundred years, they can look back with the historian's eye and say, "these marbles are probably from that weird period around the pandemic of the twenties when people were dumping a lot of marbles into the water" and the marbles will then have some historical interest.
Right now, of course, they're just some dumb hobby store marbles someone dumped into the water. Isn't it amazing that you just add time and the aura appears?
And I feel like this connects to questions about AI. Like, if an AI therapist validates your feelings, to my mind that doesn't matter, right, because it's not a person, there's no there there, even if the validation is very clever and itself constructed according to the best science, and even if your human therapist might in fact be distracted during your session and not fully focused. And in a way, with the sea glass, it's the same - that if someone just randomly dumps a gallon of Joanne's Crafts marbles into the sea, there isn't the same quality of real-world reference and the resonance of the thing is destroyed.
Algorithms and arbitrage/maxxing seem pretty similar to me, in that they treat humans as completely hackable and knowable flesh cogs and then everything just gets worse.
posted by Frowner at 6:59 AM on March 11 [12 favorites]
So in theory should there be anyone left to hunt for sea glass in fifty or a hundred years, they can look back with the historian's eye and say, "these marbles are probably from that weird period around the pandemic of the twenties when people were dumping a lot of marbles into the water" and the marbles will then have some historical interest.
Right now, of course, they're just some dumb hobby store marbles someone dumped into the water. Isn't it amazing that you just add time and the aura appears?
And I feel like this connects to questions about AI. Like, if an AI therapist validates your feelings, to my mind that doesn't matter, right, because it's not a person, there's no there there, even if the validation is very clever and itself constructed according to the best science, and even if your human therapist might in fact be distracted during your session and not fully focused. And in a way, with the sea glass, it's the same - that if someone just randomly dumps a gallon of Joanne's Crafts marbles into the sea, there isn't the same quality of real-world reference and the resonance of the thing is destroyed.
Algorithms and arbitrage/maxxing seem pretty similar to me, in that they treat humans as completely hackable and knowable flesh cogs and then everything just gets worse.
posted by Frowner at 6:59 AM on March 11 [12 favorites]
I would be pretty far on the 'let people make the sea glass they want to make' end of this argument, except for one thing: if all you want is pretty glass, you can make it, quickly, cheaply and without littering by getting a low end rock tumbler and letting it do its thing on your marbles.
So, seeding the ocean takes away someone's fun of searching and finding rare things while at the same time doesn't give you more value than you could create yourself and keep yourself, so why ruin glass hunting for other people?
posted by jacquilynne at 7:14 AM on March 11 [18 favorites]
So, seeding the ocean takes away someone's fun of searching and finding rare things while at the same time doesn't give you more value than you could create yourself and keep yourself, so why ruin glass hunting for other people?
posted by jacquilynne at 7:14 AM on March 11 [18 favorites]
I like sea glass, truly, but if we could dump NO glass into the ocean that would be an improvement for the planet, so at least we could not do it just for the aesthetic.
posted by praemunire at 7:22 AM on March 11 [9 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 7:22 AM on March 11 [9 favorites]
Tumbling machine is the way to go...Different grits give different results...What it won't give you is that iridescent sheen found on old broken bits of glass that have been in the ocean or sea for decades. And craft marbles seem pretty lame anyway. All the same size and shape, mostly. The rarest colour to find is the beautiful blue of old glass Vicks bottles. I believe yellow is also rare.
posted by Czjewel at 7:24 AM on March 11 [3 favorites]
posted by Czjewel at 7:24 AM on March 11 [3 favorites]
...why ruin glass hunting for other people?
A common thread in anything people enjoy (art, hobbies, food) is for somebody to capitalize on it by producing large amounts of low-quality versions of the same thing, especially if it means they squeeze out the original afficianados.
posted by AzraelBrown at 7:34 AM on March 11 [21 favorites]
A common thread in anything people enjoy (art, hobbies, food) is for somebody to capitalize on it by producing large amounts of low-quality versions of the same thing, especially if it means they squeeze out the original afficianados.
posted by AzraelBrown at 7:34 AM on March 11 [21 favorites]
Metafilter: There is nothing people can't take seriously that they can't take too seriously.
posted by Faintdreams at 7:56 AM on March 11 [12 favorites]
posted by Faintdreams at 7:56 AM on March 11 [12 favorites]
I would be pretty far on the 'let people make the sea glass they want to make' end of this argument, except for one thing: if all you want is pretty glass, you can make it, quickly, cheaply and without littering by getting a low end rock tumbler and letting it do its thing on your marbles.
Seconding this. My grandfather did that in his basement once and it was pretty dang hard to tell the difference between that and "authentic" beach glass.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:57 AM on March 11 [3 favorites]
Seconding this. My grandfather did that in his basement once and it was pretty dang hard to tell the difference between that and "authentic" beach glass.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:57 AM on March 11 [3 favorites]
Goddam, I hate everything. Especially the DailyMail
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 7:57 AM on March 11 [1 favorite]
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 7:57 AM on March 11 [1 favorite]
Oh I love the Daily Mail for this kind of story. They are terrible for any real news. But they are very good for clickbaity articles, particularly ones that are scandalous, sexy, or outrage. They distinguish themselves both for having a long history of this particular kind of Internet churn and a remarkably in-depth publishing of it.
I particularly like their approach to photos. They always have a lot of them, the ones you want to see, and reasonably high resolution. They also tend to have a whole lot of text, much of it original. The grammar and spelling mistakes indicate they're still old fashioned and writing the copy themselves, albeit without benefit of editors. I dread the day AI takes over the Daily Mail.
The writing in this article is so much fun.
posted by Nelson at 8:20 AM on March 11 [11 favorites]
I particularly like their approach to photos. They always have a lot of them, the ones you want to see, and reasonably high resolution. They also tend to have a whole lot of text, much of it original. The grammar and spelling mistakes indicate they're still old fashioned and writing the copy themselves, albeit without benefit of editors. I dread the day AI takes over the Daily Mail.
The writing in this article is so much fun.
The practice has sparked a furious war online, throwing beachcomber groups into chaos with puristsYou'd think they were writing about Heisenberg-style methamphetamine production, not nerds digging for trash glass.
Dave Valle is one of the most militant purists against the process of 'seeding' marbles
He told the Globe: 'Dave’s angle is to say he only has the pure stuff.
posted by Nelson at 8:20 AM on March 11 [11 favorites]
I particularly like their approach to photos. They always have a lot of them
And they aren't afraid to just yoink them from other sites so they don't have to pay an archive. They used a photo I'd edited for my Tumblr back around ten years ago. It had my url on it.
posted by LindsayIrene at 8:45 AM on March 11 [7 favorites]
And they aren't afraid to just yoink them from other sites so they don't have to pay an archive. They used a photo I'd edited for my Tumblr back around ten years ago. It had my url on it.
posted by LindsayIrene at 8:45 AM on March 11 [7 favorites]
Metafilter: There is nothing people can't take seriously that they can't take too seriously.
posted by Chuffy at 9:10 AM on March 11 [2 favorites]
posted by Chuffy at 9:10 AM on March 11 [2 favorites]
Radical opinion: littering is bad and we should not do it, and constraining our environmental footprint is good for all life on Earth.
Even more radical opinion: Let the marbles flow! Glass, especially marbles, are easily the least intrusive things that humans can leave in the ocean. They end up looking pretty cool as a result, and are fun to find.
posted by 2N2222 at 9:45 AM on March 11 [4 favorites]
Even more radical opinion: Let the marbles flow! Glass, especially marbles, are easily the least intrusive things that humans can leave in the ocean. They end up looking pretty cool as a result, and are fun to find.
posted by 2N2222 at 9:45 AM on March 11 [4 favorites]
They buried the lede in the second article:
"Let’s face it, seeding wasn’t a big concern until people realized that easy money could be gained from selling such glass,"...
Why is it everything comes down to money in the end? Yup, gotta bring in those tourist money, let's make sure there's plenty of glass out there for the rubes.
Throwing broken glass into water where people want to recreate barefooted is a jerk move--I don't care if you're a drunk or a sea-glass wanna be-er.
posted by BlueHorse at 9:51 AM on March 11
"Let’s face it, seeding wasn’t a big concern until people realized that easy money could be gained from selling such glass,"...
Why is it everything comes down to money in the end? Yup, gotta bring in those tourist money, let's make sure there's plenty of glass out there for the rubes.
Throwing broken glass into water where people want to recreate barefooted is a jerk move--I don't care if you're a drunk or a sea-glass wanna be-er.
posted by BlueHorse at 9:51 AM on March 11
Yeah, I don't see how marbles are littering the ocean
It's like telling me not to pee in the ocean because it will pollute it...Also I should have described the old glass bits that have been in the ocean with the term opalescence, but iridescence isn't bad either. The mineral salts in the water contribute to the glorious finish.
posted by Czjewel at 9:53 AM on March 11 [2 favorites]
It's like telling me not to pee in the ocean because it will pollute it...Also I should have described the old glass bits that have been in the ocean with the term opalescence, but iridescence isn't bad either. The mineral salts in the water contribute to the glorious finish.
posted by Czjewel at 9:53 AM on March 11 [2 favorites]
@Frowner Reminiscent of authenticity in art: the exact same painting, down to paint strokes an expert cannot tell apart from the real thing, why is the original worth so much and the copy so little? What about apprentices painting and one of “the Masters” signing it?
The former seems to matter to us. The latter doesn’t. Is it homeopathy? /S
posted by rubatan at 10:05 AM on March 11 [1 favorite]
The former seems to matter to us. The latter doesn’t. Is it homeopathy? /S
posted by rubatan at 10:05 AM on March 11 [1 favorite]
Throwing junk into the ocean is littering the ocean. I don't think that's up for debate. Whether this practice for this material is acceptable is.
I hate anyone littering and this seems particularly pointless. Imagine showing this story to a kid of 2024, 50 years from now, when the oceans will be further along on their death journey. I can't imagine it would make them feel this was a cool practice.
I swear I'm not being a crank or strident or anything about this or even super upset. It has a "fiddling while Rome burns" kind of feel though.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:53 AM on March 11 [4 favorites]
I hate anyone littering and this seems particularly pointless. Imagine showing this story to a kid of 2024, 50 years from now, when the oceans will be further along on their death journey. I can't imagine it would make them feel this was a cool practice.
I swear I'm not being a crank or strident or anything about this or even super upset. It has a "fiddling while Rome burns" kind of feel though.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:53 AM on March 11 [4 favorites]
as far as I know, Greg_Ace hasn't shown up yet and we're still waiting for someone (Greg_Ace) to post a "losing their marbles" comment but I can wait a little longer
posted by elkevelvet at 10:57 AM on March 11 [5 favorites]
posted by elkevelvet at 10:57 AM on March 11 [5 favorites]
This sent me down a rabbit hole reading up on best practices for using a rock tumbler to make sea glass. I learned a lot! Will I get a rock tumbler that does 50 to 60 barrel revolutions a minute with a ceramic pellets to get the “frosted” look? Only time will tell.
posted by lepus at 11:17 AM on March 11 [1 favorite]
posted by lepus at 11:17 AM on March 11 [1 favorite]
Yeah, it's just a little littering, right? Not Deepwater Horizon or anything? Until we find out that the marbles somehow are the right size, material, and density to kill X, Y, and Z sea creatures that wind up ingesting them accidentally or intentionally. Oops, we wiped out a species! Sorry about that, obscure species of sea cow, bivalve, or whale I've never heard of, some people had to make money on fake aged sea glass, and... you were in the way. That's probably a ridiculous example, but we're killing the planet faster than they, uh, make new planet.
posted by cupcakeninja at 11:23 AM on March 11 [6 favorites]
posted by cupcakeninja at 11:23 AM on March 11 [6 favorites]
Yeah, it's just a little littering, right? Not Deepwater Horizon or anything? Until we find out that the marbles somehow are the right size, material, and density to kill X, Y, and Z sea creatures that wind up ingesting them accidentally or intentionally. Oops, we wiped out a species! Sorry about that, obscure species of sea cow, bivalve, or whale I've never heard of, some people had to make money on fake aged sea glass, and... you were in the way. That's probably a ridiculous example, but we're killing the planet faster than they, uh, make new planet.
That's a little dramatic.
Marbles actually are the same size, material, and density as a whole lotta naturally occurring materials that litter beaches, deserts, and beyond. Usually called rocks, by layfolk. Left long enough to tumble on the beach, marbles eventually turn into (or back into)... sand.
So, yeah, I'm sticking with my radical opinion.
posted by 2N2222 at 12:02 PM on March 11 [7 favorites]
That's a little dramatic.
Marbles actually are the same size, material, and density as a whole lotta naturally occurring materials that litter beaches, deserts, and beyond. Usually called rocks, by layfolk. Left long enough to tumble on the beach, marbles eventually turn into (or back into)... sand.
So, yeah, I'm sticking with my radical opinion.
posted by 2N2222 at 12:02 PM on March 11 [7 favorites]
as far as I know, Greg_Ace hasn't shown up yet and we're still waiting for someone (Greg_Ace) to post a "losing their marbles" comment
I wouldn't want to cheapen the thread by dumping low-quality mass produced comments into it. Doing so might cause someone to...I dunno, go bananas? flip out? Something like that.
posted by Greg_Ace at 12:31 PM on March 11 [11 favorites]
I wouldn't want to cheapen the thread by dumping low-quality mass produced comments into it. Doing so might cause someone to...I dunno, go bananas? flip out? Something like that.
posted by Greg_Ace at 12:31 PM on March 11 [11 favorites]
Must admit I did not expect to find so many defenders of "let's dump more crap into the ocean so that we can have marginally prettier cheap shinies" here.
posted by praemunire at 12:33 PM on March 11 [6 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 12:33 PM on March 11 [6 favorites]
Yeah, I don't see how marbles are littering the ocean
You're putting something man-made into the ocean that doesn't belong there. How is that NOT littering?
It's like telling me not to pee in the ocean because it will pollute it...
Well, yeah, that IS polluting it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:48 PM on March 11 [6 favorites]
You're putting something man-made into the ocean that doesn't belong there. How is that NOT littering?
It's like telling me not to pee in the ocean because it will pollute it...
Well, yeah, that IS polluting it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:48 PM on March 11 [6 favorites]
It's like telling me not to pee in the ocean because it will pollute it
Do you feel the same way about shitting in the ocean? Is that "polluting" to you?
posted by mediareport at 1:23 PM on March 11
Do you feel the same way about shitting in the ocean? Is that "polluting" to you?
posted by mediareport at 1:23 PM on March 11
I've been walking the Inkwell beach in Oak Bluffs all my life. Always found sea glass there, but as a kid (70's, 80's) never found any marbles. Moved here to stay for good in 2013, and for the first few years found a smattering. Then, in the last few years, a dramatic increase! I'd find three or four a day sometimes! Then one day this past summer I found 18 marbles!
Was I sad that maybe some of them had been seeded? NO! I was thrilled that I found so many.
So a few months ago a kids birthday party at the place I work had the little gift bags for all the kids, one got left over, and inside was a small box of marbles. I took it home with the idea of tossing them in the ocean. Never got around to it. Until about an hour ago. I saw this thread, and a story about this in the Boston Globe a few days ago, and it reminded me. So I just threw about 20 marbles in the ocean. I do not feel like a monster, and the sheer delight when some kid, or some grandma, or maybe even me finds those marbles in 7 years or so is more important than what some purist with a stick up their ass thinks.
I can not fathom how anyone would call throwing glass marbles in the ocean pollution. Is there any evidence anywhere that sea glass in bad for the environment? If so post it. I'm open to being proved wrong.
Found no marbles today, just two small white pieces of sea glass.
posted by vrakatar at 2:32 PM on March 11 [6 favorites]
Was I sad that maybe some of them had been seeded? NO! I was thrilled that I found so many.
So a few months ago a kids birthday party at the place I work had the little gift bags for all the kids, one got left over, and inside was a small box of marbles. I took it home with the idea of tossing them in the ocean. Never got around to it. Until about an hour ago. I saw this thread, and a story about this in the Boston Globe a few days ago, and it reminded me. So I just threw about 20 marbles in the ocean. I do not feel like a monster, and the sheer delight when some kid, or some grandma, or maybe even me finds those marbles in 7 years or so is more important than what some purist with a stick up their ass thinks.
I can not fathom how anyone would call throwing glass marbles in the ocean pollution. Is there any evidence anywhere that sea glass in bad for the environment? If so post it. I'm open to being proved wrong.
Found no marbles today, just two small white pieces of sea glass.
posted by vrakatar at 2:32 PM on March 11 [6 favorites]
all sea glass is pollution
posted by glonous keming at 3:27 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
posted by glonous keming at 3:27 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
well i guess with the exception of obsidian from an island volcano or something?
but all the rest of it, yes.
posted by glonous keming at 3:28 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
but all the rest of it, yes.
posted by glonous keming at 3:28 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
Beachcombing is my happy place but glass frags (seeded or not) are too fiddly. Go for bigger brasher brighter buoys: you can make statements with them. Flaubert's Parrot, I give you Грілка Зеленського = Zelenskyy's olive-drab hot-water bottle.
posted by BobTheScientist at 3:36 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
posted by BobTheScientist at 3:36 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
all sea glass is pollution
Is there any evidence anywhere that sea glass in bad for the environment? If so post it.
posted by vrakatar at 4:00 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
Is there any evidence anywhere that sea glass in bad for the environment? If so post it.
posted by vrakatar at 4:00 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
Well, that escalated gradually and predictably
posted by toodleydoodley at 4:14 PM on March 11 [7 favorites]
posted by toodleydoodley at 4:14 PM on March 11 [7 favorites]
Making glass and shipping glass is innately polluting.
posted by clew at 4:31 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
posted by clew at 4:31 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
I can not fathom how anyone would call throwing glass marbles in the ocean pollution. Is there any evidence anywhere that sea glass in bad for the environment?
It is not there naturally, and thus at this stage of environmental collapse the burden should be on people dumping it in just for vibes to show that it is not harmful, and with a considerable degree of confidence despite the surprising little we understand of the oceans. Haven't we fucked them up enough?
I couldn't care less about the "purist" argument. And I think sea glass is pretty; there are a couple of pieces in a little slate bowl of special rocks and the like on my kitchen table as I type this! But deliberately throwing stuff into the ocean to make little pretties is deeply misguided.
posted by praemunire at 4:35 PM on March 11 [4 favorites]
It is not there naturally, and thus at this stage of environmental collapse the burden should be on people dumping it in just for vibes to show that it is not harmful, and with a considerable degree of confidence despite the surprising little we understand of the oceans. Haven't we fucked them up enough?
I couldn't care less about the "purist" argument. And I think sea glass is pretty; there are a couple of pieces in a little slate bowl of special rocks and the like on my kitchen table as I type this! But deliberately throwing stuff into the ocean to make little pretties is deeply misguided.
posted by praemunire at 4:35 PM on March 11 [4 favorites]
vrakatar, you showed up and said "I threw trash in the ocean, prove me wrong?" I'm not perfect, ecologically or otherwise, and I certainly don't care about purity of sea glass origins, but I think it sucks that you tossed some junk into the ocean.
Is it bad for the environment? I am not a marine biologist or environmental sciences guy. I suspect that they truly have many more serious problems to worry about than sea glass. The research (I took a quick look) on sea glass seems to be more about its cultural impact than anything else -- people don't seem to be super worried about it! There's stuff on nanoparticles of glass you might find interesting, but I can't say whether erosion of normal glass is the biggest concern there.
Now, I have no idea what your marbles looked like or were made of... but marbles specifically (if we aren't talking about uncolored glass) have various additives to create the coloration we admire. The CDC certainly thinks there can be safety concerns during production. There's also those pesky glass beads which may have lead and arsenic in them. What does that mean for twenty marbles meeting 352 quintillion gallons of water? Probably not much! If you would, though, maybe try thinking about it in the same way that so many state and national parks, and various cultural heritage institutions, encourage people not to "take just one" whatever thing, lest we all do the same, and whaddayaknow--one day the Parthenon falls apart. :-)
posted by cupcakeninja at 4:41 PM on March 11 [7 favorites]
Is it bad for the environment? I am not a marine biologist or environmental sciences guy. I suspect that they truly have many more serious problems to worry about than sea glass. The research (I took a quick look) on sea glass seems to be more about its cultural impact than anything else -- people don't seem to be super worried about it! There's stuff on nanoparticles of glass you might find interesting, but I can't say whether erosion of normal glass is the biggest concern there.
Now, I have no idea what your marbles looked like or were made of... but marbles specifically (if we aren't talking about uncolored glass) have various additives to create the coloration we admire. The CDC certainly thinks there can be safety concerns during production. There's also those pesky glass beads which may have lead and arsenic in them. What does that mean for twenty marbles meeting 352 quintillion gallons of water? Probably not much! If you would, though, maybe try thinking about it in the same way that so many state and national parks, and various cultural heritage institutions, encourage people not to "take just one" whatever thing, lest we all do the same, and whaddayaknow--one day the Parthenon falls apart. :-)
posted by cupcakeninja at 4:41 PM on March 11 [7 favorites]
For context, I try to be a "shoot for the stars, land on the moon," kind of guy. Ridiculous, implausible goals are something to keep in the heart, I think, to avoid getting crushed by the minutiae and grinding wheels of slow change.
posted by cupcakeninja at 4:54 PM on March 11
posted by cupcakeninja at 4:54 PM on March 11
I feel like it's pretty much the same as any litter. "It's so big, what's the harm? A big ocean, a big forest" is not a convincing argument to me.
I can't help but feel a little sad about deliberate tossing of anything into nature. It's a milder sad than something like an oil spill but it's not something I can completely shrug at. Disquieting? I can't figure out the word.
posted by tiny frying pan at 4:59 PM on March 11 [2 favorites]
I can't help but feel a little sad about deliberate tossing of anything into nature. It's a milder sad than something like an oil spill but it's not something I can completely shrug at. Disquieting? I can't figure out the word.
posted by tiny frying pan at 4:59 PM on March 11 [2 favorites]
This is a very interesting topic because throwing glass into the ocean seems so harmless in the grand scheme of things. Glass is made of quartz, which is the main component of most sands, and so after a while it will degrade back into sand. And still people feel very strongly about the act of throwing glass into the ocean.
Glass is also inert, abiotic, and should not interfere with life processes, nor would it introduce living organisms. In this way, it would be less polluting than, say, throwing soil from your houseplants into the forest.
If we go a bit further in this exploration, should pouring a cup of tap water into the ocean be considered pollution? After all, the ocean is made up of salt water, and we are changing its salinity, albeit very very slightly. On the other hand the same thing happens every time it rains.
It seems to me, that those, who consider 'glass seeding' pollution are mostly objecting to the intention, the action of throwing something, anything, into nature. Nature, for them, should be devoid of human intentions, and of human actions, no matter how natural their outcome may be.
posted by javanlight at 5:35 PM on March 11 [9 favorites]
Glass is also inert, abiotic, and should not interfere with life processes, nor would it introduce living organisms. In this way, it would be less polluting than, say, throwing soil from your houseplants into the forest.
If we go a bit further in this exploration, should pouring a cup of tap water into the ocean be considered pollution? After all, the ocean is made up of salt water, and we are changing its salinity, albeit very very slightly. On the other hand the same thing happens every time it rains.
It seems to me, that those, who consider 'glass seeding' pollution are mostly objecting to the intention, the action of throwing something, anything, into nature. Nature, for them, should be devoid of human intentions, and of human actions, no matter how natural their outcome may be.
posted by javanlight at 5:35 PM on March 11 [9 favorites]
Nature, for them, should be devoid of human intentions, and of human actions, no matter how natural their outcome may be.
Not at all my thinking, for what it's worth.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:50 PM on March 11
Not at all my thinking, for what it's worth.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:50 PM on March 11
do y'all notice how when you escalate, or get combative, it just grinds the thread to a halt? stop insisting on 'being right on the internet'. advocate your position with some grace and humor and respect for one of the last good places.
posted by j_curiouser at 5:54 PM on March 11 [5 favorites]
posted by j_curiouser at 5:54 PM on March 11 [5 favorites]
It's abundantly clear to me that the act of throwing a marble into the sea is amongst the least harmful part of its lifecycle in terms of what it does to the sea. The CO₂ that's used to melt the sand to make the glass, the plastic netting or tub that it's put into which has that 1% or 0.1% of reaching the sea in its waste stream, the cardboard box that the tubs are put into whose pulp processing leached creosote or tar into a water supply, the antifouling paints on the container ship that shipped it across the oceans, the ballast water that was discharged at port, all things that harm seas.
The final act of throwing the bit of glass in the ocean? Well, that's the inert bit. The rest of the lifecycle applies, mutatis mutandis, to pretty much everything we use. So we need to use less all round. I certainly can't get angry at the waste of a marble without feeling a hypocrite.
posted by ambrosen at 6:10 PM on March 11 [4 favorites]
The final act of throwing the bit of glass in the ocean? Well, that's the inert bit. The rest of the lifecycle applies, mutatis mutandis, to pretty much everything we use. So we need to use less all round. I certainly can't get angry at the waste of a marble without feeling a hypocrite.
posted by ambrosen at 6:10 PM on March 11 [4 favorites]
I'm very curious why so many people seem to be trying to hard to justify the act of deliberately throwing trash into the ocean by saying things like "but you're just objecting to the intention behind the act" or "but glass is made of quartz and that's just sand" or what have you. I mean, do you also comment on posts about the Great Plastic Garbage patch by saying things like "well, plastic is made from petroleum, and that's derived from decayed organic matter, so it's fine"?
It seems to me, that those, who consider 'glass seeding' pollution are mostly objecting to the intention, the action of throwing something, anything, into nature.
Well, yeah. Throwing something into a pre-existing wild ecosystem without taking the time to consider how that ecosystem may be negatively affected is indeed something I object to, especially when the reason why you're doing it is to achieve something you can achieve in a completely different and eco-friendly way.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:00 PM on March 11
It seems to me, that those, who consider 'glass seeding' pollution are mostly objecting to the intention, the action of throwing something, anything, into nature.
Well, yeah. Throwing something into a pre-existing wild ecosystem without taking the time to consider how that ecosystem may be negatively affected is indeed something I object to, especially when the reason why you're doing it is to achieve something you can achieve in a completely different and eco-friendly way.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:00 PM on March 11
As one holds a marble in their hand, deliberating whether to toss it into the ocean, the environmentally costly part of its lifecycle lies in the past. It already exists, with all its associated cost. So is the 'ick' of pollution actually connected to to the marbles' past? Or is it more a question of the sense and senselessness of its existence?
I mean, all the energy used to create and transport the marble, all the time and attention of the factory workers, the graphic designers who designed the packaging, the people who stock the warehouse, all the environmental costs of its existence, all of that had to be for something, right? Not for nothing? Not for just tossing it into water?
Or is it more to do with the capitalist "ick" of people exploiting the forces of nature to add value to the marble in the hope of selling it for a profit?
There is an old saying - "Do good and throw it into the sea". That is, just do the right thing without expecting any reward. It seems to me the kindest interpretation for the act of throwing the marble – to do something, unselfishly, that might bring others, years later, a bit of joy.
posted by javanlight at 7:05 PM on March 11 [2 favorites]
I mean, all the energy used to create and transport the marble, all the time and attention of the factory workers, the graphic designers who designed the packaging, the people who stock the warehouse, all the environmental costs of its existence, all of that had to be for something, right? Not for nothing? Not for just tossing it into water?
Or is it more to do with the capitalist "ick" of people exploiting the forces of nature to add value to the marble in the hope of selling it for a profit?
There is an old saying - "Do good and throw it into the sea". That is, just do the right thing without expecting any reward. It seems to me the kindest interpretation for the act of throwing the marble – to do something, unselfishly, that might bring others, years later, a bit of joy.
posted by javanlight at 7:05 PM on March 11 [2 favorites]
I have collected a lot of sea glass over there years and I give most of it away.
And I once worked on a re-design for a sea glass website and I definitely learned a lot about sea glass, and how seriously people take it and how to identify fake sea glass that's been tumbled or recently "cultured" vs. vintage sea glass.
There's also some very rare colors, most of which I've never found or seen. Oranges, yellows and deep reds are rare. So is purple. So are lighter or unique shades of blue that aren't the usual deep cobalt. Uranium sea glass is also super rare. Vintage glass marbles from bottle stoppers are also quite rare.
Unique shapes or features with rare colors can be quite valuable, especially twinned, mirrored or matching pieces that can be used for jewelry.
And if I really wanted to upset sea glass purists and collectors by beach seeding I wouldn't just do marbles, I'd be using rare glass colors using stuff like art glass stock and materials or even pre-formed pieces - but this obviously would be silly and an expensive fools errand and I might as well tumble the stock.
Do I think it's ok to intentionally litter with marbles or any glass for this? No, not really. I'm not ok with it. I don't care about the beach glass from a collector or purist angle, either. It's clearly littering and should be treated as such.
But I would also say it's pretty far down my list of concerns about the oceans and beaches and what we're dumping into them.
I do think people would be better off focusing their energy and outrage on single use plastics and plastic pollution and so many more issues. On the grand scale of things it is way, way less harmful than owning a car, flying and so many other high impact areas of modern life.
posted by loquacious at 7:07 PM on March 11 [2 favorites]
And I once worked on a re-design for a sea glass website and I definitely learned a lot about sea glass, and how seriously people take it and how to identify fake sea glass that's been tumbled or recently "cultured" vs. vintage sea glass.
There's also some very rare colors, most of which I've never found or seen. Oranges, yellows and deep reds are rare. So is purple. So are lighter or unique shades of blue that aren't the usual deep cobalt. Uranium sea glass is also super rare. Vintage glass marbles from bottle stoppers are also quite rare.
Unique shapes or features with rare colors can be quite valuable, especially twinned, mirrored or matching pieces that can be used for jewelry.
And if I really wanted to upset sea glass purists and collectors by beach seeding I wouldn't just do marbles, I'd be using rare glass colors using stuff like art glass stock and materials or even pre-formed pieces - but this obviously would be silly and an expensive fools errand and I might as well tumble the stock.
Do I think it's ok to intentionally litter with marbles or any glass for this? No, not really. I'm not ok with it. I don't care about the beach glass from a collector or purist angle, either. It's clearly littering and should be treated as such.
But I would also say it's pretty far down my list of concerns about the oceans and beaches and what we're dumping into them.
I do think people would be better off focusing their energy and outrage on single use plastics and plastic pollution and so many more issues. On the grand scale of things it is way, way less harmful than owning a car, flying and so many other high impact areas of modern life.
posted by loquacious at 7:07 PM on March 11 [2 favorites]
I find the topic so interesting exactly because it is not so black and white. And raises so many questions. When is pollution truly pollution, when is it truly bad?
Is it bad if it's harmful? If it's visible? If it's man-made? If it's senseless? If it's deliberate? If it's for profit?
Many dimensions to explore. And while peeing in the ocean may be deliberate and man-made, it's hardly harmful, visible, senseless or profitable. And yet, some consider it to be pollution. I find it really interesting to see where people draw the line.
I did a performance a few years ago in preparation for Bruno Latour's last exhibition at ZKM. I brought a tree (that had to be cut down anyway) into the museum space, fashioned batons out of a few branches, and asked people who had gathered to talk about the environment, the Critical Zone, to beat the tree. Just take the batons and beat the dead tree with them. Some would do it. Some would refuse to participate. I heard some others say to their friend, "If you do this, I will end our friendship. After all was said and done a few batons broke and the tree had a few bruises on the bark but was still very much intact.
The reaction just shows how attuned we are to the visible violence, visible transgression, while we accept and are even happy with a lot of invisible violence. After all, we want wooden desks and chairs and shelves, while the process of creating them is of course way more violent than just hitting a tree with a stick.
Ultimately, the performance didn't make it into the show because it was too divisive and also because covid came, but the video of it exists: https://zkm.de/de/instruments-of-relation (scroll down to the middle of the page or search for "hitting the tree").
posted by javanlight at 7:31 PM on March 11 [3 favorites]
Is it bad if it's harmful? If it's visible? If it's man-made? If it's senseless? If it's deliberate? If it's for profit?
Many dimensions to explore. And while peeing in the ocean may be deliberate and man-made, it's hardly harmful, visible, senseless or profitable. And yet, some consider it to be pollution. I find it really interesting to see where people draw the line.
I did a performance a few years ago in preparation for Bruno Latour's last exhibition at ZKM. I brought a tree (that had to be cut down anyway) into the museum space, fashioned batons out of a few branches, and asked people who had gathered to talk about the environment, the Critical Zone, to beat the tree. Just take the batons and beat the dead tree with them. Some would do it. Some would refuse to participate. I heard some others say to their friend, "If you do this, I will end our friendship. After all was said and done a few batons broke and the tree had a few bruises on the bark but was still very much intact.
The reaction just shows how attuned we are to the visible violence, visible transgression, while we accept and are even happy with a lot of invisible violence. After all, we want wooden desks and chairs and shelves, while the process of creating them is of course way more violent than just hitting a tree with a stick.
Ultimately, the performance didn't make it into the show because it was too divisive and also because covid came, but the video of it exists: https://zkm.de/de/instruments-of-relation (scroll down to the middle of the page or search for "hitting the tree").
posted by javanlight at 7:31 PM on March 11 [3 favorites]
The reaction just shows how attuned we are to the visible violence, visible transgression, while we accept and are even happy with a lot of invisible violence. After all, we want wooden desks and chairs and shelves, while the process of creating them is of course way more violent than just hitting a tree with a stick.
I can speak to this point, perhaps?
...Wooden desks and chairs and shelves serves a life-sustaining purpose, similar to how eating meat serves a purpose. True, this is a purpose that can be met other ways, but people didn't start eating flesh because they were bored or curious, they did it because they were hungry. Same with building furniture - people did do it because they were bored, they did it because they needed the wood to make houses or tables or tools.
In both cases, a once-living being sacrificed its life to another living being's benefit. And we are unique amongst the animal kingdom in that we understand the gravity of that sacrifice, and for many of us, understanding that gravity often comes with the need for some kind of balance to justify that sacrifice ("okay, fine, if we gotta eat meat we gotta eat meat, but at least let's use up the whole animal so nothing goes to waste" or "okay, fine, if we gotta cut a tree down, let's at least find a way to make things out of the scrap wood"). It's possible the people who were uneasy about "hitting a dead tree with a stuck" were unconsciously thinking "so wait, this tree was sacrificed for.....nothing, really. And that wigs me out; couldn't it have been turned into a bunch of desks for a school instead or something?"
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:49 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
I can speak to this point, perhaps?
...Wooden desks and chairs and shelves serves a life-sustaining purpose, similar to how eating meat serves a purpose. True, this is a purpose that can be met other ways, but people didn't start eating flesh because they were bored or curious, they did it because they were hungry. Same with building furniture - people did do it because they were bored, they did it because they needed the wood to make houses or tables or tools.
In both cases, a once-living being sacrificed its life to another living being's benefit. And we are unique amongst the animal kingdom in that we understand the gravity of that sacrifice, and for many of us, understanding that gravity often comes with the need for some kind of balance to justify that sacrifice ("okay, fine, if we gotta eat meat we gotta eat meat, but at least let's use up the whole animal so nothing goes to waste" or "okay, fine, if we gotta cut a tree down, let's at least find a way to make things out of the scrap wood"). It's possible the people who were uneasy about "hitting a dead tree with a stuck" were unconsciously thinking "so wait, this tree was sacrificed for.....nothing, really. And that wigs me out; couldn't it have been turned into a bunch of desks for a school instead or something?"
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:49 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
I'm kind of in 2 minds here, I'm the guy who religiously picks up every piece of glass he finds on the beach and throws it in the trash, I keep none of it ...... but then again what is glass made from? sand!
posted by mbo at 7:50 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
posted by mbo at 7:50 PM on March 11 [1 favorite]
EmpressCallipygos, when you consider a tumbling machine to be eco-friendly, do you also consider the environmental cost producing of the machine, transporting it, the fractional cost of the server hosting the website on which you bought the machine? Finally the human lifetime invested into creating, selling and transporting the machine, and the cost to the environment caused by all these people existing, driving their kids to school and tumbling stones in their free time? And once the machine breaks, where does it go?
Would it not be actually more eco-friendly to use the renewable energy of tidal power, combined with the naturally abundant abrasives of the same material that the marbles are made of, to do the job?
posted by javanlight at 7:51 PM on March 11 [3 favorites]
Would it not be actually more eco-friendly to use the renewable energy of tidal power, combined with the naturally abundant abrasives of the same material that the marbles are made of, to do the job?
posted by javanlight at 7:51 PM on March 11 [3 favorites]
I suspect that dumping marbles in the sea (how many? Where?) isn't particularly harmful, but it I also know that we keep making this mistake over and over again, underestimating the complexity of an eco system, missing the knock on effects.
So to encounter people who *still* say, aah, what could go wrong, it's ridiculous to worry about it, is deeply unsettling.
When money's involved, humans don't hold back. Scale is a thing.
I do think javanlight's question about trees is interesting. I have a different angle on it as I live in a place where many of the trees are invasive and do a lot of harm. When the environmental agencies remove them, people get angry about the harming of trees!
It 's a kind of colonialism, valuing the idea of nature (an idealised, European nature) over the animals and plants that are actually here.
They can't see the difference between a plantation and a forest.
If we don't intend for beaches to become the equivalent of a plantation, maybe worrying about impact could be useful.
posted by Zumbador at 9:21 PM on March 11 [3 favorites]
So to encounter people who *still* say, aah, what could go wrong, it's ridiculous to worry about it, is deeply unsettling.
When money's involved, humans don't hold back. Scale is a thing.
I do think javanlight's question about trees is interesting. I have a different angle on it as I live in a place where many of the trees are invasive and do a lot of harm. When the environmental agencies remove them, people get angry about the harming of trees!
It 's a kind of colonialism, valuing the idea of nature (an idealised, European nature) over the animals and plants that are actually here.
They can't see the difference between a plantation and a forest.
If we don't intend for beaches to become the equivalent of a plantation, maybe worrying about impact could be useful.
posted by Zumbador at 9:21 PM on March 11 [3 favorites]
My last comment was certainly provocative and snarly, I'll admit that. I hoped it would spark a discussion and sincerely was asking for evidence that the hurling of the marbles was harmful. Lots of insight and different takes on the issue in the comments after that.
As far as the money angle, people selling sea glass or making fake sea glass in the basement to sell for money...that is missing the point. Sea glass, even the sea marbles I threw in the ocean today, are a gift. If a craftsperson is making stuff out of sea glass they found, okay, but if they are buying it from a manufacturer? BAH! I'm not throwing that marble so someone can make money. I'm throwing it to make someone happy.
glonous K, mefimail me if you'd like a groovy sea marble. Sorry to joust you.
posted by vrakatar at 9:45 PM on March 11
As far as the money angle, people selling sea glass or making fake sea glass in the basement to sell for money...that is missing the point. Sea glass, even the sea marbles I threw in the ocean today, are a gift. If a craftsperson is making stuff out of sea glass they found, okay, but if they are buying it from a manufacturer? BAH! I'm not throwing that marble so someone can make money. I'm throwing it to make someone happy.
glonous K, mefimail me if you'd like a groovy sea marble. Sorry to joust you.
posted by vrakatar at 9:45 PM on March 11
The whaling museum near me had its first sea glass festival last year--it was absolutely huge. So popular that some other festivals nearby started attracting vendors selling apparently faked sea glass that had been turned into treasures about a week earlier. I've lived on Long Island for decades; never knew that this was an isssue until people started posting on social media and sniffing about the degradation of historical treasures. Apparently some vendors make a decent amount of money, hence the resentment of the fakes.
posted by etaoin at 9:53 PM on March 11 [2 favorites]
posted by etaoin at 9:53 PM on March 11 [2 favorites]
EmpressCallipygos, when you consider a tumbling machine to be eco-friendly, do you also consider the environmental cost producing of the machine, transporting it, the fractional cost of the server hosting the website on which you bought the machine? Finally the human lifetime invested into creating, selling and transporting the machine, and the cost to the environment caused by all these people existing, driving their kids to school and tumbling stones in their free time? And once the machine breaks, where does it go?
It sounds like you're trying awfully hard to justify dumping trash in the ocean, why is that?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:55 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
It sounds like you're trying awfully hard to justify dumping trash in the ocean, why is that?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:55 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
I also know that we keep making this mistake over and over again, underestimating the complexity of an eco system, missing the knock on effects.
This. We never know at the start what the effect is going to be. Plastic of course we know is so harmful now, and it's the more obvious harm than glass, but all of the effects we are still discovering. Plastic in seabird bellies. Floating plastic creating miniature worlds of bacteria and animals. Plastic lodging in our organs.
I can think of a dozen examples of humans deciding something isn't harmful, or not even worrying something is harmful, and not understanding how nature would respond.
So for me, it's not so much the glass, it's the attitude of everything will be fine with what I decide to do, because my action couldn't possibly have an effect.
I know the response is often, "other things are worse." Which, what do you say to that? "👍 "
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:32 AM on March 12 [2 favorites]
This. We never know at the start what the effect is going to be. Plastic of course we know is so harmful now, and it's the more obvious harm than glass, but all of the effects we are still discovering. Plastic in seabird bellies. Floating plastic creating miniature worlds of bacteria and animals. Plastic lodging in our organs.
I can think of a dozen examples of humans deciding something isn't harmful, or not even worrying something is harmful, and not understanding how nature would respond.
So for me, it's not so much the glass, it's the attitude of everything will be fine with what I decide to do, because my action couldn't possibly have an effect.
I know the response is often, "other things are worse." Which, what do you say to that? "👍 "
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:32 AM on March 12 [2 favorites]
It sounds like you're trying awfully hard to justify dumping trash in the ocean, why is that?
A bit disappointed to see you make a judgmental reframing without even trying to answer any of the questions in my comment in good faith. I thought we didn't do that on metafilter.
As for my motivation, I outlined it in a previous comment: I find the topic so interesting exactly because it is not so black and white. And raises so many questions. When is pollution truly pollution, when is it truly bad?
Is it bad if it's harmful? If it's visible? If it's man-made? If it's senseless? If it's deliberate? If it's for profit?
So why are glass marbles so obviously trash in your eyes? Would they still be trash if they were the same color as rocks? Or even if they were rocks? Would obsidian glass be trash? Or is it bad because it was thrown into the ocean by human hand and human intention, like when some people get upset when they discover rock cairns in the mountains because they see them as basically graffiti made of stone?
I think a big, invisible part of the argument is a kind of romantic (think Caspar David Friedrich) dichotomy between Nature and Culture. It's an idea that the two are separate, and that we could somehow keep them isolated, at least geographically, and keep the one from 'colonizing' the other, and keep the man-made things (tumbling machine) in man-made land, in a way that doesn't interfere with the nature.
Which is a mistake. Of course the two are interwoven. Of course they influence each other through a myriad of dependencies and connections. Of course you will find the waste of our living processes (think microplastics) in other living beings, and other living beings (and viruses) will use human bodies as a landscape to live in.
I would even argue that the nature/culture dichotomy does more harm than good for actually protecting the other living beings. It creates borders around Nature, and puts it into a kind of a zoo, a curiosity cabinet – a geographically distinct place that people can visit to observe how life was without them. And then go back to human land, where they produce hundreds of kilos of trash every month, without knowing where it goes.
It's only when we give up this romantic notion of nature, with us towering over it like the wanderer in Caspar David Friedrich's painting, that we can, once again, truly be part of nature's processes.
posted by javanlight at 6:12 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
A bit disappointed to see you make a judgmental reframing without even trying to answer any of the questions in my comment in good faith. I thought we didn't do that on metafilter.
As for my motivation, I outlined it in a previous comment: I find the topic so interesting exactly because it is not so black and white. And raises so many questions. When is pollution truly pollution, when is it truly bad?
Is it bad if it's harmful? If it's visible? If it's man-made? If it's senseless? If it's deliberate? If it's for profit?
So why are glass marbles so obviously trash in your eyes? Would they still be trash if they were the same color as rocks? Or even if they were rocks? Would obsidian glass be trash? Or is it bad because it was thrown into the ocean by human hand and human intention, like when some people get upset when they discover rock cairns in the mountains because they see them as basically graffiti made of stone?
I think a big, invisible part of the argument is a kind of romantic (think Caspar David Friedrich) dichotomy between Nature and Culture. It's an idea that the two are separate, and that we could somehow keep them isolated, at least geographically, and keep the one from 'colonizing' the other, and keep the man-made things (tumbling machine) in man-made land, in a way that doesn't interfere with the nature.
Which is a mistake. Of course the two are interwoven. Of course they influence each other through a myriad of dependencies and connections. Of course you will find the waste of our living processes (think microplastics) in other living beings, and other living beings (and viruses) will use human bodies as a landscape to live in.
I would even argue that the nature/culture dichotomy does more harm than good for actually protecting the other living beings. It creates borders around Nature, and puts it into a kind of a zoo, a curiosity cabinet – a geographically distinct place that people can visit to observe how life was without them. And then go back to human land, where they produce hundreds of kilos of trash every month, without knowing where it goes.
It's only when we give up this romantic notion of nature, with us towering over it like the wanderer in Caspar David Friedrich's painting, that we can, once again, truly be part of nature's processes.
posted by javanlight at 6:12 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
that we can, once again, truly be part of nature's processes.
That "once again" is romanticising as well, though, isn't it?
As though ancient humans fell from grace when they became modern?
I think that humans have always (since we could identify them as humans) been simultaneously both separate from nature and part of it.
We're still very much part of the natural world in every sense, even though our tendency to make narratives out of everything makes us feel separate.
posted by Zumbador at 6:26 AM on March 12
That "once again" is romanticising as well, though, isn't it?
As though ancient humans fell from grace when they became modern?
I think that humans have always (since we could identify them as humans) been simultaneously both separate from nature and part of it.
We're still very much part of the natural world in every sense, even though our tendency to make narratives out of everything makes us feel separate.
posted by Zumbador at 6:26 AM on March 12
A bit disappointed to see you make a judgmental reframing without even trying to answer any of the questions in my comment in good faith. I thought we didn't do that on metafilter.
I didn't answer them because I did not in fact believe they were in good faith - rather, they looked more like a "gotcha" against the more eco-friendly option ("see? Manufacturing this thing takes up X amount of fossil fuel consumption, it's not ecofriendly at all, you hypocrite"). But I will point out that "manufacturing costs" can be offset because rock tumblers can be made by the individual out of a coffee can and a handful of rocks, for starters.
So why are glass marbles so obviously trash in your eyes? Would they still be trash if they were the same color as rocks? Or even if they were rocks? Would obsidian glass be trash?
Is it possible for glass marbles to organically form in the ocean, in the quantities at which this project would be generating, without human intervention? No? Then it's trash.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:10 AM on March 12
I didn't answer them because I did not in fact believe they were in good faith - rather, they looked more like a "gotcha" against the more eco-friendly option ("see? Manufacturing this thing takes up X amount of fossil fuel consumption, it's not ecofriendly at all, you hypocrite"). But I will point out that "manufacturing costs" can be offset because rock tumblers can be made by the individual out of a coffee can and a handful of rocks, for starters.
So why are glass marbles so obviously trash in your eyes? Would they still be trash if they were the same color as rocks? Or even if they were rocks? Would obsidian glass be trash?
Is it possible for glass marbles to organically form in the ocean, in the quantities at which this project would be generating, without human intervention? No? Then it's trash.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:10 AM on March 12
As though ancient humans fell from grace when they became modern?
Romanticism is a product of the Industrial Revolution. When people stopped understanding the processes that were important for their survival, they started to see themselves outside of nature.
In a village, everything that keeps you alive is within reach, is clearly observable. You know where your water, food, and shelter come from, because they are created by you or those around you. You know its value, and you know to protect the processes that create all the things that keep you alive.
You could map out all the processes and dependencies in a village. You can't do that post industrial revolution. Food spawns in the supermarket, water comes out of a tap and wastewater disappears into an abyss. You can't name the place that grew cotton that produced the clothing you wear, or the oilfield that produced the oil for the synthetic material. You don't observe the externalities of your actions, as they are hidden by a complex web of intermediaries, you don't see the Ghost Acreage, the land outside of your country that is used to produce what you subsist on. And this total opaqueness of processes creates a feeling of romanticism, of being outside of nature. Creates a feeling that tossing glass into ocean is a horrible thing.
posted by javanlight at 7:25 AM on March 12 [2 favorites]
Romanticism is a product of the Industrial Revolution. When people stopped understanding the processes that were important for their survival, they started to see themselves outside of nature.
In a village, everything that keeps you alive is within reach, is clearly observable. You know where your water, food, and shelter come from, because they are created by you or those around you. You know its value, and you know to protect the processes that create all the things that keep you alive.
You could map out all the processes and dependencies in a village. You can't do that post industrial revolution. Food spawns in the supermarket, water comes out of a tap and wastewater disappears into an abyss. You can't name the place that grew cotton that produced the clothing you wear, or the oilfield that produced the oil for the synthetic material. You don't observe the externalities of your actions, as they are hidden by a complex web of intermediaries, you don't see the Ghost Acreage, the land outside of your country that is used to produce what you subsist on. And this total opaqueness of processes creates a feeling of romanticism, of being outside of nature. Creates a feeling that tossing glass into ocean is a horrible thing.
posted by javanlight at 7:25 AM on March 12 [2 favorites]
EmpressCallipygos, I try to speak in good faith, I'm just very interested in the topic and fascinated by the different takes, so I want to find out what's behind them.
Is it possible for glass marbles to organically form in the ocean, in the quantities at which this project would be generating, without human intervention? No? Then it's trash.
So for you it's the human intervention that makes trash into trash, even if it's the same mineral? Or the fact that it is visibly different and reminds you of human activity?(e.g. would dumping house plant soil in the woods be pollution or not?)
Glass also forms organically on beaches when lightning hits.
posted by javanlight at 7:31 AM on March 12
Is it possible for glass marbles to organically form in the ocean, in the quantities at which this project would be generating, without human intervention? No? Then it's trash.
So for you it's the human intervention that makes trash into trash, even if it's the same mineral? Or the fact that it is visibly different and reminds you of human activity?(e.g. would dumping house plant soil in the woods be pollution or not?)
Glass also forms organically on beaches when lightning hits.
posted by javanlight at 7:31 AM on March 12
Is it possible for glass marbles to organically form in the ocean, in the quantities at which this project would be generating, without human intervention? No? Then it's trash.
Naturally formed volcanic glass -- Obsidian -- is created in quantities far vaster than marble seeding could possibly be responsible for. Some of it ends up in oceans.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:33 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
Naturally formed volcanic glass -- Obsidian -- is created in quantities far vaster than marble seeding could possibly be responsible for. Some of it ends up in oceans.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:33 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
Naturally formed volcanic glass -- Obsidian -- is created in quantities far vaster than marble seeding could possibly be responsible for. Some of it ends up in oceans.
Then let's let it happen that way.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:36 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
Then let's let it happen that way.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:36 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
Or is it bad because it was thrown into the ocean by human hand and human intention, like when some people get upset when they discover rock cairns in the mountains because they see them as basically graffiti made of stone?
That's only part of the reason? Moving rocks does upset the natural area which is supposed to be left undisturbed, particularly in protected areas and national parks.
What's concerning scientists today is the new practice of creating rock piles as an art form, or for alluring social media posts. For stacking rocks is not an innocuous practice. Many insects and mammals head under rocks to live, reproduce or escape their predators. So move a rock, and you might destroy a home. Stack a few, and you may have just exposed the hunted to their hunters.
And while it may sound melodramatic, whether you're stacking rocks in the woods, on the beach or in the desert, your actions could inadvertently knock out an entire colony. Or, in the worst-case scenario, threaten an endangered species.
Another great link about this: Please don't stack rocks on your next hike. Here's why.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:14 AM on March 12
That's only part of the reason? Moving rocks does upset the natural area which is supposed to be left undisturbed, particularly in protected areas and national parks.
What's concerning scientists today is the new practice of creating rock piles as an art form, or for alluring social media posts. For stacking rocks is not an innocuous practice. Many insects and mammals head under rocks to live, reproduce or escape their predators. So move a rock, and you might destroy a home. Stack a few, and you may have just exposed the hunted to their hunters.
And while it may sound melodramatic, whether you're stacking rocks in the woods, on the beach or in the desert, your actions could inadvertently knock out an entire colony. Or, in the worst-case scenario, threaten an endangered species.
Another great link about this: Please don't stack rocks on your next hike. Here's why.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:14 AM on March 12
Because people are people, there are those who insist that tumbled sea glass is just not as good as “real” sea glass. And there are beaches full of sea glass where its collection is discouraged. Feel free to discuss.
posted by TedW at 10:24 AM on March 12
posted by TedW at 10:24 AM on March 12
I think a big, invisible part of the argument is a kind of romantic (think Caspar David Friedrich) dichotomy between Nature and Culture. It's an idea that the two are separate, and that we could somehow keep them isolated, at least geographically, and keep the one from 'colonizing' the other, and keep the man-made things (tumbling machine) in man-made land, in a way that doesn't interfere with the nature.
Which is a mistake. Of course the two are interwoven. Of course they influence each other through a myriad of dependencies and connections.
And right now, culture is destroying nature to the extent that mutual coexistence may not be possible in the next century. Nature will probably outlive human culture in that case, but let's not leave aside the possibility of a murder-suicide. "Nature" has always been partially shaped by the creatures living amidst it--there's no such thing as an "untouched state of nature" that has animals in it--but never before has one set of creatures developed such immense, disproportionate power to destroy it, and thus themselves. We need to shape consciously and thoughtfully, with awareness of the limitations of our ability to predict what the consequences of our actions will be, not throw stuff in the ocean because it will increase the chances of finding something pretty later.
In a village, everything that keeps you alive is within reach, is clearly observable. You know where your water, food, and shelter come from, because they are created by you or those around you. You know its value, and you know to protect the processes that create all the things that keep you alive.
You could map out all the processes and dependencies in a village. You can't do that post industrial revolution.
Talk about romanticizing! "Man was in harmony with nature prior to 1800" is the prime narrative of it. You think they didn't have trade, both domestic and international, in the early modern era? If you used tools of any kind, you were almost certainly dependent on life outside the village, as most places didn't have mines next door! The first "flowering" of global capitalism was prior to the Industrial Revolution. Reading backwards from some Romantic poets fixating on a supposed dichotomy between man and nature that previously didn't feature so heavily in poetry to infer what you've done about actual day to day life is misguided at best.
posted by praemunire at 10:34 AM on March 12
Which is a mistake. Of course the two are interwoven. Of course they influence each other through a myriad of dependencies and connections.
And right now, culture is destroying nature to the extent that mutual coexistence may not be possible in the next century. Nature will probably outlive human culture in that case, but let's not leave aside the possibility of a murder-suicide. "Nature" has always been partially shaped by the creatures living amidst it--there's no such thing as an "untouched state of nature" that has animals in it--but never before has one set of creatures developed such immense, disproportionate power to destroy it, and thus themselves. We need to shape consciously and thoughtfully, with awareness of the limitations of our ability to predict what the consequences of our actions will be, not throw stuff in the ocean because it will increase the chances of finding something pretty later.
In a village, everything that keeps you alive is within reach, is clearly observable. You know where your water, food, and shelter come from, because they are created by you or those around you. You know its value, and you know to protect the processes that create all the things that keep you alive.
You could map out all the processes and dependencies in a village. You can't do that post industrial revolution.
Talk about romanticizing! "Man was in harmony with nature prior to 1800" is the prime narrative of it. You think they didn't have trade, both domestic and international, in the early modern era? If you used tools of any kind, you were almost certainly dependent on life outside the village, as most places didn't have mines next door! The first "flowering" of global capitalism was prior to the Industrial Revolution. Reading backwards from some Romantic poets fixating on a supposed dichotomy between man and nature that previously didn't feature so heavily in poetry to infer what you've done about actual day to day life is misguided at best.
posted by praemunire at 10:34 AM on March 12
(e.g. would dumping house plant soil in the woods be pollution or not?)
Depending on where the soil is from and what plants grew in it, this practice certainly could harm the biome by spreading disease or invasive species. It is literally illegal to import soil without a permit into the U.S.
posted by praemunire at 10:41 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
Depending on where the soil is from and what plants grew in it, this practice certainly could harm the biome by spreading disease or invasive species. It is literally illegal to import soil without a permit into the U.S.
posted by praemunire at 10:41 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
praemunire, my argument is rather that there is no nature. There never was. Nature is a social construct created by those who live in cities, and a fairly recent social construct at that.
In fact, I argue that this social construct is actually harmful. It is harmful because it creates a divide between humans and the other living beings, as if there is a nature, a place that we can sometimes visit. As if we are outside of it.
This not belonging to Nature, being outside of it creates an othering, an exoticism. We look at Nature as if it's an exotic animal in the zoo. We photograph it and ourselves in it and use it as a status symbol. We fight fiercely to protect it and to keep it as untouched by humans as possible. But in the end it does not exist.
Nature does not exist, not in the sense that we have destroyed it, but rather in the sense that it has always been an exoticizing and excluding concept. We should see ourselves as connected to all the processes of life, not separated from them, as we are when we operate with the concepts of nature/culture. Bruno Latour was working on his view of Gaia, of Critical Zones as an alternative view to that, but sadly passed away too soon.
posted by javanlight at 2:13 PM on March 12
In fact, I argue that this social construct is actually harmful. It is harmful because it creates a divide between humans and the other living beings, as if there is a nature, a place that we can sometimes visit. As if we are outside of it.
This not belonging to Nature, being outside of it creates an othering, an exoticism. We look at Nature as if it's an exotic animal in the zoo. We photograph it and ourselves in it and use it as a status symbol. We fight fiercely to protect it and to keep it as untouched by humans as possible. But in the end it does not exist.
Nature does not exist, not in the sense that we have destroyed it, but rather in the sense that it has always been an exoticizing and excluding concept. We should see ourselves as connected to all the processes of life, not separated from them, as we are when we operate with the concepts of nature/culture. Bruno Latour was working on his view of Gaia, of Critical Zones as an alternative view to that, but sadly passed away too soon.
posted by javanlight at 2:13 PM on March 12
my argument is rather that there is no nature. There never was. Nature is a social construct created by those who live in cities, and a fairly recent social construct at that.
That's an interesting claim. What has lead you to it?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:07 AM on March 13
That's an interesting claim. What has lead you to it?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:07 AM on March 13
A bit too much pomo theory and not quite enough hiking in the woods, is my guess.
posted by mediareport at 7:13 AM on March 13
posted by mediareport at 7:13 AM on March 13
That's funny, you are talking to someone who spent 300+ hours in the woods last year. So yeah, maybe not enough.
That's an interesting claim. What has lead you to it?
I'll read this question at face value and not as snark.
I've spent three years researching the topic of how we approach nature with Bruno Latour, mostly from an artistic side. And yes, I see the exoticizing, romanticizing concept of Nature as actively harmful. By seeing Nature as the Other, something that we don't belong to, we make it unprotected and weak. What is Other can be exploited, enslaved, admired from the distance, observed, but never lived.
If we shift our view away from creating a moat between us and Nature, towards seeing all the processes of life (ours and external) as inseparable we might get everyone to actually care about them.
posted by javanlight at 8:07 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
That's an interesting claim. What has lead you to it?
I'll read this question at face value and not as snark.
I've spent three years researching the topic of how we approach nature with Bruno Latour, mostly from an artistic side. And yes, I see the exoticizing, romanticizing concept of Nature as actively harmful. By seeing Nature as the Other, something that we don't belong to, we make it unprotected and weak. What is Other can be exploited, enslaved, admired from the distance, observed, but never lived.
If we shift our view away from creating a moat between us and Nature, towards seeing all the processes of life (ours and external) as inseparable we might get everyone to actually care about them.
posted by javanlight at 8:07 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
Depending on where the soil is from and what plants grew in it, this practice certainly could harm the biome by spreading disease or invasive species. It is literally illegal to import soil without a permit into the U.S.
Indeed! And yet I encountered a few self-described eco-conscious people who would do it without thinking twice. While vehemently opposing things like glass in the ocean. I think it has to do with both the conceptual dissonance (as glass is seen as another material, unrelated to sand) and the visual difference (with glass I instantly see that it is a human addition).
posted by javanlight at 8:15 AM on March 13
Indeed! And yet I encountered a few self-described eco-conscious people who would do it without thinking twice. While vehemently opposing things like glass in the ocean. I think it has to do with both the conceptual dissonance (as glass is seen as another material, unrelated to sand) and the visual difference (with glass I instantly see that it is a human addition).
posted by javanlight at 8:15 AM on March 13
Talk about romanticizing! "Man was in harmony with nature prior to 1800" is the prime narrative of it.
Not at all! People were afraid of thunderstorms - they burn your house down. Afraid of hail, because it destroys your crops. There was no harmony. But there was an understanding of causality. And where there is an understanding of where the things you depend on to live come from, there is a will to protect them.
Right now, things just happen automagically. Hardly anybody could pinpoint the field where even one of the things they ate last month grew. Or the oil field that produced the oil used to package the lettuce. Your work is disconnected from the creation of the things that actually surround you. The lack of understanding of causality is huge and causes pain both politically (people who do not understand why things happen get angry) and psychologically (because you are not living out your agency if you create nothing but shareholder value).
posted by javanlight at 8:31 AM on March 13
Not at all! People were afraid of thunderstorms - they burn your house down. Afraid of hail, because it destroys your crops. There was no harmony. But there was an understanding of causality. And where there is an understanding of where the things you depend on to live come from, there is a will to protect them.
Right now, things just happen automagically. Hardly anybody could pinpoint the field where even one of the things they ate last month grew. Or the oil field that produced the oil used to package the lettuce. Your work is disconnected from the creation of the things that actually surround you. The lack of understanding of causality is huge and causes pain both politically (people who do not understand why things happen get angry) and psychologically (because you are not living out your agency if you create nothing but shareholder value).
posted by javanlight at 8:31 AM on March 13
A bit too much pomo theory and not quite enough hiking in the woods, is my guess.
Disappointing to see snark without substance on Metafilter. Please do better.
posted by javanlight at 8:32 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
Disappointing to see snark without substance on Metafilter. Please do better.
posted by javanlight at 8:32 AM on March 13 [1 favorite]
Glass is made from sand. Sea glass is glass being slowly broken down. I live in Maine, people love sea glass, I'm not bothered by putting glass in areas where there's enough wave action to make sea glass. Of all the things polluting the ocean, glass is likely the most benign. I'd be in favor of seeding sea glass, except that it sets a precedent for screwing with the ocean, which is generally a very bad thing.
All that original beach glass is there because people used to put garbage in the ocean. It's all trash glass. I picked up a frosted piece of syringe near an old Tb sanitarium.
posted by theora55 at 12:09 PM on March 13 [1 favorite]
All that original beach glass is there because people used to put garbage in the ocean. It's all trash glass. I picked up a frosted piece of syringe near an old Tb sanitarium.
posted by theora55 at 12:09 PM on March 13 [1 favorite]
Glass Half Full: Local recycling restores coastal erosion
“Louisiana has lost approximately 1,900 square miles of its coast since 1932,” according to the City of New Orleans. The rapid coastal erosion comes as the byproduct of climate change, rising sea levels, and human involvement. In order to fight back against this coastal loss, two former Tulane students, Franziska Trautmann and Max Steitz, founded Glass Half Full, a company dedicated to the recycling of glass, which is then used for coastal restoration projects throughout the Gulf Coast.posted by zamboni at 12:15 PM on March 13 [5 favorites]
Glass Half Full came into existence in 2020, when Trautmann and Steitz began to think about how and why they couldn’t recycle the bottle of wine they had just finished, as the City of New Orleans halted their curbside glass recycling program following low participation in 2016.
Through their pick-up and drop-off services, the glass that the company collects is crushed and sifted into sand. The majority of this sand is used for coastal restoration purposes, however the recycled glass is used in a variety of ways.
Disappointing to see snark without substance on Metafilter. Please do better.
You're right, and I apologize to you for the drive-by snark.
posted by mediareport at 7:01 AM on March 14 [2 favorites]
You're right, and I apologize to you for the drive-by snark.
posted by mediareport at 7:01 AM on March 14 [2 favorites]
« Older To claim that science is impartial and bloodless... | Huntsville, Alabama: the legacy of Operation... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:52 AM on March 11 [27 favorites]