【推荐1】A team of leading environmental experts have warned that the current war on plastic is detracting from the bigger threats to the environment. In an article, they say that while plastic waste is an issue, its prominence in the general public’s concern for the environment is overshadowing greater threats, for example, climate change and biodiversity loss.

The team argue that much of the bad talk about plastic waste is based on data that is not always representative of the environments that have been sampled. The dislike of plastic associated with this could encourage the use of alternative materials with potentially harmful effects.

The authors warn that plastic pollution dominates the public’s concern for the environment and has been exploited politically, after capturing the attention of the world, for example, through the images of wildlife caught in plastic was alarmist headlines. They say small political gestures such as law banning cosmetic microplastics, taxing plastic bags, and financial rewards for using reusable containers, as well as the promotion of products as “green” for containing less plastic than alternatives, make people neglect other environmental problems that are not as noticeable as plastic pollution.

The article also highlights that plastic is not the only type of polluting materials, originating from human activity that pollutes the environment. Other examples include natural textile fibres such as cotton and wool, and brake-wear particles from vehicles — all of which are present in different places. The authors note that these materials are often much more abundant than microplastics and some are associated with “plastic alternatives” that are marketed as solutions to plastic pollution. The impacts of these materials are less well-known than plastic and microplastic pollution, yet they could have huge impacts.

The article states that solutions are likely to come from a greater focus on designing materials and products that can be recycled, that have their end-of-life, and that markets and facilities exist to recycle.

【推荐1】Video games can spend hours intensely focused on leveling up — progressing to the next level of skill and challenge- in a virtual world, while their everyday troubles fade into the background. Called “flow”, this profoundly immersive state is familiar to artists, musicians and athletes, and has become a popular topic in the media. But video game scholar Braxton Soderman urges caution.

In his new book, Against Flow: Video Games and the Flowing Subject, Soderman aims to “create a little turbulence (湍流) in the smooth flow.” Among his criticisms of flow in relation to video gaming is that it can be used to manipulate (操纵) players for profit and socially isolate them.

“Developers of video games and apps design their technologies specifically in order to produce these intense states of concentration, to addict people to these kinds of experiences,” says Soderman. Money, of course, is the driving force behind most game design, not happiness.

Soderman has played video games almost his entire life, but as the father of two young children, he’s careful to limit the types of games and amount of time his kids spend on video games.

As with flow, Soderman worries that the concepts of play are already being manipulated by capitalism. Business owners, he says, arc being encouraged to use play and creativity to establish “playgrounds of profit” instead of creating more open, inclusive environments that actually make people happier.

“Play is an activity that is really about creativity, exploring possibilities, and freedom,” he says. “But it can be hijacked (操纵) and used in a wrong way”.

The concept of play, like flow, is one that Soderman will challenge us all to step back and think about critically. Because, as he shows in Against Flow, getting lost in a video game for a while can be fun, as long as you don’t end up swept away in a lonely current of someone else’ s profit.