 |
|
|
|||||
This is an excerpt from Consumed: How Big Brands Got Us Hooked on Plastic. An odd symbol, made up of three arrows arranged in a triangle, began showing up on plastic containers across America in the fall of 1988. Inside it was a number. The idea to put codes on plastic containers came from the Society of the Plastics Industry. By 1987, Lewis Freeman, the trade bodys head of government affairs, had begun hearing that the fledgling plastics recycling industry was struggling to make sense of the dozens of different types of plastics they were receiving. The plastics had different melting points and other properties, which meant they couldnt just be mixed together for recycling. “Plastics is not really one material; its umpteen materials,” explains Freeman. “While plastics share a similar molecular structure and most are made from oil or natural gas, theyre otherwise quite different from one another.” Before he joined SPI in 1979, Freeman worked as a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, fighting Senator Ted Kennedys push to break up big oil companies. At SPI, where he stayed for more than 20 years, Freeman dealt with anything that could pose a reputational risk to the plastics industry. He spent much of his time convincing companies to make changes that would forestall the risk of regulation. When it emerged that dozens of babies each year were dying by drowning in large plastic bucketsat five gallons, the buckets were so heavy that if an infant fell into them, they didnt tip overFreeman was the man who rallied the industry to hand out warning stickers to parents buying the buckets. The companies, he remembers, didnt want to add permanent labels, which made the buckets a few cents more expensive. Eventually, they capitulated when it became apparent their legal liability was enormous. “Companies are essentially all the same regardless of industry,” says Freeman. “They dont like to be told by someone else that they need to do something, period.” A symbol to aid recyclersnot consumers Back in 1987, Freeman took the complaints he was hearing about recycling to SPIs public affairs committee. Since the industry saw recycling as a tool to mitigate reputational damage, the public affairs group, consisting of men from big packaging makers like Owens-Illinois and the American Can Company, was the natural place to discuss it. The dizzying array of plastics on the market was hardly the only issue plaguing recycling. Plastics popularity came down to it being light, cheap, versatile, and robust. But being light and cheap hurt on the other end. Haulers, who were paid by the ton to collect recycling, made far more money filling their trucks with heavier aluminum or cardboard than with lightweight plastic. Things were worse for some plastics than others. Polystyrene foam was economically unviable because it was mostly air. Plastic bags, wraps, and films also had to be collected separately, or they gummed up sorting machinery. Packaging makers preferred virgin over recycled plastic since it was better quality and usually cheaper. If there were no buyers, it didnt matter how technically recyclable something wasit wasnt going to be recycled. Back in the late 1980s, only containers made from PETthe plastic used in single-use drink bottlesand HDPEcommonly used to make milk jugs and detergent containerswere being recycled in any significant volume. (The situation remains the same today.) These plastics werent turned into new soda bottles or milk jugs, but instead downcycled into lower-grade construction material that was just one step removed from the landfill. All the other kinds of plastics went straight to landfills or incinerators, if they werent littered. Slapping a code on the bottom of plastic containers wouldnt fix most of these problems. But at least it would help recyclers know what they were dealing with, Freeman told SPIs public affairs committee. Many plastic resin producers in the room were against the idea. They feared that including a code would encourage consumer goods makers to spurn plastics that werent being recycled. Even the makers of recyclable PET and HDPE containers didnt embrace Freemans proposal. Freeman compares them to the bucket makers who preferred to sit on their hands until they had a legislative gun pointing at their heads. “The bottle manufacturers opposed it because it required them to do something,” he says. Freeman eventually prevailed. He insisted the code was a way to forestall mandatory regulation that could be far more expensive and onerous. For plastics that werent currently being recycled, the code was the first step towards enabling this, he added, since it meant they could be more easily sorted. And so the “resin identification code,” as the industry called it, was created in 1988. While there were dozens of different types and subtypes of plastics, SPIlooking to keep costs and complexity lowgrouped them into seven broad categories, which still stand today. They are: Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), used for soda and water bottles High-density polyethylene (HDPE), used for milk jugs, detergent containers, and shopping bags Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), used for credit cards and pill packs Low-density polyethylene (LDPE), used for disposable gloves, trash bags, and dry-cleaning bags Polypropylene (PP), used for yogurt tubs, takeaway boxes, and butter containers Polystyrene (PS): the solid kind is used to make disposable cutlery and cups, while the expanded kind (EPS) is used for foam egg cartons, meat trays, and fast-food containers Other plastics: a catch-all for remaining plastics including multilayer packages like pet food pouches and ketchup sachets that incorporate different types of plastic, as well as bioplastics “It was a marketing tool” To separate the number from other descriptors used on containers, SPI enclosed it in the chasing arrows symbol. It was a strange choice, one that would cast doubts over the plastics industrys motives for decades to come. Back in 1970, Gary Anderson, a 23-year-old architecture student at the University of Southern California, had seen an enormous wall-sized poster advertising a design competition. Sponsored by Container Corp., a paper packaging maker that was also the largest paper recycler in the U.S., the competition required participants to design a symbol “for the love of earth” to “symbolize the recycling process.” Andersons designfeaturing three arrows twisting and returning into themselveswon. He got a $2,500 tuition grant and a trip to Chicago in September 1970 to attend a press conference at Container Corp.s headquarters. “I was kind of an arrogant little punk student, and I thought the whole thing was kind of silly, actually,” recalls Anderson, who back then sported a goatee and wore his red hairbleached blond by the California sunin curtains parted slightly to the side. Through the 1960s, the paper industrymuch like plastics would laterhad faced mounting criticism about how its disposable products were flowing to landfills. Container Corp. made the new chasing arrows symbol available to the entire paper industry for use on shipping containers and folding cartons, saying it hoped the symbol would spread awareness about the importance of pape recycling. “It was a marketing tool,” explains Anderson. Despite this, in 1988, when the Society of the Plastics Industry decided to use the chasing arrows on plastic containers, its executives insisted the resin identification code was not meant to indicate recyclability. It also said the code was not aimed at consumers. Freeman says SPI chose the chasing arrows to distinguish the numbers from any others that might be found on containers, and that it was only meant to help recyclers sort plastic resins from one another. “It was not an attempt to deceive people that because an item had the code on it, it was recyclable,” he says. But, looking back, Freeman acknowledges that recyclability is exactly what people took the code to mean. “That ended up being the presumption people drewand still draw until this day.” What does “please recycle” really mean? Within a few months of its inception in 1988, the SPI code began catching on across the US. Colgate put it on its bottles for Palmolive and Ajax dishwashing liquids. P&G slapped it on Jif peanut butter jars, bottles of Crisco oil, Tide and Cheer laundry detergent bottles and tubs, and even on its plastic detergent measuring cups. Including the chasing arrows symbol together with the resin identification code on products that couldnt be recycled gave consumers the impression that they could. “They are made from polystyrene,” a P&G executive told reporters about the plastic detergent measuring cups, which he claimed were recyclable. “Thats number 6 on the plastic recycling code.” But local facilities didnt accept the cups, and they were not recycled. By the early 1990s, at the urging of SPI, 39 states had enshrined the code as law on rigid plastic containers. Companies eagerly embraced the law, but also started putting the code on flexible plastic wrappers for everything from pantyhose to Subway sandwiches. Some brands had begun to use the exhortation “Please Recycle” alongside the chasing arrows symbol on plastic products and packaging that couldnt be recycled, claiming this was an educational effort. Surveys showed that the majority of consumers thought that “Please Recycle” meant consumers could recycle those products in all or most communities in the U.S.. “Over time, even companies who initially opposed developing the code grabbed on to it and started putting it on everything,” says Freeman. “Companies decided it was in their interest to look green, and they ran with it. They ran with it until the cows came home.” Excerpted with permission from Consumed: How Big Brands Got Us Hooked on Plastic by Saabira Chaudhuri. Published by arrangement with Blink Publishing, an imprint of Bonnier Books UK. Copyright 2025 Saabira Chaudhuri.
Category:
E-Commerce
Forget the ping-pong tables and kombucha on tap. The real workplace perks, if you are a working parent, arent glitzy. They are functional. And, in an era of record burnout and extreme scarcity of childcare, knowing how to identify a genuinely parent-friendly workplace could make or break your careerand your sanity. Green flags Whether you are in job-hunting mode, negotiating a new role, or taking stock of your current company, heres what to look for and what might be pure performance. 1. True Flexibility (Not Just ‘Work from Anywhere’) Try to find a position with a predictable level of flexibility. That means clear expectations about hours and deliverables that allow you to manage your day, not just your location. {"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2015\/08\/erikaaslogo.png","headline":"Girl, Listen: A Guide to What Really Matters","description":"Ericka dives into the heat of modern motherhood, challenging the notion that personal identity must be sacrificed at the altar of parenting. ","substackDomain":"https:\/\/erickasouter.substack.com\/","colorTheme":"blue","redirectUrl":""}} 2. People in Power Who Actually Take Parental Benefits A major green flag is a leader who makes use of parental leave and talks about it publicly. It creates an environment where everyone can do the same without fear of being judged or sidelined in their career. 3. Meeting Culture That Respects Quitting Time Are meetings packed at the end of the day? Are you expected to be there at 6 p.m.? If the work calendar is chaos, chances are your home life will be too. 4. Paid Leave That Doesnt Come with a Guilt Trip Ask if expecting parents typically use parental leave, not just whats in the employee handbook. Culture matters more than policy. 5. Support Beyond the Baby Stage Good companies dont end support as soon as your baby hits 1-year-old. Look for long-term flexibility, back-to-school understanding, summer childcare solutions, or even parenting employee resource groups (ERGs). 6. Caregiving Is Part of the Conversation, Not a Burden Do people feel safe talking about sick kids, school closings, or mental health struggles without worrying they will be perceived as less committed? Thats the culture you want. 7. Promotion Paths That Dont Punish Caregivers Look at whos getting promoted. Are parents climbing up or are their careers stalling? A truly parent-friendly company allows for upward mobility and family values. Red flags What about signs to watch out for? Here are four: Promises of some vague work-life balance with no specific details Unlimited PTO policies that people dont feel comfortable using Celebrating employees that exceed expectations. Make sure that isnt code for overworking to the point of burnout Not a single reference to caregiving or diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Bonus advice While you’re being interviewed, interview the company too. Ask about their approach to flexibility, caregiving, and how theyve supported employees during school closures or emergencies (like COVID-19). The response will tell you everything you need to know. {"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2015\/08\/erikaaslogo.png","headline":"Girl, Listen: A Guide to What Really Matters","description":"Ericka dives into the heat of modern motherhood, challenging the notion that personal identity must be sacrificed at the altar of parenting. ","substackDomain":"https:\/\/erickasouter.substack.com\/","colorTheme":"blue","redirectUrl":""}}
Category:
E-Commerce
James Barrat is an author and documentary filmmaker who has written and produced for National Geographic, Discovery, PBS, and many other broadcasters. Whats the big idea? The Intelligence Explosion: When AI Beats Humans at Everything [Photo: St. Martin’s Press] Artificial intelligence could reshape our world for the better or threaten our very existence. Todays chatbots are just the beginning. We could be heading for a future in which artificial superintelligence challenges human dominance. To keep our grip on the reins of progress when faced with an intelligence explosion, we need to set clear standards and precautions for AI development. Below, James shares five key insights from his new book, The Intelligence Explosion: When AI Beats Humans at Everything. Listen to the audio versionread by James himselfbelow, or in the Next Big Idea App. 1. The rise of generative AI is impressive, but not without problems. Generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT and Dall-E, have taken the world by storm, demonstrating their ability to write, draw, and even compose music in ways that seem almost human. Generative means they generate or create things. But these abilities come with some steep downsides. These systems can easily create fake news, bogus documents, or deepfake photos and videos that appear and sound authentic. Even the AI experts who build these models dont fully understand how they come up with their answers. Generative AI is a black box system, meaning you can see the data the model is trained on and the words or pictures it puts out, but even the designers cannot explain what happens on the inside. Stuart Russell, coauthor of Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, said this about generative AI, We have absolutely no idea how it works, and we are releasing it to hundreds of millions of people. We give it credit cards, bank accounts, social media accounts. Were doing everything we can to make sure that it can take over the world. Generative AI hallucinates, meaning the models sometimes spit out stuff that sounds believable but is wrong or nonsensical. This makes them risky for important tasks. When asked about a specific academic paper, a generative AI might confidently respond, The 2019 study by Dr. Leah Wolfe at Stanford University found that 73% of people who eat chocolate daily have improved memory function, as published in the Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, Volume 12, Issue 4. This sounds completely plausible and authoritative, but many details are made up: There is no Dr. Leah Wolfe at Stanford, no such study from 2019, and the 73% statistic is fiction. Generative AI hallucinates, meaning the models sometimes spit out stuff that sounds believable but is wrong or nonsensical. The hallucination is particularly problematic because its presented with such confidence and specificity that it seems legitimate. Users might cite this nonexistent research or make decisions based on completely false information. On top of that, as generative AI models get bigger, they start picking up surprise skillslike translating languages and writing codeeven though nobody programmed them to do that. These unpredictable outcomes are called emergent properties. They hint at even bigger challenges as AI continues to advance and grow larger. 2. The push for artificial general intelligence (AGI). The next big goal in AI is something called AGI, or artificial general intelligence. This means creating an AI that can perform nearly any task a human can, in any field. Tech companies and governments are racing to build AGI because the potential payoff is huge. AGI could automate all sorts of knowledge work, making us way more productive and innovative. Whoever gets there first could dominate global industries and set the rules for everyone else. Some believe that AGI could help us tackle massive problems, such as climate change, disease, and poverty. Its also seen as a game-changer for national security. However, the unpredictability were already seeing will only intensify as we approach AGI, which raises the stakes. 3. From AGI to something way smarter. If we ever reach AGI, things could escalate quickly. This is where the concept of the intelligence explosion comes into play. The idea was first put forward by I. J. Good. Good was a brilliant British mathematician and codebreaker who worked alongside Alan Turing at Bletchley Park during World War II. Together, they were crucial in breaking German codes and laying the foundations for modern computing. An intelligence explosion would come with incredible upsides. Drawing on this experience, Good realized that if we built a machine that was as smart as a human, it might soon be able to make itself even smarter. Once it started improving itself, it could get caught in a kind of feedback loop, rapidly building smarter and smarter versionsway beyond anything humans could keep up with. This runaway process could lead to artificial superintelligence, also known as ASI. An intelligence explosion would come with incredible upsides. Superintelligent AI could solve problems weve never been able to crack, such as curing diseases, reversing aging, or mitigating climate change. It could push science and technology forward at lightning speed, automate all kinds of work, and help us make smarter decisions by analyzing information in ways people simply cannot. 4. The dangers of an intelligence explosion. Is ASI dangerous? You bet. In an interview, sci-fi great Arthur C. Clark told me, We umans steer the future not because were the fastest or strongest creature, but the most intelligent. If we share the planet with something more intelligent than we are, they will steer the future. The same qualities that could make superintelligent AI so helpful also make it dangerous. If its goals arent perfectly lined up with whats good for humansa problem called alignmentit could end up doing things that are catastrophic for us. For example, a superintelligent AI might use up all the planets resources to complete its assigned mission, leaving nothing left for humans. Nick Bostrom, a Swedish philosopher at the University of Oxford, created a thought experiment called the paperclip maximizer. If a superintelligent AI were asked to make paperclips, without very careful instructions, it would turn all the matter in the universe into paperclipsincluding you and me. Whoever controls this kind of AI could also end up with an unprecedented level of power over the rest of the world. Plus, the speed and unpredictability of an intelligence explosion could throw global economies and societies into complete chaos before we have time to react. 5. How AI could overpower humanity. These dangers can play out in very real ways. A misaligned superintelligence could pursue a badly worded goal, causing disaster. Suppose you asked the AI to eliminate cancer; it could do that by eliminating people. Common sense is not something AI has ever demonstrated. AI-controlled weapons could escalate conflicts faster than humans can intervene, making war more likely and more deadly. In May 2010, a flash crash occurred on the stock exchange, triggered by high-frequency trading algorithms. Stocks were purchased and sold at a pace humans could not keep up with, costing investors tens of millions of dollars. A misaligned superintelligence could pursue a badly worded goal, causing disaster. Advanced AI could take over essential infrastructuresuch as power grids or financial systemsmaking us entirely dependent and vulnerable. As AI gets more complex, it might develop strange new motivations that its creators never imagined, and those could be dangerous. Bad actors, like authoritarian regimes or extremist groups, could use AI for mass surveillance, propaganda, cyberattacks, or worse, giving them unprecedented new tools to control or harm people. We are seeing surveillance systems morph into enhanced weapons systems in Gaza right now. In Western China, surveillance systems keep track of tens of millions of people in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region. AI-enhanced surveillance systems keep track of who is crossing Americas border with Mexico. Todays unpredictable, sometimes baffling AI is just a preview of the much bigger risks and rewards that could come from AGI and superintelligence. As we rush to create smarter machines, we must remember that these systems could bring both incredible benefits and existential dangers. If we want to stay in control, we need to move forward with strong oversight, regulations, and a commitment to transparency. This article originally appeared in Next Big Idea Club magazine and is reprinted with permission.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||