4 ms·

You might want to rephrase your post; implying that everyone who isn't a "coastal-American/NW-European tech worker" must therefore be either: a) Religious nati

You might want to rephrase your post; implying that everyone who isn't a "coastal-American/NW-European tech worker" must therefore be either: a) Religious nativists, b) Supremacist ideolouges, c) Ethnonationalists, or d)"a great mass of impoverished third-worlders too [...] ignorant to even use birth control correctly" ...is simultaneously pretty offensive, and bafflingly hyperbolic. Alternatively, given that I live in Texas, and am therefore neither a coastal-American nor NW-European tech worker, would you mind telling me which of those four alternative categories I'm in?

TeMPOraL 8y ago
It needs to be rephrased, but the point is otherwise good. I'd put it like this: only those who are both well enough to have time to care about climate and smart enough to understand the magnitude of the problem are the ones who'll be considering having no children as a mitigation strategy. If they all follow through, that leaves you with only people who can't care (due to economic situation) or don't care (religion/ideology/stupidity) reproducing and passing their values on to the next generation. It's essentially the Idiocracy plot, with climate change twist.
- regularfry 8y ago
  Quoting from myself upthread: > Given the timespan involved, everyone who can intellectually contribute to fixing the problem in the article must already have been born.
jlawson 8y ago
This is a pedantic overly literal reading of what I wrote. Please use your brain while reading to interpret what's being said in the form that makes sense. Otherwise we'll just spend all our time dragging you away from hostile, idiotic misinterpretations (which you'd never make it you agreed with the underlying point) to talk about the issue. E.g I obviously don't mean that literally no person who doesn't live in the coastal USA can help. I'm indicating an archetype of a person.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

It needs to be rephrased, but the point is otherwise good. I'd put it like this: only those who are both well enough to have time to care about climate and smart enough to understand the magnitude of the problem are the ones who'll be considering having no children as a mitigation strategy. If they all follow through, that leaves you with only people who can't care (due to economic situation) or don't care (religion/ideology/stupidity) reproducing and passing their values on to the next generation. It's essentially the Idiocracy plot, with climate change twist.

regularfry 8y ago
Quoting from myself upthread: > Given the timespan involved, everyone who can intellectually contribute to fixing the problem in the article must already have been born.

jlawson 8y ago

This is a pedantic overly literal reading of what I wrote. Please use your brain while reading to interpret what's being said in the form that makes sense. Otherwise we'll just spend all our time dragging you away from hostile, idiotic misinterpretations (which you'd never make it you agreed with the underlying point) to talk about the issue. E.g I obviously don't mean that literally no person who doesn't live in the coastal USA can help. I'm indicating an archetype of a person.