5 ms·

That's the entire point, they didn't attempt to be objective nor realistic. That's honestly the biggest issue with a lot of these radical climate activists too

That's the entire point, they didn't attempt to be objective nor realistic. That's honestly the biggest issue with a lot of these radical climate activists too. They use intentionally misleading arguments to exaggerate timelines and pretend we're already screwed. The media certainly doesn't help as more climate alarmism generates more clicks. And of course, if you say that they're exaggerating then you immediately get branded a "climate change denier". Now you have a generation of 20 year olds who think it's immoral to have children because of climate change and other dumb shit like that.

bombcar 4y ago
The sad part is if we’re already screwed it defeats the argument of doing much of anything anyway so everyone continues doing what they were going to do anyway.
- TotoHorner 4y ago
  Nope. It's not binary. That's the entire point.
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    I think you and the parent are both correct. If we are “screwed” (I.e no action will prevent runaway warming) then any response to prevent warming is pointless. However you are correct that being “screwed” or not is a false binary (we don’t know if warming is reversible but it is likely we can make a positive change and avoid runaway).
LastTrain 4y ago
You lost me at “radical”, which makes you sound like a nut. What about this article is radical? Are they suggesting violence?
- IncRnd 4y ago
  What makes you think Radical means violence? Radical was used 100% correctly according to its definition. Radical (adjective) [1]: believing or expressing the belief that there should be great or extreme social or political change [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/radical https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/radic...
  - LastTrain 4y ago
    Speculating about the cause and effects of climate change is radical?
  - Supermancho 4y ago
    Radical in common speech (within the US) is used to describe an outlier in behavior - zealot, would be the closest synonym for the way radical is used. Violence over climate change would be radical. It's an example of very uncommon behavior, not a specific quality of a radical. This slight disagreement is an issue of disparate definition. I believe the GP was simply being less than gracious in the interpretation of a comment, despite it making perfect sense how they came to their own understanding.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - LastTrain 4y ago
      Thanks. Mostly I was just reacting to the term radical being applied to an article that expressed some mostly conventional views on climate change. What was the radical part?
PartiallyTyped 4y ago
The carbon footprint of a person in "the west" is far far larger than that of a person in China, India, etc. If reducing emissions helps the environment, then it is pretty obvious to anyone with a half developed brain that not having children (in the west) is a great way to reduce emissions. Other reasons people don't have children: - Socioeconomic disparities make it difficult to raise a family due to cost of living - Uncertainty over the future with massive droughts (we have observed them), and ever increasing food scarcity imply that down the road, future generations will have a lot of issues to deal with, so why bring more people to needlessly suffer? All in all, parent commenter assumes that young people are stupid, and fails to see that young people are generally concerned about their behaviour and the consequences. Commenter also fails to see that young people don't want to bring more humans to this planet because they don't want more people to suffer. Bringing children to life is generally a very selfish act with dire consequences to anyone involved.
- boeingUH60 4y ago
  > Bringing children to life is generally a very selfish act with dire consequences to anyone involved. No, it's not. I understand people having concerns about the future and especially regarding the expense of raising a child. But, to brand people "selfish" for having kids that they're able to provide good care for is silly.
  - PartiallyTyped 4y ago
    If we are all "equal", then each one of us is allocated some amount of emissions that we may produce. Bringing children to the world reduces the slice of other people, and assumes that the kids will have a good enough life without too much suffering. Many children have been born to families that had the wealth to provide for the children, but ultimately hurt them in the process or caused needless suffering.
- swader999 4y ago
  Should ban immigration with the same logic?
- 4y ago

bombcar 4y ago

The sad part is if we’re already screwed it defeats the argument of doing much of anything anyway so everyone continues doing what they were going to do anyway.

TotoHorner 4y ago
Nope. It's not binary. That's the entire point.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  I think you and the parent are both correct. If we are “screwed” (I.e no action will prevent runaway warming) then any response to prevent warming is pointless. However you are correct that being “screwed” or not is a false binary (we don’t know if warming is reversible but it is likely we can make a positive change and avoid runaway).

LastTrain 4y ago

You lost me at “radical”, which makes you sound like a nut. What about this article is radical? Are they suggesting violence?

IncRnd 4y ago
What makes you think Radical means violence? Radical was used 100% correctly according to its definition. Radical (adjective) [1]: believing or expressing the belief that there should be great or extreme social or political change [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/radical https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/radic...
- LastTrain 4y ago
  Speculating about the cause and effects of climate change is radical?
- Supermancho 4y ago
  Radical in common speech (within the US) is used to describe an outlier in behavior - zealot, would be the closest synonym for the way radical is used. Violence over climate change would be radical. It's an example of very uncommon behavior, not a specific quality of a radical. This slight disagreement is an issue of disparate definition. I believe the GP was simply being less than gracious in the interpretation of a comment, despite it making perfect sense how they came to their own understanding.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - LastTrain 4y ago
    Thanks. Mostly I was just reacting to the term radical being applied to an article that expressed some mostly conventional views on climate change. What was the radical part?

PartiallyTyped 4y ago

The carbon footprint of a person in "the west" is far far larger than that of a person in China, India, etc. If reducing emissions helps the environment, then it is pretty obvious to anyone with a half developed brain that not having children (in the west) is a great way to reduce emissions. Other reasons people don't have children: - Socioeconomic disparities make it difficult to raise a family due to cost of living - Uncertainty over the future with massive droughts (we have observed them), and ever increasing food scarcity imply that down the road, future generations will have a lot of issues to deal with, so why bring more people to needlessly suffer? All in all, parent commenter assumes that young people are stupid, and fails to see that young people are generally concerned about their behaviour and the consequences. Commenter also fails to see that young people don't want to bring more humans to this planet because they don't want more people to suffer. Bringing children to life is generally a very selfish act with dire consequences to anyone involved.

boeingUH60 4y ago
> Bringing children to life is generally a very selfish act with dire consequences to anyone involved. No, it's not. I understand people having concerns about the future and especially regarding the expense of raising a child. But, to brand people "selfish" for having kids that they're able to provide good care for is silly.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  If we are all "equal", then each one of us is allocated some amount of emissions that we may produce. Bringing children to the world reduces the slice of other people, and assumes that the kids will have a good enough life without too much suffering. Many children have been born to families that had the wealth to provide for the children, but ultimately hurt them in the process or caused needless suffering.
swader999 4y ago
Should ban immigration with the same logic?
4y ago