10 ms·

Stop telling kids they’ll die from climate change (2021)

48 points by Quillbert182 3y ago

Workaccount2 3y ago
More accurately: Stop telling kids they'll die from climate change. They won't. We are first world publication preaching to first world parents. Its the third world kids who will grow up to starve and die.
- pyrale 3y ago
  I can see "Don't worry kiddo, someone else is gonna die for all your emissions" fitting really well in christian gospel, too.
eesmith 3y ago
Some pop culture context. In the hit TV series "Family Ties" episode "Rain Forests Keep Falling on My Head" from 1989, Jennifer becomes very concerned about the environment, worried that if people don't act, the rain forests would be destroyed, the ozone layer destroyed, and we would live in a long hot endless summer. Later, she's depressed since it's 1°F hotter than it was in 1956, and doesn't want to go to school, feeling like she's dealing with the end of the world. The episode is available at https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8gyxf5 https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8gyxf5 if you want to verify this yourself. That was a fictional portrayal, certainly, but I doubt it was made up whole cloth. If so, the writers were extremely good at predicting how kids would react! Things are significantly worse now than in 1989 - why wouldn't even more kids be worried?
- themoonisachees 3y ago
  Right? If I don't tell my hypothetical children that they are facing a significant climate crisis and that most of their lives is going to be governed by the consequences of that crisis, that we caused, should I simply lie to them? Why? Plugging your ears and singing "LALALA" isnt going to make climate change go away. If anything, we should teach them how oil companies were aware of impending doom and chose profit over the planet repeatedly, installing at least some class consciousness in them.
- otikik 3y ago
  “Dinosaurs” TV show. Last episode. I have never been able to watch it fully, only some parts.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    Oh.... my... I can see why! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaurs_(TV_series)#Series_finale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaurs_(TV_series)#Series_f...
  - WorldMaker 3y ago
    Relatedly, I feel like "Soylent Green", "Logan's Run", and more in the 1970s all had climate change related concerns/worries and/or messages. A lot of it got lost in the action/thriller genres, especially in the film adaptations, and a lot of it still inherited mistakes and traps from the Malthusians of previous sci-fi generations (50s/60s sci-fi especially was prone to believing in the since-disproven Malthusian trap), but even in the 1970s you can read a lot of early climate change anxiety from the more intended-to-be empathetic parts of pop culture. (The 70s is where I generally draw the boundary line in sci-fi between Malthusianism and Climate Change concerns.) Climate change fears have been in the pop culture air for longer than a lot of people realize.
LatteLazy 3y ago
Success in the modern world requires ever increasing cognitive dissonance: You know climate change is coming but have to pretend not to, you know the economy is stacked against you but have to remain hopeful, you know you cannot access the sort of life you want, but have to pretend to like what IS on offer.
- wryoak 3y ago
  Success in the ancient world was built on no fewer delusions
- InitialLastName 3y ago
  Capitalism (as successful as it can be) is built fundamentally around cognitive dissonance. We know for a fact that the universe can't support unbounded exponential growth; one day, there will be no more resources to support that growth. On the other hand, the system requires the optimism that capital invested will produce value at an exponential rate forever. If the people ever became convinced that after tomorrow the growth will stop, the system would collapse overnight.
  - LatteLazy 3y ago
    >We know for a fact that the universe can't support unbounded exponential growth; I am never entirely convinced by this. First because it does not need to, it only needs to support exponential growth for (say) 100 years and that is plenty of time for me. Or 1000 for me and my grandchildren's grandchildren. Then we can go to "stable state" etc Second because economic growth is not purely a matter of physical resources. Oil use cannot grow forever. But Dollar value can. >If the people ever became convinced that after tomorrow the growth will stop, the system would collapse overnight. This is 110% true though. The main source of growth is optimism, the main source of optimism is growth. God help the government that cannot sustain those (like now here in the UK).
weard_beard 3y ago
Stop telling your aunt it’s ok to cry. Your mother is dead and crying won’t change it. Progress is a process and, like grief, there are no short cuts. Stop short circuiting acceptance. It’s step 1
Clent 3y ago
Some of the concerns here are economic. Children are smart. I'm not sure gaslighting them will work. It's definitely a sign that the children are correct.
freediverx 3y ago
Mastodon needs a downvote button.
fantasticshower 3y ago
What book(s) can I read to hear a realistic perspective on climate change? Even better, what book(s) would be best for someone skeptical of it?
- metalon 3y ago
  The current IPCC report is readable and pretty comprehensive: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6...
lilboiluvr69 3y ago
"This is out of line with the science, and scientists should call this out more prominently." I completely agree with this. I'm also familiar with people I've talked to, and myself at times, falling into doomsday scenarios. No, we aren't all going to die, not in rich countries st least. It's just going to really, really, suck.
- Ardon 3y ago
  I've never noticed climate scientists having any particular control over the narrative at all. I've only ever seen them being realistic and focusing on solutions when they're trying to communicate. I don't think the coverage is the climate scientists fault.
markwalllberg 3y ago
Its funny for a large publication to tell their readership to stop scaring kids with death (did i say that right?).
pcdoodle 3y ago
Sometimes people have nothing fun in their life to look forward to so they obsess about something which they have no control over except their perception that if we all did "X" everything will change. But the funny thing is, most aren't giving up car ownership, most aren't trying to offset their energy consumption in a meaningful way, most aren't commuting sepiku, they're only blaming systems without any personal change. Leave the kids out of your delusion. It's hard enough to become a well balanced person with everything else going on.
scotty79 3y ago
[flagged]
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  You don't get the eternal torture for not praying you get it for being a monster. Praying might help with not being a monster though.
  - eimrine 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - Workaccount2 3y ago
    Yeah, but that's what your book says, mine says the truth and you're wrong.
- eimrine 3y ago
  Telling to children that they will suffer from heat, sea level and ecosystem changing because of we the adults can not believe that the shit is real seems like an honest deal.
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    Maybe it is good lesson to teach them early that on average no body truly cares. And those who present they do lie. Or they would make very drastic different choices.
timmg 3y ago
I'll say two things that will be controversial. But first, just want to be clear: global warming is real; human caused; and will have negative effects on many parts of the world. 1) We are not heading for "the end of the world". There are lots of projections of what things can go wrong. But the climate changes slowly, we are becoming richer and we'll adapt. Also a lot of what is reported is on "worst case" (or things might get as bad as so-and-so) that are often based on CO2 projections that have almost no chance of coming true. 2) Even if you disagree with #1: we are already on our way to solving the problem. We will still have warming, for sure. But we will likely be at or near the goals we've set for end of century. Tech is improving: we are deploying solar, wind and (suddenly) more nuclear; electric cars; heat pumps; and so on. We will eventually run out of fossil fuels. And, population growth is slowing faster than anyone predicted. Yes, we should be vigilant and continue to try to reduce CO2 emissions. But the idea that "we're all gonna die!" -- or anything close to it -- is wrong. And it's not supported by the science at all.
- rcxdude 3y ago
  There are two things which have kind of cancelled out in terms of climate predictions: the worst-case CO2 emissions have not occured (mostly because growth became linear instead of exponential), but also a lot of the negative effects of climate change have happened sooner than expected (especially extreme weather events). The really, really bad scenarios depend either on the CO2 emissions not reaching an inflection point and decreasing (which I think will happen, but how quickly it happens will have a big impact on outcomes), or on some positive feedback mechanism kicking in, of which there are a few potential candidates but a lot of uncertainty for where the thresholds are (predictions range from 'already passed' to 'in the relatively far future'). These should neither be ignored as a possibility nor treated as inevitable.
  - WorldMaker 3y ago
    We're still fighting to keep below the 2 degree C milestone, because we already passed the 1 degree C milestone which was the worst-case projection by some 1970s scientists. There is certainly a sense that we're not "expecting the worst-case" today because we keep inventing new "worst case" predictions instead. Also, some of the frighteningly hard to stop feedback mechanisms have started, such as glacier melting has hit some extremes that scientists feared would be points of no return. Whether this will play out in the ways of those 1970s worst case predictions we don't know, and a variable here is that we are working to avoid them (badly, but still some avoidance work is better than doing nothing). Some of that is like the Y2K problem: the self-unfulfilling prophecy. We've warned ourselves for decades what the risks are and what the worst cases are. We've put in a lot of work to mitigate/slow/stop the worst cases. We've partly failed, several times over, and had to invent new worst cases. We're still working to prevent those new worst cases. We likely will not ever hit a worst case, we're just in our own feedback loops trying to find the acceptable compromise. If the acceptable compromise "turns out alright" people will claim we never really were in danger of the worst cases, discounting the huge amounts of effort we put into avoiding it. "The prophecy was self-unfulfilled so it wasn't really a big deal was it?" "Y2K didn't happen, so why was everyone so worried about it?"
perrygeo 3y ago
I'm a father and very concerned about climate change. I talk to my son about greenhouse gases, fossil fuels and their unique role in our economy, and the current impacts to extreme weather. Importantly its all about observations of today's bio-geophysical-economic reality. Not speculation about tomorrow's. Building a solid foundation in the scientific method is far more important than scaring him with worst-case-scenarios. Don't get me wrong, climate models and predictions of their impacts are important for planning our future. I keep up on the literature but I don't expect an elementary school child to. Until he has the foundation to understand the models and a framework for how to do risk assessment with them, we'll be working on the fundamentals. Also important to emphasize that climate in not the only issue. There is a "polycrisis" of other environmental, economic, and social problems that threaten our civilization; climate change has to be dealt with (or adapted to) alongside these concerns, not with blinders on.
- ptsneves 3y ago
  Schwarznegger recently said it very simple. Think of climate change as just another form of pollution. Pollution is unhealthy. “I’m on a mission to go and reduce greenhouse gases worldwide,” Schwarzenegger told CBS, “because I’m into having a healthy body and a healthy Earth. That’s what I’m fighting for. And that’s my crusade.” Unhealthy is a bad thing in plain terms and it is a categorical imperative in complex terms. Therefore pollution is morally bad. [Schwarzenegger the philosopher] [Schwarzenegger the philosopher] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/30/schwarzenegger-no-one-gives-a-s-about-climate-change-rebrand-it.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/30/schwarzenegger-no-one-gives-...
photochemsyn 3y ago
Bit of a straw man argument. We should be telling kids not to think twice about buying properties in any zone with high flood risk, high wildfire risk, high hurricane risk, high coastal erosion risk, etc. and that they should expect greater frequencies of extreme weather events (heat waves etc.) and this should be taken into account in their own personal planning for the future. It's rather like teaching kids why signing onto an adjustable-rate mortgage is a bad idea. It just makes them better prepared for the future. However, the fossil fuel sector and its financiers don't even want to admit there's a problem, as that increases the pressure to stop using fossil fuels and switch to renewables, which is probably what motivates articles like this.
- selimthegrim 3y ago
  You mean to think twice rather
- lkbm 3y ago
  How is it a straw man? Are you saying no one's telling kids that climate change will doom us all? It includes specific examples.
- ch4s3 3y ago
  > It's rather like teaching kids why signing onto an adjustable-rate mortgage is a bad idea. For most time periods and for the average mortgage holder ARMs are going to be cheaper. Fixed rates mortgages are superior when interest rates are rising and you intend to be in a home long term. So this isn't universally good advice to give people.
fallingfrog 3y ago
It’s not that we’re all going to die. What has died is the myth of progress- the idea that every generation will have it better than the one before. It’s hard to be forward thinking if you believe that your country is going to be worse off in 50 years than it is now, no matter what you do. I don’t think people really understand the degree to which any country is held together by belief. Progress is our national religion, and it’s dying right in front of us. Some will find scapegoats, some will lash out in anger, some will respond with denial, some will blame generations that came before. But how can you hold a nation together when they no longer believe in its foundational mythos? That’s what is being lost, and you can’t just gaslight us into believing it again as it becomes more and more clear that it’s really dead.
- mbg721 3y ago
  The myth of technological progress may be dead, but the myth of social progress is alive and well. Tearing down the old institutions is the most "progressive" thing you can do.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    What's your read on the state of social progress the last decade or so?
    - mbg721 3y ago
      My read is that America is all falling apart because in the last decade more and more institutions came under the control of self-proclaimed progressives and their ideas don't work. But that doesn't mean progressivism isn't popular conceptually--the usual response is "those weren't really progressives; in fact, their corruption proves they were actually conservative, and now we need real change."
      - giraffe_lady 3y ago
        Interesting. My take is more that progressivism is still popular but is being crushed by an organized reactionary revanchist movement actively dedicated to undoing decades of social progress. We've been dragged backwards on some very significant social issues and it only seems to be accelerating. The idea that social progress will march steadily forward does seem to be a myth in that light.
peter_d_sherman 3y ago
[flagged]
- eimrine 3y ago
  It will not happen in 40000 generations. And what should I say to my children if I can show them some effects of global warming/heating which are happening today? For example I can farm some fruits which were impossible to farm here 40 years ago.
  - peter_d_sherman 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - eimrine 3y ago
      You are neither a farmer nor Carl Sagan.
      - peter_d_sherman 3y ago
        Carl Sagan (well, the AI version, for reasons previously enumerated! <g>) tells me that he feels that Climate Change -- if it were actually real, if it were actually to exist -- could in fact be solved(!) by mask wearing, social distancing -- and taking lots and lots of Vitamin D! <g> (but Ivermectin would not help -- because everybody knows that "it's horse dewormer"!). :-) <g> :-) Carl Sagan also tells me that a far greater problem society will have moving forward -- is what to do about all of the agenda-driven AI bots and paid disinformants of the various Military-Industrial Complexes (foreign and domestic!) -- posting their agenda-driven lies and half-truths (basically 50% lies!) about various complex social issues in the future... I told Carl that he has nothing to worry about, basically, because some of us see through those ruses -- but Carl was not convinced... Oh well! :-) There is one point that Carl and I still agree on -- and that is that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"... I am still trying to persuade Carl that it was Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) who once said "“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." -- but he claims that either the quote is misattributed or that someone else said it (he still can't make up his AI mind!)... <g> :-) <g>
hammon 3y ago
[dead]
poulsbohemian 3y ago
The point that gets overlooked in a lot of these conversations is that while my kids (and grandkids, and their kids…) may not die from climate change, their lives could (and I think will) be altered by it. So for example if you are in an area that is going to be under water (or at least all those underground sewer systems will be…) then what’s it going to cost your coastal city in property taxes to fix the problem? Can’t get your home insured in CA or FL any longer? What’s the cost to you then when a fire or hurricane wipes out your house? Massive investment needed in water systems? - more property tax. I suspect we will reach a point where the kinds of food available in our grocery stores is altered by all of this too. So maybe nobody in rich nations actually “dies” but that doesn’t mean they aren’t impacted in very serious, life-altering ways. I was reminded of this watching my garden this spring… things didn’t germinate until we had a freak day cool enough so the seeds could pop. Think food is expensive now, see what it’s like when temps rise and we’ve got to develop even more new varieties and growing techniques to accommodate.
xracy 3y ago
I think that this narrative (about kids dying from climate change) has likely come out of the responses that attempt to downplay climate change, but also, for what appears to be a hot take on this issue here... I don't think it's bad. We are an incredibly polarized society, and not even leastwise because we are spread across many different countries. There are so many ways that we are polarized. I think, that makes climate change the best thing that could be happening in terms of a unifying common evil. While it is human caused, it can be human solved. The fixing of it is something that could unify humanity. And the only thing we really need to do to get there, is to focus on how it is a common evil for all of our children. My only concern is that I don't actually know if we can unify/fix this in time to save our planet. They seem to think we can. I don't know if I'm that optimistic. The big change isn't actually one that I need to see from kids. It's one I need to see from the parents of those kids. Cause there is a controlling minority of this country that is throwing caution to the wind as if this is already solved. That's the real danger, to me. I think kids understand that better than pretty much all baby boomers I've talked to about this...

48 points by Quillbert182 3y ago

More accurately: Stop telling kids they'll die from climate change. They won't. We are first world publication preaching to first world parents. Its the third world kids who will grow up to starve and die.

pyrale 3y ago
I can see "Don't worry kiddo, someone else is gonna die for all your emissions" fitting really well in christian gospel, too.

eesmith 3y ago

Some pop culture context. In the hit TV series "Family Ties" episode "Rain Forests Keep Falling on My Head" from 1989, Jennifer becomes very concerned about the environment, worried that if people don't act, the rain forests would be destroyed, the ozone layer destroyed, and we would live in a long hot endless summer. Later, she's depressed since it's 1°F hotter than it was in 1956, and doesn't want to go to school, feeling like she's dealing with the end of the world. The episode is available at https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8gyxf5 https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8gyxf5 if you want to verify this yourself. That was a fictional portrayal, certainly, but I doubt it was made up whole cloth. If so, the writers were extremely good at predicting how kids would react! Things are significantly worse now than in 1989 - why wouldn't even more kids be worried?

themoonisachees 3y ago
Right? If I don't tell my hypothetical children that they are facing a significant climate crisis and that most of their lives is going to be governed by the consequences of that crisis, that we caused, should I simply lie to them? Why? Plugging your ears and singing "LALALA" isnt going to make climate change go away. If anything, we should teach them how oil companies were aware of impending doom and chose profit over the planet repeatedly, installing at least some class consciousness in them.
otikik 3y ago
“Dinosaurs” TV show. Last episode. I have never been able to watch it fully, only some parts.
- eesmith 3y ago
  Oh.... my... I can see why! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaurs_(TV_series)#Series_finale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaurs_(TV_series)#Series_f...
- WorldMaker 3y ago
  Relatedly, I feel like "Soylent Green", "Logan's Run", and more in the 1970s all had climate change related concerns/worries and/or messages. A lot of it got lost in the action/thriller genres, especially in the film adaptations, and a lot of it still inherited mistakes and traps from the Malthusians of previous sci-fi generations (50s/60s sci-fi especially was prone to believing in the since-disproven Malthusian trap), but even in the 1970s you can read a lot of early climate change anxiety from the more intended-to-be empathetic parts of pop culture. (The 70s is where I generally draw the boundary line in sci-fi between Malthusianism and Climate Change concerns.) Climate change fears have been in the pop culture air for longer than a lot of people realize.

LatteLazy 3y ago

Success in the modern world requires ever increasing cognitive dissonance: You know climate change is coming but have to pretend not to, you know the economy is stacked against you but have to remain hopeful, you know you cannot access the sort of life you want, but have to pretend to like what IS on offer.

wryoak 3y ago
Success in the ancient world was built on no fewer delusions
InitialLastName 3y ago
Capitalism (as successful as it can be) is built fundamentally around cognitive dissonance. We know for a fact that the universe can't support unbounded exponential growth; one day, there will be no more resources to support that growth. On the other hand, the system requires the optimism that capital invested will produce value at an exponential rate forever. If the people ever became convinced that after tomorrow the growth will stop, the system would collapse overnight.
- LatteLazy 3y ago
  >We know for a fact that the universe can't support unbounded exponential growth; I am never entirely convinced by this. First because it does not need to, it only needs to support exponential growth for (say) 100 years and that is plenty of time for me. Or 1000 for me and my grandchildren's grandchildren. Then we can go to "stable state" etc Second because economic growth is not purely a matter of physical resources. Oil use cannot grow forever. But Dollar value can. >If the people ever became convinced that after tomorrow the growth will stop, the system would collapse overnight. This is 110% true though. The main source of growth is optimism, the main source of optimism is growth. God help the government that cannot sustain those (like now here in the UK).

weard_beard 3y ago

Stop telling your aunt it’s ok to cry. Your mother is dead and crying won’t change it. Progress is a process and, like grief, there are no short cuts. Stop short circuiting acceptance. It’s step 1

Clent 3y ago

Some of the concerns here are economic. Children are smart. I'm not sure gaslighting them will work. It's definitely a sign that the children are correct.

freediverx 3y ago

Mastodon needs a downvote button.

fantasticshower 3y ago

What book(s) can I read to hear a realistic perspective on climate change? Even better, what book(s) would be best for someone skeptical of it?

metalon 3y ago
The current IPCC report is readable and pretty comprehensive: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6...

lilboiluvr69 3y ago

"This is out of line with the science, and scientists should call this out more prominently." I completely agree with this. I'm also familiar with people I've talked to, and myself at times, falling into doomsday scenarios. No, we aren't all going to die, not in rich countries st least. It's just going to really, really, suck.

Ardon 3y ago
I've never noticed climate scientists having any particular control over the narrative at all. I've only ever seen them being realistic and focusing on solutions when they're trying to communicate. I don't think the coverage is the climate scientists fault.

markwalllberg 3y ago

Its funny for a large publication to tell their readership to stop scaring kids with death (did i say that right?).

pcdoodle 3y ago

Sometimes people have nothing fun in their life to look forward to so they obsess about something which they have no control over except their perception that if we all did "X" everything will change. But the funny thing is, most aren't giving up car ownership, most aren't trying to offset their energy consumption in a meaningful way, most aren't commuting sepiku, they're only blaming systems without any personal change. Leave the kids out of your delusion. It's hard enough to become a well balanced person with everything else going on.

scotty79 3y ago

[flagged]

giraffe_lady 3y ago
You don't get the eternal torture for not praying you get it for being a monster. Praying might help with not being a monster though.
- eimrine 3y ago
  [flagged]
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  Yeah, but that's what your book says, mine says the truth and you're wrong.
eimrine 3y ago
Telling to children that they will suffer from heat, sea level and ecosystem changing because of we the adults can not believe that the shit is real seems like an honest deal.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Maybe it is good lesson to teach them early that on average no body truly cares. And those who present they do lie. Or they would make very drastic different choices.

timmg 3y ago

I'll say two things that will be controversial. But first, just want to be clear: global warming is real; human caused; and will have negative effects on many parts of the world. 1) We are not heading for "the end of the world". There are lots of projections of what things can go wrong. But the climate changes slowly, we are becoming richer and we'll adapt. Also a lot of what is reported is on "worst case" (or things might get as bad as so-and-so) that are often based on CO2 projections that have almost no chance of coming true. 2) Even if you disagree with #1: we are already on our way to solving the problem. We will still have warming, for sure. But we will likely be at or near the goals we've set for end of century. Tech is improving: we are deploying solar, wind and (suddenly) more nuclear; electric cars; heat pumps; and so on. We will eventually run out of fossil fuels. And, population growth is slowing faster than anyone predicted. Yes, we should be vigilant and continue to try to reduce CO2 emissions. But the idea that "we're all gonna die!" -- or anything close to it -- is wrong. And it's not supported by the science at all.

rcxdude 3y ago
There are two things which have kind of cancelled out in terms of climate predictions: the worst-case CO2 emissions have not occured (mostly because growth became linear instead of exponential), but also a lot of the negative effects of climate change have happened sooner than expected (especially extreme weather events). The really, really bad scenarios depend either on the CO2 emissions not reaching an inflection point and decreasing (which I think will happen, but how quickly it happens will have a big impact on outcomes), or on some positive feedback mechanism kicking in, of which there are a few potential candidates but a lot of uncertainty for where the thresholds are (predictions range from 'already passed' to 'in the relatively far future'). These should neither be ignored as a possibility nor treated as inevitable.
- WorldMaker 3y ago
  We're still fighting to keep below the 2 degree C milestone, because we already passed the 1 degree C milestone which was the worst-case projection by some 1970s scientists. There is certainly a sense that we're not "expecting the worst-case" today because we keep inventing new "worst case" predictions instead. Also, some of the frighteningly hard to stop feedback mechanisms have started, such as glacier melting has hit some extremes that scientists feared would be points of no return. Whether this will play out in the ways of those 1970s worst case predictions we don't know, and a variable here is that we are working to avoid them (badly, but still some avoidance work is better than doing nothing). Some of that is like the Y2K problem: the self-unfulfilling prophecy. We've warned ourselves for decades what the risks are and what the worst cases are. We've put in a lot of work to mitigate/slow/stop the worst cases. We've partly failed, several times over, and had to invent new worst cases. We're still working to prevent those new worst cases. We likely will not ever hit a worst case, we're just in our own feedback loops trying to find the acceptable compromise. If the acceptable compromise "turns out alright" people will claim we never really were in danger of the worst cases, discounting the huge amounts of effort we put into avoiding it. "The prophecy was self-unfulfilled so it wasn't really a big deal was it?" "Y2K didn't happen, so why was everyone so worried about it?"

perrygeo 3y ago

I'm a father and very concerned about climate change. I talk to my son about greenhouse gases, fossil fuels and their unique role in our economy, and the current impacts to extreme weather. Importantly its all about observations of today's bio-geophysical-economic reality. Not speculation about tomorrow's. Building a solid foundation in the scientific method is far more important than scaring him with worst-case-scenarios. Don't get me wrong, climate models and predictions of their impacts are important for planning our future. I keep up on the literature but I don't expect an elementary school child to. Until he has the foundation to understand the models and a framework for how to do risk assessment with them, we'll be working on the fundamentals. Also important to emphasize that climate in not the only issue. There is a "polycrisis" of other environmental, economic, and social problems that threaten our civilization; climate change has to be dealt with (or adapted to) alongside these concerns, not with blinders on.

ptsneves 3y ago
Schwarznegger recently said it very simple. Think of climate change as just another form of pollution. Pollution is unhealthy. “I’m on a mission to go and reduce greenhouse gases worldwide,” Schwarzenegger told CBS, “because I’m into having a healthy body and a healthy Earth. That’s what I’m fighting for. And that’s my crusade.” Unhealthy is a bad thing in plain terms and it is a categorical imperative in complex terms. Therefore pollution is morally bad. [Schwarzenegger the philosopher] [Schwarzenegger the philosopher] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/30/schwarzenegger-no-one-gives-a-s-about-climate-change-rebrand-it.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/30/schwarzenegger-no-one-gives-...

photochemsyn 3y ago

Bit of a straw man argument. We should be telling kids not to think twice about buying properties in any zone with high flood risk, high wildfire risk, high hurricane risk, high coastal erosion risk, etc. and that they should expect greater frequencies of extreme weather events (heat waves etc.) and this should be taken into account in their own personal planning for the future. It's rather like teaching kids why signing onto an adjustable-rate mortgage is a bad idea. It just makes them better prepared for the future. However, the fossil fuel sector and its financiers don't even want to admit there's a problem, as that increases the pressure to stop using fossil fuels and switch to renewables, which is probably what motivates articles like this.

selimthegrim 3y ago
You mean to think twice rather
lkbm 3y ago
How is it a straw man? Are you saying no one's telling kids that climate change will doom us all? It includes specific examples.
ch4s3 3y ago
> It's rather like teaching kids why signing onto an adjustable-rate mortgage is a bad idea. For most time periods and for the average mortgage holder ARMs are going to be cheaper. Fixed rates mortgages are superior when interest rates are rising and you intend to be in a home long term. So this isn't universally good advice to give people.

fallingfrog 3y ago

It’s not that we’re all going to die. What has died is the myth of progress- the idea that every generation will have it better than the one before. It’s hard to be forward thinking if you believe that your country is going to be worse off in 50 years than it is now, no matter what you do. I don’t think people really understand the degree to which any country is held together by belief. Progress is our national religion, and it’s dying right in front of us. Some will find scapegoats, some will lash out in anger, some will respond with denial, some will blame generations that came before. But how can you hold a nation together when they no longer believe in its foundational mythos? That’s what is being lost, and you can’t just gaslight us into believing it again as it becomes more and more clear that it’s really dead.

mbg721 3y ago
The myth of technological progress may be dead, but the myth of social progress is alive and well. Tearing down the old institutions is the most "progressive" thing you can do.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  What's your read on the state of social progress the last decade or so?
  - mbg721 3y ago
    My read is that America is all falling apart because in the last decade more and more institutions came under the control of self-proclaimed progressives and their ideas don't work. But that doesn't mean progressivism isn't popular conceptually--the usual response is "those weren't really progressives; in fact, their corruption proves they were actually conservative, and now we need real change."
    - giraffe_lady 3y ago
      Interesting. My take is more that progressivism is still popular but is being crushed by an organized reactionary revanchist movement actively dedicated to undoing decades of social progress. We've been dragged backwards on some very significant social issues and it only seems to be accelerating. The idea that social progress will march steadily forward does seem to be a myth in that light.

peter_d_sherman 3y ago

[flagged]

eimrine 3y ago
It will not happen in 40000 generations. And what should I say to my children if I can show them some effects of global warming/heating which are happening today? For example I can farm some fruits which were impossible to farm here 40 years ago.
- peter_d_sherman 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - eimrine 3y ago
    You are neither a farmer nor Carl Sagan.
    - peter_d_sherman 3y ago
      Carl Sagan (well, the AI version, for reasons previously enumerated! <g>) tells me that he feels that Climate Change -- if it were actually real, if it were actually to exist -- could in fact be solved(!) by mask wearing, social distancing -- and taking lots and lots of Vitamin D! <g> (but Ivermectin would not help -- because everybody knows that "it's horse dewormer"!). :-) <g> :-) Carl Sagan also tells me that a far greater problem society will have moving forward -- is what to do about all of the agenda-driven AI bots and paid disinformants of the various Military-Industrial Complexes (foreign and domestic!) -- posting their agenda-driven lies and half-truths (basically 50% lies!) about various complex social issues in the future... I told Carl that he has nothing to worry about, basically, because some of us see through those ruses -- but Carl was not convinced... Oh well! :-) There is one point that Carl and I still agree on -- and that is that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"... I am still trying to persuade Carl that it was Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) who once said "“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes." -- but he claims that either the quote is misattributed or that someone else said it (he still can't make up his AI mind!)... <g> :-) <g>

hammon 3y ago

[dead]

poulsbohemian 3y ago

The point that gets overlooked in a lot of these conversations is that while my kids (and grandkids, and their kids…) may not die from climate change, their lives could (and I think will) be altered by it. So for example if you are in an area that is going to be under water (or at least all those underground sewer systems will be…) then what’s it going to cost your coastal city in property taxes to fix the problem? Can’t get your home insured in CA or FL any longer? What’s the cost to you then when a fire or hurricane wipes out your house? Massive investment needed in water systems? - more property tax. I suspect we will reach a point where the kinds of food available in our grocery stores is altered by all of this too. So maybe nobody in rich nations actually “dies” but that doesn’t mean they aren’t impacted in very serious, life-altering ways. I was reminded of this watching my garden this spring… things didn’t germinate until we had a freak day cool enough so the seeds could pop. Think food is expensive now, see what it’s like when temps rise and we’ve got to develop even more new varieties and growing techniques to accommodate.

xracy 3y ago

I think that this narrative (about kids dying from climate change) has likely come out of the responses that attempt to downplay climate change, but also, for what appears to be a hot take on this issue here... I don't think it's bad. We are an incredibly polarized society, and not even leastwise because we are spread across many different countries. There are so many ways that we are polarized. I think, that makes climate change the best thing that could be happening in terms of a unifying common evil. While it is human caused, it can be human solved. The fixing of it is something that could unify humanity. And the only thing we really need to do to get there, is to focus on how it is a common evil for all of our children. My only concern is that I don't actually know if we can unify/fix this in time to save our planet. They seem to think we can. I don't know if I'm that optimistic. The big change isn't actually one that I need to see from kids. It's one I need to see from the parents of those kids. Cause there is a controlling minority of this country that is throwing caution to the wind as if this is already solved. That's the real danger, to me. I think kids understand that better than pretty much all baby boomers I've talked to about this...