3 ms·
If you’re in a developed nation, and unless you expect the earth to go through an irreversible Venus syndrome in the next century, I don’t see how this argument
by fastneutron 3y ago
If you’re in a developed nation, and unless you expect the earth to go through an irreversible Venus syndrome in the next century, I don’t see how this argument is anything more than a fig leaf for more fundamental social ailments. What would you say to someone in 700 AD, for whom the next 1000 years were more likely to be objectively worse in terms of quality of life than the next 1000, even accounting for what climate change is expected, intervention notwithstanding.
The costs of childcare, housing and education have exploded, and even establishing the relationship needed to do the deed in the first place is arguably harder than it s been. That sucks and there’s little any individual can do about it, despite the rhetoric blaming it on the generations most likely to be impacted by it. Climate is a convenient scapegoat to deflect blame, but we were never to blame in the first place.
- themacguffinman 3y ago> What would you say to someone in 700 AD, for whom the next 1000 years were more likely to be objectively worse in terms of quality of life than the next 1000 Not OP, but I would probably say something like "don't have kids, it's morally irresponsible to bring children into a world where they will have to deal with conditions likely worse and far more barbaric than climate change which causes immense suffering in the future". Then I'd quickly duck out before they reported me for being a witch.
- ffhhttt 3y agoThey didn’t burn that many witches back in those days, it was more of a renaissance* and reformation thing. *Romans really liked executing/punishing people for witchcraft too compared with medieval Christians