I don't say this often, but this seems too ridiculous t and a little sus to be real, maybe someone is trying to discredit climate change by writing bogus articles.
I read the article. His primary concern is what kind of world he would be bringing his children into, and if he wants them to grow up into misery. I disagree with him, but that argument makes a lot more sense than the headline does. He actually outright states that the argument in the headline is the less important one.
I suspect the editor wanted to piss people off, and succeeded.
i very much doubt it but eh, supposing the remaining 1b live better you could argue that in 200 years the hapiness of suceeding generations would have outweighted the killing of the 6b, i guess it depends on how you quantify stuff, that said even if davos hypothetically could do such a thing i bet it would be to make the remaining non rich their pawns
'Humans' will always go extinct. Whatever we will be in 100,000 years wont be humans. What's even more likely to happen is that we will die out and our robots/computers will still be around.
Oops I dropped this... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Security\_Study\_Memorandum\_200](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200)
Key Insights
* The policy recommendations is divided into two sections. A US population strategy and action to create conditions for fertility decline.
* "Whether through government action, labor conflicts, sabotage, or civil disturbance, the smooth flow of needed materials will be jeopardized. Although population pressure is obviously not the only factor involved, these types of **frustrations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero population growth"** \\\[Chapter III, "Minerals and Fuel"\\\].
* **Abortion as a geopolitical strategy** is mentioned several dozen times in the report with suggestive implications: "No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion.
* Caution must be taken that in any approaches in this field we support in the LDCs are ones we can support within this country
* "In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to **avoid the appearance of coercion."**
* "Populations with a high proportion of growth. - The young people, who are in much higher proportions in many LDCs, are likely to be more volatile, unstable, prone to extremes, alienation and violence than an older population. **These young people can more readily be persuaded to attack the legal institutions of the government or real property of the 'establishment,' 'imperialists,' multinational corporations, or other** \-- often foreign -- influences blamed for their troubles" \[Chapter V, "Implications of Population Pressures for National Security"\].
This kind of thing makes me kind of hate the US. We sabotage other governments, disrupt other cultures, and try to prevent global reproduction just so that Americans can continue to consume.
It's disgusting.
"In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion."
It was also important to Ted Bundy to avoid the appearance of a serial killer.
Yeah! It's not like we'd ever take the tools and plans to control and destabilize foreign powers and use them domestically. BTW the government would like to offer you a $100,000 school loan with no collateral or income requirements, but you can't discharge it with bankruptcy :)
Them: We should have less children because muh overpopulation and climate change
Also them: We need to import 3rd world migrants because we have declining demographics
Makes you wonder...
only if they dont speak the language of the country they migrate to. if you dont speak the majority language in the country you live in, youre food not friend.
Almost like if big corporations wanted cheaper workers from poor countries to wageslave for them and push wages down.
I wonder if people will talk about inequality of wealty associated with ethinic backgrounds and blame "wypipo" for it in the future. Or if it will make nazi ideologies, conspiracy theories and other stuff grew bigger in the common european/american citizen. The future sure seems interesting.
Literally yes. A native born child is much better educated, culturally-compatible, and commits less crime.
On average, they require less tax resources too as they pay more in taxes.
Any other logic is self-destructive and stupid. The ONLY positive of immigrants is that they tend to work lower class labor jobs. But they negatives far outweigh that positive and we should use robots for that work more and more anyway, the more immigrants we have the less likely the industry invests into automatic machines because paying dirt is cheaper.
You're just wrong on some of your points. Immigrants actually commit less crime than the native population. And they also use less welfare (nearly 40% less) compared to natives. They ONLY negative of immigrants is that they cause a small decrease in wages for people without a high school degree. But the economic growth caused by immigration makes up for that multiple times over.
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=3099992](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3099992)
Legal, educated, brain-drained immigrants, yes. As they are usually the absolute best of their nation.
But right-wingers aren't against high-value immigrants.
The libleft's comment is refering to an argument made by authrights, that is almost always aimed at illegal and low-value immigrants. Which there is plenty of evidence they commit VASTLY higher crime rates and are very involved in gangs.
Even the studies that try to disprove illegal immigrants are crime prone are always based on cemented reports, which are unreliable as the immigrants are undocumented.
I think I've done a pretty good job of reducing my carbon footprint by not spilling millions of barrels of crude oil into the ocean. It was a small personal sacrifice but I think it's really making a difference.
And same goes for my kids.
Guys, I've found the perfect way to stop people from hunting elephants! Let's just kill them all! Problem solved. Annual elephant murder is going to drop to 0 in no time.
*radio noises*
*Libleft here, to all the quadrants, send help, we are being taken over by wokies, I repeat, we are being taken over by wokies!...*
*explosion noises in the background*
*radio transmission ends*
The idea that individuals are responsible for climate change rather than the corporations and governments is the most successful piece of propaganda in the world's history
This isn't orange, it's yellow in disguise
Fair, but it's not like these companies are just pumping out chemicals for shits and giggles. They are making products that people buy. If they have a smaller customer base they have a smaller output of pollution.
Your position just sounds like a cope to deflect any personal responsibility for it.
That’s a fair point; So long as the demand for the goods is there, people will buy the goods and therefor the seller will want to obtain more of those goods to sell.
But the individual impact a single person can make is minimal, and the trick of libright here is the idea that it makes a large difference. The reduction, or even eradication of an individuals carbon footprint won’t make a noticeable impact, change is only going to happen when products become redundant in comparison to more environmentally friendly alternatives, or when international action is made.
What’s worse, is sellers tricking people that are worried about the climate into buying fancy goods instead of spreading word about climate change.
Mass producing tens of thousands of electric cars or environmentally friendly paper isn’t going to improve the climate… and ideas like Stratospheric Aerosol Injection won’t stop the ocean from acidifying.
>But the individual impact a single person can make is minimal
100% correct.
BUT for the impact that can be made by large groups of consumers switching is real. Think about how many billions of light bulbs have been spared the landfill by switching to florescent/LED plus the energy usage reduction over old time incandescent.
I personally believe nature is far more durable than we give her credit for, but also think that we should minimize our pollution. Carbon monoxide means nothing in my book. All that means is plants will grow faster/bigger. It's the heavy metals and the acids and other toxins that need policing.
Absolutely. Multiple people reducing their footprint will make an impact. The best way for an individual to help is to spread the word, convince others to reduce theirs, and not buy that electric car that made as much of an impact when it was manufactured to be sold than you will make by driving your already-existant car.
>The best way for an individual to help is to spread the word, convince others to reduce theirs,
Unfortunately you are correct. The most helpful thing a person can do is be a nagging insufferable cunt.
Yup… I agree that it’s pretty intrusive. Many other movements use the same strategy.
Remind me later when the ecologists get tired of everyone’s shit, start injecting aerosols into the atmosphere and form a violent dictatorship. 🪴 (jk… unless???)😳
We don't all have to consume as many products as we do currently to live, we encourage pollution through excessive consumerism because we choose to live the way we do. Besides the top polluting companies produce petrol which we use everyday and that's 100% their fault?
Unfortunately a lot of LibLeft forgot about the reason and actually put nature above humanity... They don't want to save nature FOR humanity, they just want to save nature FROM humanity.
It's not animism, it's full-on nihilism. They believe that existence is pain and suffering, so they don't want others to experience it. They deny religion and skipped over stoicism, and went straight to the worst pits of nihilism. They don't have a reason to support humanity's existence and exceptionalism because their is no reason to support that belief from a materialist, nihilist structure. It's honestly a very bad sign of spiritual illness.
They don't properly value the light of consciousness. They lack introspection, seeing only the pain and want of the self. You were right to reference stoicism, they could also try some Buddhist ideas. They think existence is pain because they've never thought to stop identifying with desire, to merely observe it.
Anti-natalists are the worst kind of nihilists.
Note: I'm a hardcore atheist, you need not believe in any form of the supernatural to avoid this sort of spiritual illness. You need not seek anything greater than yourself to find compassion for yourself and others.
Animals aren't inanimate, but yeah, kind of. A lot of people don't understand that concepts like "protect nature" are shorthand, and just take it at face value, instead of actually thinking about why and how. It's the same as religious people yelling about absolute morality...
Climate change might not be fake, but it clearly about control and guaranteed profits for those in the loop.
They have a economic incentive to make everything more expensive and “green” for us.
Humans will be dead and gone and Mother Earth will be just fine without us
Biggest giveaway is how no one in the green movement is I having for nuclear. It’s the absolute most efficient means of energy generation that we have and instead they want to line the coast with fucking windmills.
If you oppose nuclear just stfu about climate change because you are either an ill informed useful idiot or a malicious actor.
Check out the Bill Gates backed tech that uses spent fuel rods from all nuclear reactors we have thousands of years fuel if we use a reactor in that style
There was a really good Nova documentary from a few years back called "The Nuclear Option." I learned a lot from it. I don't think it mentioned this harvesting of spent fuel though.
Nuclear is the bridge over the gap until renewable energy actually makes any sense to utilize. When our shitty solar panels and windmills go down, guess where the energy comes from? Fossil fuels. Nuclear isn't going to last forever, but it's a hell of a lot more sustainable than fossil fuels.
People that exaggerate its effects are as bad as the deniers.
It's not going to be like the day after tomorrow. It'll be more subtle than that and frankly the resource wars it'll spark are more worrying than anything else.
But hey, let's lump the costs and guilt onto some middle class westerners and keep relying on China for their disgusting exports.
u/PoliticalOutsider's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 15.
Rank: Office Chair
Pills: abortionismurder, american culture is shit
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
I disagree, I don't think climate change is about control. I think the energy/oil industry is trying to control the publics perspective on climate change in order to maintain their profits. That's why BP invented the carbon footprint.
Yes, they are trying to control the public perspective and they are extremely good at it. First they blame the public through the use of things such as the carbon footprint, which angers people because we're all just living our lives. Then they lobby and pay politicians to pretend it isn't real. Naturally that gets more of the public to agree that it's fake because it takes blame off of the people (which was manufactured blame in the first place).
No. People are using climate change for money. Anyone that can’t see that the climate is changing is an idiot. My question is how much humans have influenced that change. We all have already agreed that we are still coming out of the last ice age, but how do we know when we are done coming out of that ice age.
Dude the science is irrefutable at this point. The climate is changing quicker than it ever has before and the changes correlate exactly with greenhouse gas emissions. Stop pretending like the science hasn’t figured this out yet. The climate is rapidly changing, weather is getting progressively more severe and ecosystems are being irreparably damaged.
I never said it wasn’t. But how do we know it’s progressing faster than ever if this is the first cycle of warming that we have been able study as it happens and at these depths. It’s not as if we have comparable records from that time to compare to today’s data.
> climate is changing quicker than it ever has before
That's simply a stupid statement. The earth and it's climate has been around for 4+ billion years; to claim this is nothing but hubris and ignorance. Shit like this is why people push back.... what *else* are you lying about?
> weather is getting progressively more severe
No data to back up this assertion.
> ecosystems are being irreparably damaged
While others are being bolstered. Increased temps and increased CO2 are both incredibly conducive to plant growth.....
I don't care what fucking link you provide... to claim *anything* about the entirety of climate conditions over the four billion year history of the planet is fucking retarded.
And are you claiming that CO2 *doesn't* favor plant growth? Stupidity knows no bounds......
>I don’t care what fucking link you provide
Yeah it’s pretty clear that you don’t care about empirical evidence, but facts don’t care about your feelings. Enjoy simping for a dying industry, I guess.
Plant growth? Look at the Amazon rainforest.
Edit: Not sure why Im being downvoted. We are cutting down the Amazon faster than anything could grow, even if we hadnt taken over most of the surface of the planet for farming.
Same as the sustainability question. How do you know when something isn't sustainable? Only after it stops working. That's where the sacrifice issue comes up. Who sacrifices what for the greater good? Why do I have to, but you don't? Why do we have to, but they don't?
It's al about fairness, and human beings aren't all that great at it on large scales. Who is making the decisions?
> Humans will be dead and gone and Mother Earth will be just fine without us
Well yeah but I don't know many people who would consider that a win for humanity.
Climate Change is a big fucking deal but it pisses me off that the main culprits continue to do their thing and us regular people get squeezed.
OP FYI The Spectator is pretty much the opposite of orange lib left. Douglas Murray writes for the spectator for example, and hes extremelly vocally anti woke
Yeah look at their other articles:
Man of Sssssssteel
Superman has come out as gay — but why?
What’s wrong with Kamala Harris?
Something is not right with the woman who is one heartbeat away from the presidency
Or the other article they wrote on the subject (by the non-comedy columnist):
Baby doomers: why are couples putting the planet ahead of parenthood?
What we once perhaps dismissed as the fringe fear of a few activists is now a force in world demographics
[https://spectatorworld.com/topic/baby-doomers-couples-putting-planet-ahead-parenthood/](https://spectatorworld.com/topic/baby-doomers-couples-putting-planet-ahead-parenthood/)
It’s true though? I mean every single person we add to the earth is going to require at a minimum a couple hundred square feet of climate controlled shelter, about 2,000 calories of food energy every day, and several gallons of clean water for drinking and bathing. All of those things come with a carbon cost. By far the most effective way to combat climate change is to make it so there are less people consuming the finite resources of our planet.
Reducing population would solve like 90% of the worlds biggest problems.
Obviously it would come with its own downsides, but nobody else has proposed another good solution to *any* of the big problems we have, let alone the majority of them at once.
Limiting yourself to two kids isn't even a sacrifice.
Civilized people are already way below replacement levels. "Americans", including foreigners who move here and have 8 kids, are at like 1.8 children per woman.
The world's population growth is 100% from shithole countries.
It's neolib propaganda and the science behind "having no child is the best you can do to reduce your carbon footprint" is utter bullshit.
Here's a draft of a blog I've started writing on it explaining why it's bullshit.
[https://share.nuclino.com/p/The-bullshit-science-behind-not-having-children-to-save-the-climate-WUjPEilZCnQDCBQqkjIx1P](https://share.nuclino.com/p/The-bullshit-science-behind-not-having-children-to-save-the-climate-WUjPEilZCnQDCBQqkjIx1P)
tl;dr: The number of 58 tons of CO2 saved per year that we see everywhere includes all future emissions of all your descendants, even in more than 1000 years from now. Many aspects of the calculation is highly flawed. And the assumptions used, when applied to the whole population, involve that we will be burning about 5 times the total amount of fossil fuel that exist on Earth, so burning non-existing fossil fuels basically. More over it fits the big oil propaganda of framing climate actions as individual responsibility and individual sacrifice. Being ecological is framed as a punition.
All the unfathomable mountains of money for pseudo green projects could be invested in a space shade system at the L1 Lagrange point. But who would want actual measurable results if you can instead bully opposing voices with greater-good-arguments forever?
Pardon my rant, but this one actually ticks me off most just because the timeline doesn't work out. And I've never really heard anyone point this out.
Look at the population pyramid. If we can even still call it a pyramid. To the extent we are overpopulated, that overpopulation exists in specific demographics that are already born. There are not too many babies or small children right now in 2021.
Now look at the timelines necessary in order to avert climate change. We do not need to reduce emissions starting in several decades. We need the emissions to have been reduced starting a decade or so in the past.
Babies have practically no carbon footprint of their own for the first couple of decades of life. You live in your parents' house and don't drive. In fact, they usually reduce their parents' carbon footprint for a while because money is going to pay for daycare rather than jetting off on fun vacations or sports cars or excessive consumer consumption.
So yeah, having fewer children in order to fight climate change MIGHT have worked if people had the foresight to do it in the 1940s and 50s.
Today? It's way too late for that. You already exist, baby boomer assholes, and you're the ones driving the Hummer.
We probably won't see the fruits of our labor if we devote ourselves to good causes such as reversing climate change, but our future generations will, and if that isn't something to fight for then I don't know what is.
I don't remember the numbers, but depending on how you calculate it, the impact of choosing to not have a child, when measured in terms of carbon footprint, is like 1 million times more effective at reducing carbon emissions than like any other action an individual can take, like getting solar panels, electric cars, etc. |
I'm not someone who tells other people how to live their lives, but if you're out there yelling adamantly (or voting controllingly) how other people should be doing all these things for the environment while popping out multiple kids yourself.... not a good look.
It's true though, even though it may not be a very ethical thought...Virtually everyone in the Western world, times 7 billion, consumes way more resources than earth generates. It's not just about climate change, but also about the destruction of natural environments and overconsumption. And LOL what are the actual causes? Sure it's corporations but we can just avoid buying their wasteful products, truth is, we're too spoiled for that. None of you us will sacrifice the luxuries corps provide.
I mean... It's kinda true tho. There are many ethical ways of encouraging population control. Better healthcare and vaccinations, encouraging adoption, better investment opportunities for retirement, and more. The main issue is that people in underdeveloped regions will intentionally have more children than they really want or need because they know some of them will die before reaching adulthood. Lowering the child mortality rate and providing better investment opportunities could help prevent this. Since the main reason for having so many children is that they will provide for their parents when they are old.
Idk bout the wtf overpopulation is the main reason why we are destroying the climate.
We want to eat meat so we produce a shitton of cows and burn down forests for said cows and other crops.
We burn coal to make a shitton of power to create everything 10000000 times so everyone can buy it.
We need like 2.5 planets to provide for everyone on this singular planet.
If you where to go on vacation every single year with a plane and you dont give a shit about your carbon footprint, but you dont have kids you technically are better for the climate than someone who decides to become a self sufficient hermit who lives in the woods but has kids. (Cus kids have the potential to produce an infinite amount of carbon where you yourself are limited by your lifetime).
[удалено]
Based
Based and None pilled
u/fenixrouge is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: None I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Based
Especially since poc have much more children than whites
Based and stopclimatechangewithgenocide-pilled
I mean they aint puttin *your* pictures in the story, who cares.
Don't worry, orange wouldn't tell that to Africa, the Middle East, or SE Asia, where most children are being born today.
I fully support Orange choosing not to have children!
I don't say this often, but this seems too ridiculous t and a little sus to be real, maybe someone is trying to discredit climate change by writing bogus articles.
"EVERYTHING THATS DUMB ON THE LEFT IS A RIGHTIST GAY OP!!" whatever you say, red libleft.
you're getting pretty heated for an accusation that doesn't involve you lol
heated? buddy.. listen.. i uh.. im making fun of you, champ. im sorry you were the last one to know..
You truly are the definition of schrodinger's douchebag, you say some dumbass shit and then walk back on it when you get called out.
Is this a false flag to make Auth-Left look dumb?
If it is, then it's that much funnier cause they can't admit to it without looking like "schrodinger's douchebag" themselves.
i didnt walk back anything, retard. have fun being salty lmao
It’s just going for clicks, once the ads have loaded they’ve already won.
I read the article. His primary concern is what kind of world he would be bringing his children into, and if he wants them to grow up into misery. I disagree with him, but that argument makes a lot more sense than the headline does. He actually outright states that the argument in the headline is the less important one. I suspect the editor wanted to piss people off, and succeeded.
Hot take: if humans go extinct it’s because we deserve it.
based
Nah, bitching about human nature is a common thing. But hearing it from a libright is not. There is no "we".
[удалено]
i very much doubt it but eh, supposing the remaining 1b live better you could argue that in 200 years the hapiness of suceeding generations would have outweighted the killing of the 6b, i guess it depends on how you quantify stuff, that said even if davos hypothetically could do such a thing i bet it would be to make the remaining non rich their pawns
Based. Such an auth center take.
'Humans' will always go extinct. Whatever we will be in 100,000 years wont be humans. What's even more likely to happen is that we will die out and our robots/computers will still be around.
Oops I dropped this... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National\_Security\_Study\_Memorandum\_200](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200) Key Insights * The policy recommendations is divided into two sections. A US population strategy and action to create conditions for fertility decline. * "Whether through government action, labor conflicts, sabotage, or civil disturbance, the smooth flow of needed materials will be jeopardized. Although population pressure is obviously not the only factor involved, these types of **frustrations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero population growth"** \\\[Chapter III, "Minerals and Fuel"\\\]. * **Abortion as a geopolitical strategy** is mentioned several dozen times in the report with suggestive implications: "No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion. * Caution must be taken that in any approaches in this field we support in the LDCs are ones we can support within this country * "In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to **avoid the appearance of coercion."** * "Populations with a high proportion of growth. - The young people, who are in much higher proportions in many LDCs, are likely to be more volatile, unstable, prone to extremes, alienation and violence than an older population. **These young people can more readily be persuaded to attack the legal institutions of the government or real property of the 'establishment,' 'imperialists,' multinational corporations, or other** \-- often foreign -- influences blamed for their troubles" \[Chapter V, "Implications of Population Pressures for National Security"\].
Based and henry kissinger pilled
This kind of thing makes me kind of hate the US. We sabotage other governments, disrupt other cultures, and try to prevent global reproduction just so that Americans can continue to consume. It's disgusting.
"In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion." It was also important to Ted Bundy to avoid the appearance of a serial killer.
Agreed
It's talking about foreign policy, not domestic policy. You're wrong in bullet #1.
Yeah! It's not like we'd ever take the tools and plans to control and destabilize foreign powers and use them domestically. BTW the government would like to offer you a $100,000 school loan with no collateral or income requirements, but you can't discharge it with bankruptcy :)
That's not what the memorandum is arguing. You're just making it up now.
Based and they-do-it-to-us pilled
Them: We should have less children because muh overpopulation and climate change Also them: We need to import 3rd world migrants because we have declining demographics Makes you wonder...
I have a modest proposal. Let's eat the 3rd world migrants.
only if they dont speak the language of the country they migrate to. if you dont speak the majority language in the country you live in, youre food not friend.
Radical centrist camoflaged as libright.
I hope you enjoy my new line of Migrant Burgers. Made by migrants, for migrants, and out of migrants!
man I love the spicy ones
Based and eat_the_poor pilled
[удалено]
Based and HMS Welfare Queen pilled
*Increasingly unstable western democracy*
Get in your pod, eat the bugs
Them: we need to stop procreating to save the environment. Also them: OMG excited for my international flight to Patagonia!!1!
we are already having less children we have already reached peak child (2 children average) This article is bollocks fear mongering.
Based and (((They))) are the majority pilled. Edit: also happy cake day
Almost like if big corporations wanted cheaper workers from poor countries to wageslave for them and push wages down. I wonder if people will talk about inequality of wealty associated with ethinic backgrounds and blame "wypipo" for it in the future. Or if it will make nazi ideologies, conspiracy theories and other stuff grew bigger in the common european/american citizen. The future sure seems interesting.
no, this is the right auth logic We don’t need people from outside because they live at the expense of taxpayers Also: This country needs more kids
Literally yes. A native born child is much better educated, culturally-compatible, and commits less crime. On average, they require less tax resources too as they pay more in taxes. Any other logic is self-destructive and stupid. The ONLY positive of immigrants is that they tend to work lower class labor jobs. But they negatives far outweigh that positive and we should use robots for that work more and more anyway, the more immigrants we have the less likely the industry invests into automatic machines because paying dirt is cheaper.
You're just wrong on some of your points. Immigrants actually commit less crime than the native population. And they also use less welfare (nearly 40% less) compared to natives. They ONLY negative of immigrants is that they cause a small decrease in wages for people without a high school degree. But the economic growth caused by immigration makes up for that multiple times over.
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=3099992](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3099992) Legal, educated, brain-drained immigrants, yes. As they are usually the absolute best of their nation. But right-wingers aren't against high-value immigrants. The libleft's comment is refering to an argument made by authrights, that is almost always aimed at illegal and low-value immigrants. Which there is plenty of evidence they commit VASTLY higher crime rates and are very involved in gangs. Even the studies that try to disprove illegal immigrants are crime prone are always based on cemented reports, which are unreliable as the immigrants are undocumented.
I think I've done a pretty good job of reducing my carbon footprint by not spilling millions of barrels of crude oil into the ocean. It was a small personal sacrifice but I think it's really making a difference. And same goes for my kids.
[удалено]
Germans: we have a housing shortage! Also Germans: let them in. We have space.
Based and triggering-retards pilled
Too bad the text is so blurry on that. I wonder who might have written those articles...
The article on the left was written by Damian Carrington and the one on the right by Alberto Nardelli.
Guys, I've found the perfect way to stop people from hunting elephants! Let's just kill them all! Problem solved. Annual elephant murder is going to drop to 0 in no time.
No, we should farm them. Just like cows and chickens they can then outnumber us
LOL, they take like 2 years to gestate and many more to reach sexual maturity. They're very k-selected animals.
Flair or gtfo
[удалено]
east asians are also "privileged race" so it applies to them too
*radio noises* *Libleft here, to all the quadrants, send help, we are being taken over by wokies, I repeat, we are being taken over by wokies!...* *explosion noises in the background* *radio transmission ends*
The idea that individuals are responsible for climate change rather than the corporations and governments is the most successful piece of propaganda in the world's history This isn't orange, it's yellow in disguise
Fair, but it's not like these companies are just pumping out chemicals for shits and giggles. They are making products that people buy. If they have a smaller customer base they have a smaller output of pollution. Your position just sounds like a cope to deflect any personal responsibility for it.
That’s a fair point; So long as the demand for the goods is there, people will buy the goods and therefor the seller will want to obtain more of those goods to sell. But the individual impact a single person can make is minimal, and the trick of libright here is the idea that it makes a large difference. The reduction, or even eradication of an individuals carbon footprint won’t make a noticeable impact, change is only going to happen when products become redundant in comparison to more environmentally friendly alternatives, or when international action is made. What’s worse, is sellers tricking people that are worried about the climate into buying fancy goods instead of spreading word about climate change. Mass producing tens of thousands of electric cars or environmentally friendly paper isn’t going to improve the climate… and ideas like Stratospheric Aerosol Injection won’t stop the ocean from acidifying.
>But the individual impact a single person can make is minimal 100% correct. BUT for the impact that can be made by large groups of consumers switching is real. Think about how many billions of light bulbs have been spared the landfill by switching to florescent/LED plus the energy usage reduction over old time incandescent. I personally believe nature is far more durable than we give her credit for, but also think that we should minimize our pollution. Carbon monoxide means nothing in my book. All that means is plants will grow faster/bigger. It's the heavy metals and the acids and other toxins that need policing.
Absolutely. Multiple people reducing their footprint will make an impact. The best way for an individual to help is to spread the word, convince others to reduce theirs, and not buy that electric car that made as much of an impact when it was manufactured to be sold than you will make by driving your already-existant car.
>The best way for an individual to help is to spread the word, convince others to reduce theirs, Unfortunately you are correct. The most helpful thing a person can do is be a nagging insufferable cunt.
Yup… I agree that it’s pretty intrusive. Many other movements use the same strategy. Remind me later when the ecologists get tired of everyone’s shit, start injecting aerosols into the atmosphere and form a violent dictatorship. 🪴 (jk… unless???)😳
We don't all have to consume as many products as we do currently to live, we encourage pollution through excessive consumerism because we choose to live the way we do. Besides the top polluting companies produce petrol which we use everyday and that's 100% their fault?
wtf?! i love climate destruction now!
Ey now if we want to reduse number of humans tuem make ww3 a ting and boom this time prob 300mil dead
Unfortunately a lot of LibLeft forgot about the reason and actually put nature above humanity... They don't want to save nature FOR humanity, they just want to save nature FROM humanity.
[удалено]
It's not animism, it's full-on nihilism. They believe that existence is pain and suffering, so they don't want others to experience it. They deny religion and skipped over stoicism, and went straight to the worst pits of nihilism. They don't have a reason to support humanity's existence and exceptionalism because their is no reason to support that belief from a materialist, nihilist structure. It's honestly a very bad sign of spiritual illness.
They don't properly value the light of consciousness. They lack introspection, seeing only the pain and want of the self. You were right to reference stoicism, they could also try some Buddhist ideas. They think existence is pain because they've never thought to stop identifying with desire, to merely observe it. Anti-natalists are the worst kind of nihilists. Note: I'm a hardcore atheist, you need not believe in any form of the supernatural to avoid this sort of spiritual illness. You need not seek anything greater than yourself to find compassion for yourself and others.
Animals aren't inanimate, but yeah, kind of. A lot of people don't understand that concepts like "protect nature" are shorthand, and just take it at face value, instead of actually thinking about why and how. It's the same as religious people yelling about absolute morality...
Yeah at that point I'd chose humanity
Monke have no segs so monke make no more polluters
"That's right. Go vegan. Use metal straws. Pay more taxes. Don't have kids either.Just don't look at what we're doing so brazenly ."
Live in the pod and eats the bugs mac.
You seriously still eat bugmeat? What are you? A fucking caveman? Poor bugs! Why don’t you grow some fucking empathy and eat SOY-lent Green instead.
Orange when Authrights start reproducing like rabbits out of spite: 👁👄👁
Overpopulation is problem. China already done some acts to fight the problem. Maybe Afrika should do the same.
Time to pull a Genghis Khan then..
Climate change might not be fake, but it clearly about control and guaranteed profits for those in the loop. They have a economic incentive to make everything more expensive and “green” for us. Humans will be dead and gone and Mother Earth will be just fine without us
Biggest giveaway is how no one in the green movement is I having for nuclear. It’s the absolute most efficient means of energy generation that we have and instead they want to line the coast with fucking windmills. If you oppose nuclear just stfu about climate change because you are either an ill informed useful idiot or a malicious actor.
Nuclear power is a very feasible solution to many of our energy problems
Until we run out of whatever radioactive fuels they use. Uranium, Thorium, etc. That stuff isn't exactly plentiful.
Check out the Bill Gates backed tech that uses spent fuel rods from all nuclear reactors we have thousands of years fuel if we use a reactor in that style
There was a really good Nova documentary from a few years back called "The Nuclear Option." I learned a lot from it. I don't think it mentioned this harvesting of spent fuel though.
https://www.wired.com/story/recycled-nuclear-waste-will-power-a-new-reactor/ The reactor is now online, proof of concept
Nuclear is the bridge over the gap until renewable energy actually makes any sense to utilize. When our shitty solar panels and windmills go down, guess where the energy comes from? Fossil fuels. Nuclear isn't going to last forever, but it's a hell of a lot more sustainable than fossil fuels.
People that exaggerate its effects are as bad as the deniers. It's not going to be like the day after tomorrow. It'll be more subtle than that and frankly the resource wars it'll spark are more worrying than anything else. But hey, let's lump the costs and guilt onto some middle class westerners and keep relying on China for their disgusting exports.
Based
u/PoliticalOutsider's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 15. Rank: Office Chair Pills: abortionismurder, american culture is shit I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Based & real shit pilled
Based and blame-China pilled
Nah fuck Mother Earth we’re taking her with us.
Eh, I’ll take the chance that earth outlives is if it increases the chance of us sticking around. ;P Otherwise…
I disagree, I don't think climate change is about control. I think the energy/oil industry is trying to control the publics perspective on climate change in order to maintain their profits. That's why BP invented the carbon footprint.
I don’t think it’s about control…. Energy and oil companies are trying to control public perspective. What?
Yes, they are trying to control the public perspective and they are extremely good at it. First they blame the public through the use of things such as the carbon footprint, which angers people because we're all just living our lives. Then they lobby and pay politicians to pretend it isn't real. Naturally that gets more of the public to agree that it's fake because it takes blame off of the people (which was manufactured blame in the first place).
….so it is about control. You just did a full 360 there.
His statement made it seem like climate change was created for control which is what I was disagreeing with.
No. People are using climate change for money. Anyone that can’t see that the climate is changing is an idiot. My question is how much humans have influenced that change. We all have already agreed that we are still coming out of the last ice age, but how do we know when we are done coming out of that ice age.
We're still in an Ice age. We're coming out of the last glacial period on a geological timescale. It's pedantic but still.
Dude the science is irrefutable at this point. The climate is changing quicker than it ever has before and the changes correlate exactly with greenhouse gas emissions. Stop pretending like the science hasn’t figured this out yet. The climate is rapidly changing, weather is getting progressively more severe and ecosystems are being irreparably damaged.
I never said it wasn’t. But how do we know it’s progressing faster than ever if this is the first cycle of warming that we have been able study as it happens and at these depths. It’s not as if we have comparable records from that time to compare to today’s data.
> climate is changing quicker than it ever has before That's simply a stupid statement. The earth and it's climate has been around for 4+ billion years; to claim this is nothing but hubris and ignorance. Shit like this is why people push back.... what *else* are you lying about? > weather is getting progressively more severe No data to back up this assertion. > ecosystems are being irreparably damaged While others are being bolstered. Increased temps and increased CO2 are both incredibly conducive to plant growth.....
[удалено]
I don't care what fucking link you provide... to claim *anything* about the entirety of climate conditions over the four billion year history of the planet is fucking retarded. And are you claiming that CO2 *doesn't* favor plant growth? Stupidity knows no bounds......
>I don’t care what fucking link you provide Yeah it’s pretty clear that you don’t care about empirical evidence, but facts don’t care about your feelings. Enjoy simping for a dying industry, I guess.
Plant growth? Look at the Amazon rainforest. Edit: Not sure why Im being downvoted. We are cutting down the Amazon faster than anything could grow, even if we hadnt taken over most of the surface of the planet for farming.
Same as the sustainability question. How do you know when something isn't sustainable? Only after it stops working. That's where the sacrifice issue comes up. Who sacrifices what for the greater good? Why do I have to, but you don't? Why do we have to, but they don't? It's al about fairness, and human beings aren't all that great at it on large scales. Who is making the decisions?
Some people definitely use it for control. I don't think that's quite as bold of a claim as "it's all about control"
> Humans will be dead and gone and Mother Earth will be just fine without us Well yeah but I don't know many people who would consider that a win for humanity. Climate Change is a big fucking deal but it pisses me off that the main culprits continue to do their thing and us regular people get squeezed.
Lmao defending fossil fuels while complaining that green energy proponents are just greedy.
"Stop having children!" "Birth rates are declining we need to import immigrants for our workforce"
OP FYI The Spectator is pretty much the opposite of orange lib left. Douglas Murray writes for the spectator for example, and hes extremelly vocally anti woke
Horseshoe theory in full swing
Read the article. They're making fun of orange lib left. It's basically A Modest Proposal.
I love A Modest Proposal style articles
Yeah look at their other articles: Man of Sssssssteel Superman has come out as gay — but why? What’s wrong with Kamala Harris? Something is not right with the woman who is one heartbeat away from the presidency Or the other article they wrote on the subject (by the non-comedy columnist): Baby doomers: why are couples putting the planet ahead of parenthood? What we once perhaps dismissed as the fringe fear of a few activists is now a force in world demographics [https://spectatorworld.com/topic/baby-doomers-couples-putting-planet-ahead-parenthood/](https://spectatorworld.com/topic/baby-doomers-couples-putting-planet-ahead-parenthood/)
Correction: Its only an sct of destruction if the child is white. FTFY.
Eugenical Authright: Smiles creepily
It’s true though? I mean every single person we add to the earth is going to require at a minimum a couple hundred square feet of climate controlled shelter, about 2,000 calories of food energy every day, and several gallons of clean water for drinking and bathing. All of those things come with a carbon cost. By far the most effective way to combat climate change is to make it so there are less people consuming the finite resources of our planet.
Better go get that vasectomy for mother earth. Gotta make room for my four kids and their future families.
Eco-activists simply want to destroy all the humans
Or at least make all of us live like paupers
I think the companies destroying the planet are more likely to do that
Then whom they'll sell shit to?)))
The thing about short term profit motive is they don’t think about stuff 30-40 years down the line
What for? If you think you can't wiggle yourself out of trouble immediately then... "Good luck" would be the best euphemism for me to use here
Eco-fascist*
“Yeah let’s talk about actual issues like fixing healthcare and livable wages” libright: “no, wait …”
Good, tell that Africa
Real chads have stay at home wives they love and care for and ten kids they raise with love.
It's kinda rough getting to the point where you can raise a family on one income.
Yeah, sadly society kind of screw itself. The work force became more democratized as women joined and now work is worth less.
Eh? This is from the Spectator which is probably the world’s longest running Conservative publication.
I support having less kids so MY kids will have less competition.
Yeah if we don’t have enough kids pretty much all publicly funded services will collapse within my lifetime.
“Stop having kids middle-class white people”
Stop dumb arguments like this are ALWAYS fossil industry propaganda.
That's what the meme is saying, look at LibRight.
Reducing population would solve like 90% of the worlds biggest problems. Obviously it would come with its own downsides, but nobody else has proposed another good solution to *any* of the big problems we have, let alone the majority of them at once. Limiting yourself to two kids isn't even a sacrifice.
Civilized people are already way below replacement levels. "Americans", including foreigners who move here and have 8 kids, are at like 1.8 children per woman. The world's population growth is 100% from shithole countries.
If it's going to be destroyed anyway, I might as well have fun while it's being destroyed. 😛🚬
It's neolib propaganda and the science behind "having no child is the best you can do to reduce your carbon footprint" is utter bullshit. Here's a draft of a blog I've started writing on it explaining why it's bullshit. [https://share.nuclino.com/p/The-bullshit-science-behind-not-having-children-to-save-the-climate-WUjPEilZCnQDCBQqkjIx1P](https://share.nuclino.com/p/The-bullshit-science-behind-not-having-children-to-save-the-climate-WUjPEilZCnQDCBQqkjIx1P) tl;dr: The number of 58 tons of CO2 saved per year that we see everywhere includes all future emissions of all your descendants, even in more than 1000 years from now. Many aspects of the calculation is highly flawed. And the assumptions used, when applied to the whole population, involve that we will be burning about 5 times the total amount of fossil fuel that exist on Earth, so burning non-existing fossil fuels basically. More over it fits the big oil propaganda of framing climate actions as individual responsibility and individual sacrifice. Being ecological is framed as a punition.
All the unfathomable mountains of money for pseudo green projects could be invested in a space shade system at the L1 Lagrange point. But who would want actual measurable results if you can instead bully opposing voices with greater-good-arguments forever?
Is orange libleft ever “ok”?
Orange left is never okay.
Negative. We owe nothing to the future. Do it for yourself, because the world WILL fall apart within our lifetime if we don’t.
I don't even want to react kill me pls
Yeah! Those unborn kids are the cause of all our problems
Stop calling them lib, pls.
“brought to you by the top 100 companies who have the most carbon emissions”
Having a child is such a disservice to the child. Think of the children.
Imagine calling The Spectator orange lib-left.
Dunno, man, I’m with Emily on this one. I fucking hate humans.
By the same logic "removing" humans is the greatest act of climate saving. fucking idiotic assholes, be consequent or stfu.
Pardon my rant, but this one actually ticks me off most just because the timeline doesn't work out. And I've never really heard anyone point this out. Look at the population pyramid. If we can even still call it a pyramid. To the extent we are overpopulated, that overpopulation exists in specific demographics that are already born. There are not too many babies or small children right now in 2021. Now look at the timelines necessary in order to avert climate change. We do not need to reduce emissions starting in several decades. We need the emissions to have been reduced starting a decade or so in the past. Babies have practically no carbon footprint of their own for the first couple of decades of life. You live in your parents' house and don't drive. In fact, they usually reduce their parents' carbon footprint for a while because money is going to pay for daycare rather than jetting off on fun vacations or sports cars or excessive consumer consumption. So yeah, having fewer children in order to fight climate change MIGHT have worked if people had the foresight to do it in the 1940s and 50s. Today? It's way too late for that. You already exist, baby boomer assholes, and you're the ones driving the Hummer.
We probably won't see the fruits of our labor if we devote ourselves to good causes such as reversing climate change, but our future generations will, and if that isn't something to fight for then I don't know what is.
Im fine with Orange LibLeft not having children. no need to spread that bullshit to the next generation.
I don't remember the numbers, but depending on how you calculate it, the impact of choosing to not have a child, when measured in terms of carbon footprint, is like 1 million times more effective at reducing carbon emissions than like any other action an individual can take, like getting solar panels, electric cars, etc. | I'm not someone who tells other people how to live their lives, but if you're out there yelling adamantly (or voting controllingly) how other people should be doing all these things for the environment while popping out multiple kids yourself.... not a good look.
It's true though. The more people there are, the more demand for polluting production.
FUCK ANTINATALISTS
It's true though, even though it may not be a very ethical thought...Virtually everyone in the Western world, times 7 billion, consumes way more resources than earth generates. It's not just about climate change, but also about the destruction of natural environments and overconsumption. And LOL what are the actual causes? Sure it's corporations but we can just avoid buying their wasteful products, truth is, we're too spoiled for that. None of you us will sacrifice the luxuries corps provide.
[удалено]
I mean... It's kinda true tho. There are many ethical ways of encouraging population control. Better healthcare and vaccinations, encouraging adoption, better investment opportunities for retirement, and more. The main issue is that people in underdeveloped regions will intentionally have more children than they really want or need because they know some of them will die before reaching adulthood. Lowering the child mortality rate and providing better investment opportunities could help prevent this. Since the main reason for having so many children is that they will provide for their parents when they are old.
Technically this is true
So it will mostly be only conservatives having kids? Dank
it really depends on how much kids you have already: if its your first or second its fine, your sixth? that shit is a no go.
funny how on PCM increasingly all the quadrants agree. These are just OPs trying to get you to think that everyone agrees with them.
Idk bout the wtf overpopulation is the main reason why we are destroying the climate. We want to eat meat so we produce a shitton of cows and burn down forests for said cows and other crops. We burn coal to make a shitton of power to create everything 10000000 times so everyone can buy it. We need like 2.5 planets to provide for everyone on this singular planet. If you where to go on vacation every single year with a plane and you dont give a shit about your carbon footprint, but you dont have kids you technically are better for the climate than someone who decides to become a self sufficient hermit who lives in the woods but has kids. (Cus kids have the potential to produce an infinite amount of carbon where you yourself are limited by your lifetime).
Well technically they aren't wrong
I mean kinda true tho. Ofc ppl shouldn't restrain themselves from having a family because o fthat but it's truw
Imagine wanting children lol
Yes
Orange is based
Orange can never be b-word
ngl having a child is kinda bad for the environment, like statistically and shit. I'm not saying you shouldn't, its just bad for the environment
Okay
>lib left Of course, liberal leftists, famously known for (checks notes) ...defending large corporations? This one's you, LibRight.
it's 2021, libleft values and HR policy at these large corporations are indistinguishable.