Climate cowardice
Forum rules
1.) No personal threats.
2.) No doxxing/revealing personal information.
3.) No spam.
4.) No circumventing press restrictions.
5.) No racism, sexism, homophobia, or derogatory posts.
1.) No personal threats.
2.) No doxxing/revealing personal information.
3.) No spam.
4.) No circumventing press restrictions.
5.) No racism, sexism, homophobia, or derogatory posts.
- Jamiet99uk
- Posts: 29921
- Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
- Location: Durham, UK
- Karma: 18700
- Contact:
Re: Climate cowardice
What if I wanted far fewer people to have children, in order to improve the chances of the human race overall?
Buzz buzz buzz buzz buzz.
-
- Posts: 3871
- Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
- Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
- Karma: 2633
- Contact:
Re: Climate cowardice
Then pushing the line that having children is immoral would be a deeply flawed way of going about it, as if you were successful you would create a future in which humanity was populated solely from families without morality and humanity will go to hell in a handcart in short order.
Besides which the human population is about to fall off a cliff soon anyway. It's a problem at least as big as climate change
Besides which the human population is about to fall off a cliff soon anyway. It's a problem at least as big as climate change
1
I eat cookies to improve my snacking experience
Re: Climate cowardice
You are making the rsther erroneous assumption that birth families are the only thing which influences a child's moral sense. Culture is deeper than just that.Octavious wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 11:42 pmThen pushing the line that having children is immoral would be a deeply flawed way of going about it, as if you were successful you would create a future in which humanity was populated solely from families without morality and humanity will go to hell in a handcart in short order.
Besides which the human population is about to fall off a cliff soon anyway. It's a problem at least as big as climate change
Also, you are making the massive assumption about success, if we can assume some unrealistic level of success, then we can also assume that society would remove children from those who choose to have them and foster them out to those who have proven thry are more responcible (although we already have a school system which cares for children a significant portion of the day, maybe just banning teachers from having families of their own would be enough).
Re: Climate cowardice
This is a fair and bakid point. But not as encouraging as you may think.
It sucks but taking your own life is often the best option left to a person. It sucks because that means they can only see suffering in their life and their brain can't see any other releaae from that suffering.
Now if you want to minimise suffering, then not having children is a sure way to do that. And it may be equivalent on a species wide scale to taking your own life, but people do that all the time.
So I don't see in principle why a 90 or 99% reduction in population wouldn't be managable (so that the next generation never exists to suffer). In fact there are ways in which it is more appealing rstionally to avoid that suffering than having millions of people lose hope and taking their own lives or a slow decay as economies grind to a halt. So i can see Jamies point, even if i have chosen to have children of my own.
- Jamiet99uk
- Posts: 29921
- Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
- Location: Durham, UK
- Karma: 18700
- Contact:
Re: Climate cowardice
Back to the main issue:
BBC News - World breaches key 1.5C warming mark for record number of days
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66857354
BBC News - World breaches key 1.5C warming mark for record number of days
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66857354
Buzz buzz buzz buzz buzz.
- Jamiet99uk
- Posts: 29921
- Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
- Location: Durham, UK
- Karma: 18700
- Contact:
Re: Climate cowardice
Interesting video discussing the issues, and in particular whether the general public are over or under reacting.
https://youtu.be/Gs-ed1CEokc?si=BqkD8wG62F-cK6nf
https://youtu.be/Gs-ed1CEokc?si=BqkD8wG62F-cK6nf
Re: Climate cowardice
There is nothing wrong with thinking this - acting on it is problematic.Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 7:39 pmWhat if I wanted far fewer people to have children, in order to improve the chances of the human race overall?
Re: Climate cowardice
This whole conversation was an interesting read of opinions. I am more aligned personally with what flash has been saying, but do respect the high levels of concern that Jamie has expressed.
To me, the key is actual economic and energy policies to promote infrastructure. Take California as an example - they have the 2030 targets for electric cars without the electric infrastructure to support it. California already has to purchase power from other states, so where is this extra power going to come from? Fossil fuels.
To me, the key is actual economic and energy policies to promote infrastructure. Take California as an example - they have the 2030 targets for electric cars without the electric infrastructure to support it. California already has to purchase power from other states, so where is this extra power going to come from? Fossil fuels.
1
Re: Climate cowardice
Not sure why you think this us problematic.worcej wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2023 1:19 pmThere is nothing wrong with thinking this - acting on it is problematic.Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 7:39 pmWhat if I wanted far fewer people to have children, in order to improve the chances of the human race overall?
People choose to not have children all the time. The current economic system almost guarentees it (selfish consumption driven life-styles where advertising Creates unhealthy aspirations and work culture demands soo much time that raising a family is prohibitive - or done by a paid employee)
Re: Climate cowardice
When I say “acting on it” I should have been more clear about establishing governmental policy to enforce population controls.orathaic wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2023 1:51 pmNot sure why you think this us problematic.worcej wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2023 1:19 pmThere is nothing wrong with thinking this - acting on it is problematic.Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 7:39 pmWhat if I wanted far fewer people to have children, in order to improve the chances of the human race overall?
People choose to not have children all the time. The current economic system almost guarentees it (selfish consumption driven life-styles where advertising Creates unhealthy aspirations and work culture demands soo much time that raising a family is prohibitive - or done by a paid employee)
If you don’t want to have kids, you do you. There are plenty of fundamentalist crazies that will make up for your lack of birthing…
Re: Climate cowardice
My biggest annoyance is the “energy credit” philosophy that truly doesn’t actually improve the GHG emissions on the planet - it just allows one place (California as an example) to boast about being green while simultaneously utilizing additional energy from another state, say mine (Idaho) that has increased their energy throughput by firing back up more fossil fuel power plants.
In my neck of the woods, there are a bunch of dumbasses pushing to remove dams because of the impacts on local salmon populations. And maybe this is just a mean opinion of my own, but fuck the salmon. I would much rather have clean, non fossil fuel energy over the fucking fish.
In my neck of the woods, there are a bunch of dumbasses pushing to remove dams because of the impacts on local salmon populations. And maybe this is just a mean opinion of my own, but fuck the salmon. I would much rather have clean, non fossil fuel energy over the fucking fish.
1
Re: Climate cowardice
It is not a "energy credit philosophy" it is a free markets philosophy.worcej wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2023 11:42 pmMy biggest annoyance is the “energy credit” philosophy that truly doesn’t actually improve the GHG emissions on the planet - it just allows one place (California as an example) to boast about being green while simultaneously utilizing additional energy from another state, say mine (Idaho) that has increased their energy throughput by firing back up more fossil fuel power plants.
In my neck of the woods, there are a bunch of dumbasses pushing to remove dams because of the impacts on local salmon populations. And maybe this is just a mean opinion of my own, but fuck the salmon. I would much rather have clean, non fossil fuel energy over the fucking fish.
Make everything into a market... Because vital things which humans rely on for survival are just fine to leave go through bubble and burst mechanisms...
But as fot the Salmon. Biodiversity is important.
Ecology (which sadly is seen as not including humans and economic study) teachs how everything is interconnected. Reintroduce wolves to national parks and the shapes of the rivers change (due to knock on effects, deer behaviour, trampling of long grasses, changes in other predators, and eventually beaver populations moving). And once you break them, they may be irrepairable (or more relevantly, it may take half a million years to the same level of complexity to re-emerge).
And sadly for us, humans are part of the ecosystem.
- Jamiet99uk
- Posts: 29921
- Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:42 pm
- Location: Durham, UK
- Karma: 18700
- Contact:
Re: Climate cowardice
Strongly agree. Carbon credits are a sham, and not a real solution to anything.worcej wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2023 11:42 pmMy biggest annoyance is the “energy credit” philosophy that truly doesn’t actually improve the GHG emissions on the planet - it just allows one place (California as an example) to boast about being green while simultaneously utilizing additional energy from another state, say mine (Idaho) that has increased their energy throughput by firing back up more fossil fuel power plants.
Buzz buzz buzz buzz buzz.
Re: Climate cowardice
I look at it as prioritizing - what’s more important, GHG emission control, or loss of natural salmon spawns?orathaic wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2023 3:28 pmIt is not a "energy credit philosophy" it is a free markets philosophy.worcej wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2023 11:42 pmMy biggest annoyance is the “energy credit” philosophy that truly doesn’t actually improve the GHG emissions on the planet - it just allows one place (California as an example) to boast about being green while simultaneously utilizing additional energy from another state, say mine (Idaho) that has increased their energy throughput by firing back up more fossil fuel power plants.
In my neck of the woods, there are a bunch of dumbasses pushing to remove dams because of the impacts on local salmon populations. And maybe this is just a mean opinion of my own, but fuck the salmon. I would much rather have clean, non fossil fuel energy over the fucking fish.
Make everything into a market... Because vital things which humans rely on for survival are just fine to leave go through bubble and burst mechanisms...
But as fot the Salmon. Biodiversity is important.
Ecology (which sadly is seen as not including humans and economic study) teachs how everything is interconnected. Reintroduce wolves to national parks and the shapes of the rivers change (due to knock on effects, deer behaviour, trampling of long grasses, changes in other predators, and eventually beaver populations moving). And once you break them, they may be irrepairable (or more relevantly, it may take half a million years to the same level of complexity to re-emerge).
And sadly for us, humans are part of the ecosystem.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 207 guests