The old cliche is that the future belongs to those that have babies. That won’t be those quoted in the LA Times story. This is a self-correcting problem.
The problem with "progressives" is that they are not progressive at all. They are just hedonistic, nihilistic, virtue signaling folks who couldn't care less about what happens after they die.
I was always worried about the environment, but I could also understand that me not having children isn't going to fix anything. Just like you said, if educated people stop having kids then they surrender the future to the uneducated.
So why do they do that? Because they couldn't care less about the future, and would rather just virtue signal about saving the planet by not having kids, while actually they don't want any as it's going to mess up their comfy hedonistic lives. I get it, I am naturally hedonistic myself.
It says that these people know more about climate change than most and then quotes one of them saying: ""I don't want them to grow up and have to leave their home because of sea level rise. " Wow. Yes, you had better run from a rise of 2 to 3 mm year! Scary stuff. How are these informed people so gullible?
The more aggressive side of the argument you lay out I also like: not having kids because of the future impact risk of climate change suggests a logic that would entail no generation ever having had kids. Every time (globally and, sans some narrow war situation, in every country) before now was a worse outlook for having kids.
If one thinks it’s unethical to have kids now, and believes that is logically founded and broadly applicable, how dare anyone have brought children into the world of 1700. Or 1800. Or 1930!?
It certainly can be if you aren't living by your religious values. My cheating, wife beating Uncle went to church religiously to "show" how pious a family they were, while my cousin hasn't darkened a church doorway since her falling out with Catholicism yet is a kind woman who lives by the word of Christ.
It's always a red flag when people loudly proclaim how wonderful they are, whether by wearing religious symbols and shaming others or being an out and proud climate warrior. I think that's why these "anti-racists" like Trudeou keep getting caught in blackface, and the gay bashing evangelican that later gets caught in a park restroom with a dick in his mouth is so common as to almost be cliche.
I don't blame them. When my parents were born the world was a much better place and didn't face the horrors of climate change that prospective parents face today. The only problems in the late 1930's were the great depression, Hitler's aggression in Europe, Jim Crow and segregation...
The old cliche is that the future belongs to those that have babies. That won’t be those quoted in the LA Times story. This is a self-correcting problem.
The problem with "progressives" is that they are not progressive at all. They are just hedonistic, nihilistic, virtue signaling folks who couldn't care less about what happens after they die.
I was always worried about the environment, but I could also understand that me not having children isn't going to fix anything. Just like you said, if educated people stop having kids then they surrender the future to the uneducated.
So why do they do that? Because they couldn't care less about the future, and would rather just virtue signal about saving the planet by not having kids, while actually they don't want any as it's going to mess up their comfy hedonistic lives. I get it, I am naturally hedonistic myself.
It says that these people know more about climate change than most and then quotes one of them saying: ""I don't want them to grow up and have to leave their home because of sea level rise. " Wow. Yes, you had better run from a rise of 2 to 3 mm year! Scary stuff. How are these informed people so gullible?
The more aggressive side of the argument you lay out I also like: not having kids because of the future impact risk of climate change suggests a logic that would entail no generation ever having had kids. Every time (globally and, sans some narrow war situation, in every country) before now was a worse outlook for having kids.
If one thinks it’s unethical to have kids now, and believes that is logically founded and broadly applicable, how dare anyone have brought children into the world of 1700. Or 1800. Or 1930!?
It’s not about their choices. The logical continuation of the point people are saying today is that having children was never ethical.
Do you think they had a choice?
Sunday church is just virtue signaling.
It certainly can be if you aren't living by your religious values. My cheating, wife beating Uncle went to church religiously to "show" how pious a family they were, while my cousin hasn't darkened a church doorway since her falling out with Catholicism yet is a kind woman who lives by the word of Christ.
It's always a red flag when people loudly proclaim how wonderful they are, whether by wearing religious symbols and shaming others or being an out and proud climate warrior. I think that's why these "anti-racists" like Trudeou keep getting caught in blackface, and the gay bashing evangelican that later gets caught in a park restroom with a dick in his mouth is so common as to almost be cliche.
I earned a Master of Science in Environmental Management in 1982, and have watched as we have set the conditions to kill ourselves
I do not talk about it to my kids and grandkids They will find out soon enough.
I hope society turns on the deniers hard for what they are doing to us.
I don't blame them. When my parents were born the world was a much better place and didn't face the horrors of climate change that prospective parents face today. The only problems in the late 1930's were the great depression, Hitler's aggression in Europe, Jim Crow and segregation...
The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.
Darwin at work.