Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ISiupick t1_iuzuq4t wrote

Reply to comment by shirk-work in ‘Carbon timebomb’: climate crisis threatens to destroy Congo peatlands by sector3011

Im approaching 30 and recently spoke with my parents about having kids. Sure, they want grandkids, but Im not too comfortable putting a new life on Earth if we're speeding head on towards self-anihilation through climate change.

Maybe it's for the better. We truly don't deserve this planet.

65

shirk-work t1_iuzv5ie wrote

I mean I don't think humanity is going to go extinct but I do believe the population will drop by 2 or 3 billion mainly in poor areas and those most deeply affected by climate change. If your living in a wealthy county with a decent climate or even a climate that may become more arable it'll be on par with the great depression for instance. If your in a second or third world country already prone to droughts or floods then yeah then maybe it isn't as great of an idea. If you're highly educated, have good finances your the person we most want to have children but is simultaneously the least likely.

28

ISiupick t1_iuzvtmn wrote

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about extinction. Those 2-3 bln climate refugees you mentioned - they're not going to just keel over and die. They'll have to go somewhere and we're going to have a few wars about it. Russia is already flying migrants in and sending them on their merry way to Europe, basically using them to drain resources and fuel anti-migrant sentiment. In the meantime we ourselves will have to deal with droughts and scorching hot weather with all that other shit going on.

Just thinking about it stresses me out, I don't want my kid living through it.

38

shirk-work t1_iuzwyyc wrote

The universe has always been against us. We just got lazy the last hundred years or so. Complacent with a very unusually comfortable situation. There's definitely going to be tensions, war, famine, and so on but that's been the norm for humanity more so than the current situation. we've been through worse multiple times. Check out the worst year ever. Dang most of the time you wouldn't expect all of your kids to make it to adulthood yet here we all are. It's not about life being tough it's about giving it a big fat middle finger and existing anyways.

14

ISiupick t1_iv0691j wrote

I have to disagree on the universe thing - the universe keeps trucking along, whether we exist or not. I do have to agree on the fact that we have to give it the middle finger and exist anyway. Thing is, we've been against ourselves this whole time.

Wars, famines and especially climate change are mostly man made. Oil companies have known the consequences of burning fossil fuels for at least 40 years and not only did they not help, they actively hid the research and kept fucking us over. The war in Ukraine, as an example, can be blamed on one man, yet millions suffer.

Just to put a bow on this discussion - "save the planet" seems like such a stupid idea. Earth became a thing 4 bln years ago, humanity is all but a blip in it's history. We should focus on saving ourselves.

12

CagedBeast3750 t1_iv0hztd wrote

But that is and always has been our nature. In the big picture, "man made" is natural. It doesn't really counter his point - its how we exist, and probably won't change until we're gone. Who knows maybe when the floods come a few will survive and we'll take our game of thrones novels, add some morality lessons, and call it the new testament.

3

sotek2345 t1_iv0l9v1 wrote

On the flip side, one person not existing makes it easier for the rest of the species (less resource use, no carbon emissions, etc.) Spending too much time thinking about this lately. Probably not healthy.

6

MeSpikey t1_iv0xkpa wrote

Definitely not healthy but very understandable.

1

Gemini884 t1_iv22z1r wrote

Where did you read that there will be more than a billion(upper end estimate) refugees?
Read IPCC report on impacts instead of speculating-
https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-on-how-climate-change-impacts-the-world/

1

ISiupick t1_iv2floh wrote

I was taking about the 2-3 bln people the previous comment mentioned. By no means its an accurate number

1

Blekanly t1_iv0jbfl wrote

Tbf the population is dropping in the west, Japan, China is about to be hit hard.

4

HeartoftheHive t1_iuzvtt7 wrote

I don't think you grasp how well and truly fucked humanity will be on the whole once shit starts cascading out of control.

2

shirk-work t1_iuzwols wrote

Definitely for a time but I don't think this is a society collapsing situation. It's too slow. If we want to set up a whole bunch of modified algae making essentially Soylent then we can. We choose not to because there's no need for that now. Food is the key issue, humans can figure out where now is the best area to build and avoid natural disasters. Maybe if the atmospheric oxygen drops drastically then yeah most things will die and humans will build underground cities. Maybe 100 million to 2 billion will hold on and emerge. I think we will likely attempt some drastic geoengineering first which will buy time. There will be some extreme military states to deal with to situation while maintaining order. The value of a human life will drop for a while. Tbh that's been more so the norm than the current situation.

1

Fortnut_On_Me_Daddy t1_iv015xz wrote

Honestly I bet nuclear apocalypse occurs before any of that. I'm thinking the climate crisis will set off wars that won't end well for anybody.

5

shirk-work t1_iv04v7z wrote

Now that's fast enough and possibly devastating enough to wipe us out. Seems like an odd choice then again people will all rush an exit during a fire essentially ensuring nearly everyone burns.

3

Fortnut_On_Me_Daddy t1_iv1f6kb wrote

It does seem like an odd choice, but so does carrying nuclear armaments because everyone else has them. I don't think the collapse of modern civilization wouldn't lead to nuclear war as countries escalate violence to try and fend other countries off of their resources. Not to mention the countless armaments that would likely fall out of governmental hands across the globe.

1

shirk-work t1_iv1ie5j wrote

I guess nuking someone who can't nuke you back and no global economy to punish you is more likely. Nuking someone who can and will return the favor seems like a zero sum game

1

HeartoftheHive t1_iv0213d wrote

> It's too slow.

That's an assumption right there. As I said, there are a lot of things that are currently at a tipping point. You don't see imminent disaster once they all start toppling? Water is already starting to become a huge issue and that effects everything, obviously including our food supplies. And this is before the real big dominoes start falling.

5

shirk-work t1_iv04kvn wrote

I mean we have solutions. Modular nuclear desalination to get as much water as we want. Right now building takes time because a lot of red tape but if we were in a rush a lot of solutions could be deployed within a much shorter timeframe. Once again this isn't to say it's not going to be a shit show and there will be large scale geo engineering not to fix the problem but to buy time.

3

HeartoftheHive t1_iv05c6f wrote

I don't have any hope that the governments of the world will spare a dime to do more than the bare minimum. They could and should be doing so much more and they simply won't. The signs are obvious and they continue to stick their collective fingers in their ears, saying "tralala" and refusing to do anything more.

I'll be surprised if the world isn't on the way to a Fallout type scenario just from climate change alone when I'm on my death bed.

2

sotek2345 t1_iv0ljfu wrote

As a whole, we can't think beyond the next quarterly earnings statement. The environment won't collapse in 3 months, we will just boil slowly if we don't nuke ourselves over resources.

2

HeartoftheHive t1_iv0oncq wrote

I won't say as a whole, but those that are already on top of the corporate pile will do anything and everything to stay at the top. Even if it means burning the Earth in the process.

2

50bucksback t1_iv0j9jz wrote

Plenty of kids already here and waiting to be adopted

6

supermarkise t1_iv2eemk wrote

Looking at the process, costs and prerequisites.. looks kinda impossible, sorry. And I'm not equipped to deal well with too much special needs, so the chances go down even further.

1

FredPolk t1_iuzzvkw wrote

Only the poor will be fucked. Are you poor? If not, make babies.

−5

LeopardThatEatsKids t1_iv00hao wrote

How remarkably unempathetic.

12

[deleted] t1_iv01t8v wrote

[deleted]

7

FredPolk t1_iv05gyv wrote

Just stating facts. People shouldn't change their family plans for climate change. Climate change is going to happen whether he has kids or not. If he wants kids, it's ridiculous for him to change his life plans because of climate change. The highest birth rates in the world are in sub-Saharan Africa. Climate change will take a toll there. Famine and poverty will only get worse. They couldn't sustain their population decades ago, let alone current or future populations combined with droughts and other climate change effects. People will be displaced. It's just about whether they can afford it or not.

−6

FantasyThrowaway321 t1_iv0s38h wrote

I don’t think ‘facts’ means what you think it does in this situation. sure it’s going to happen, but it’s hard to talk out of one side of your mouth saying you want to help prevent and improve it and then also having kids knowing what we know is OK because, well, ‘I can afford it’ like you said. And that’s not even to say those living in situations currently will be safe or habitable in 10 years.

“Having a child is 7-times worse for the climate in CO2 emissions annually than the next 10 most discussed mitigants that individuals can do,”

6

FredPolk t1_iv1unuw wrote

If he doesn’t have the kid though, someone else will. It’s the same for any animal species. There is a limit and a certain sustainable population. If humans are going to experience some die off, it’s still better to have more population than less even if population is the catalyst. I think it is obvious at this point that we aren’t going to change the course by choice. It will be forced upon us. The losers will be those in 3rd world countries who can’t afford to relocate or simply get stuck in the path of destruction and they can’t afford to rebuild homes and infrastructure. E.g. Haiti after earthquake and hurricanes. Climate change isn’t a nuclear armageddon and deciding not to have children will do nothing to change the course. It just means someone else will unless the entire world agreed to a child policy which isn’t practical or realistic. Eugenics should have been further researched and enforced 100 years ago.

1

ISiupick t1_iv06f8u wrote

Do you really think the rich will survive? Even if they manage to build some epic apocalypse bunker, they have to power it and feed themselves somehow. With the Earth in a global warming nosedive, none will survive.

3

FredPolk t1_iv06mq5 wrote

Climate change doesn't equal apocalypse. The poorest on Earth will suffer the most and the wealthiest will suffer the least.

1

ISiupick t1_iv09pa0 wrote

Climate change with no action to stop it (current situation) equals apocalypse. Shell released some promo about them going net-zero. Putting aside the fact that net-zero in practice is bullshit, they hade some small print. When you got into the small print, it had even smaller print that said "It's just marketing. We don't care if we hit those targets".

The poor will be the first to suffer, the rich will just delay their demise. And by the way, all that wealth is useless if you don't have any poors to push around. Or you know... actually gerenate that wealth for you to steal from them.

5

FredPolk t1_iv0bh4d wrote

When I say poor, I mean the REAL poor. Nigeria poor. India slums poor. Vietnam poor. Your job at Wendy's is rich compared to the real poor of the world. You are on a computer and likely own a newer iPhone or Samsung phone with brand sneakers on your feet. There will be plenty of Wendy's and McDonalds workers. Western countries will be fine even with the worst predictions. Doesn't mean it is going to be a cake walk, but it's not all or nothing like you seem to believe.

−2

ISiupick t1_iv0ct7t wrote

I think it is all or nothing. Billions of climate refugees are going to try to relocate, creating conflicts, straining supply chains and furthering the energy crisis. Not to mention all the humanitarian and medical crisises that will arise from that migration. Looking at current politics, I feel like we're going to wake up with a wall of people at our borders and the only people with an "answer" will be assholes the likes of Orban, Trump, Kaczyński, Le Pen, BoJo, Putin, etc.

Yes, a Wendy's worker is rich compared to some slave-wage worker from Bangladesh. That still doesn't change the fact that "The poor will be the first to suffer, the rich will just delay their demise." - however you choose to define rich and poor. Pakistan produces 0.5% of global emissions, yet they're the first ones to suffer - almost 30% of the country is flooded, millions of people displaced, thousands of schools, hospitals, etc. destroyed boyond repair.

Same thing can happen in Florida when the inevitable rise of the sea floods it from below, when levies break in the Netherlands, when the soil in Ukraine is bone-dry and unable to produce crops, that get exported globally.

Wether we have iPhones or have to beg for money on the streets in some 3rd world country, the climate doesn't care. Global warming is... global. Droughts, floods, storms, hurricanes are everywhere and everywhere they're breaking records every year. We (western nations) have the resources and knowledge to do something about it. It's just that rich cunts don't want us to do anything, because it will hurt their profits.

1