Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Lord_oftheTrons t1_ja30m04 wrote

Sounds kind of selfish.

Screw the future generations because you have some arbitrary criteria to leave a better world for a future generations.

0

JuliaX1984 t1_ja31sdv wrote

(If it was better, people wouldn't need laws to force them to use solar panels, eat vegan, or forgo plastic.)

If the people pushing for policy changes really believed they were necessary for future generations, they would live their lives the way they want everyone else to. They don't, so they obviously don't believe we're screwing future generations. If the people who have studied it and people who advocate for laws based on it don't live like emissions generated by civilization are actually dooming future generations, I truly have no idea why anyone thinks changing how they live is necessary for future generations. There's no indication people who study it or advocate for laws based on it actually treat it as a serious threat and adjust how they live accordingly (if they do, they better share it and have it verified). They repeatedly say it's a serious threat to future generations, but unless such knowledge has motivated them to change their ways, I honestly don't get why people think they sincerely believe it or that there's a genuine threat.

1

Lord_oftheTrons t1_ja33pdl wrote

Are you aware of the massive subsidies we have been giving fossil fuels for decades? That is precisely the policy change that is needed.

The point of that comic went straight over your head. By your logic we should go back to the days of horribly polluted air and waters in Pittsburgh because why should we have to change for future generations. Very selfish and your comments just reinforce it. Apparently you won't feel a need to change until every scientist in the world rides a bike and eats vegetables so the bar is so high for you there's no point in arguing.

1

JuliaX1984 t1_ja34gxu wrote

I'm anti-subsidies, but end them because it's unfair. Actually, if people really want them gone, they could argue they should go because they're unfair simce fearmongering hasn't worked and get more people on their side. But it's apparently not urgent enough to try to find a different tactic.

If I believed eating vegan and never using plastic or air conditioning was necessary to help future generations, I would do it. But none of the people saying we should act like we should, so I don't get why anyone takes the claims of danger seriously. I truly can't conclude I'm hurting anyone when the people saying I am do the same things. It's not unreasonable to assume people who genuinely believe that actions are evil or dangerous won't do them.

2

Lord_oftheTrons t1_ja363qa wrote

I would agree there are plenty of celebrities preaching about things like climate change that are massive hypocrites and emit more CO2 in a week than I do in my life. However I think you have a weird view of who these scientists are. They aren't billionaires, they're everyday people for the most part and are concerned when their expertise shows worrying predictions of the future.

Creating peer reviewed papers that warm of climate change and its impacts isn't fear mongering, it is their job. What the media and people do with it is fear mongering but science isnt. I think you vastly overestimate the influence scientists have on things like public policy. Lobbyists for companies have orders of magnitude more influence on policy across every industry than the people doing research.

1

physicallyatherapist OP t1_ja9h7ya wrote

Jesus you're an idiot. There are people that are literally changing how they live like going vegan, not driving, and using less plastic. You just don't know any so you think no one else is doing it. You just keep making up scenarios as excuses.

1

JuliaX1984 t1_ja9nmjp wrote

So? Individual choices don't make a difference, right?

0

physicallyatherapist OP t1_jaaitiv wrote

They do make a difference and I wrote that before. I'm glad you at least realize your idiocy

1