559
Scientists warn of 'societal collapse' on Earth with worsening climate situation
(www.irishstar.com)
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
559 points (96.7% liked)
World News
38878 readers
3006 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That is such a needlessly abusive thing to say to a person.
Choosing not to have a child because you don't believe the problems you'd be subjecting them to are likely to be solved is a heavy choice to make, and says nothing about whether they're fighting climate change to whatever extent they're able
Please don't go around being a complete asshole for no reason. The space we have here in the fediverse is only as nice as we make it, and assuming the worst of people we've literally never met accomplishes less than nothing.
This was not an abusive statement, and I'm sorry if you feel that it was. I don't believe that choosing not to have children because of climate change was made with a lot of deliberation, but because it's the laziest choice. Children are tough. Fighting for change is tough. Convincing other to give a fuck about the environment is tough. It's easier just to keep on keeping on and when the world breaks at least I didn't create another soul who is going to go through pain.
This attitude doesn't help fix the current situation and I believe that the apathy such a decision makes encourages people to be inactive on climate change.
Not having children is one of the easiest ways to contribute to solving climate change, which is exactly why we should encourage it regardless of whether the person is also taking other steps to solve it (which we don’t know). Not having a child also saves 58 tons of CO2 emissions per year, so it’s one of the most effective things you can do to fight climate change too, so that simple action does a lot to fight for a better world.
Source: https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children
it's actually one of the best things any one of us can do. you fuckin breeders, i swear to god...
Not having children is obviously not a societal change that everybody can do, otherwise humanity would fail. I'm not saying everybody should be having 10 children, but there's nothing wrong with having a couple.
The point I've been trying to make is that I'm worried that people who see that not having children is the easiest thing you can do to lower your carbon footprint will not care about doing anything else to help save the planet. You've done your part, so why not drive that gas guzzler for a little longer. Probably not gonna hurt you too much. I think more people will think this way than people who responsibly have children and have a physical reminder of why they're trying to care about the future.
And thanks for labelling me in an out group. Be careful, you're probably very suseptible to extremism.
You're accusing others of extremism in the same breath as you make one of the silliest slippery slope arguments I've come across. You think those who choose not to have children due to climate concerns are sitting back, over consuming resources, and thinking they've done enough? That's not an extreme assumption?
Be careful, you're treading awfully close to hypocrisy.
The very slippery slope of content people will remain content? Have you never heard of Panem et Circenses? The Roman proverb of Breads and Circuses that entertainment and material comforts will keep the population content?
Having children is tough. You will live an easier life if you don't have children. That's not an extreme assumption. And if you've got yours, and you've got nobody to fight for since you'll be dead in a few years anyway (as everybody seems to believe since society will collapse with climate change as indicated in the linked article) why are you going to give a fuck and give up your comfort to save the future? So yes, I think that people who choose not to have children will sit back thinking they've done their part, and the really dangerous part of that is that change needs momentum and being stationary is going to sap the momentum needed for change.
You don't know this person. And you don't know anything about what they're doing to combat climate change, or are capable of doing to contribute to combating climate change.
You don't even know whether this was the only consideration in choosing not to have kids.
You know nothing about them, but the way your comment reads suggests that you're essentially insinuating that their choice to not have kids is illegitimate by nature of the motives you presume they have (which isn't a kind thing to do) and also that they've made that choice out of laziness. All based on assumptions you've made from the single sentence comment they left on a Lemmy thread.
It's possible that was intended as a sincere question, but it reads as SUCH a heavily loaded question that it will be understood to be an accusation by pretty much anyone who reads it, which is why I call it abusive. And you can tell that that's what it's communicating by the fact that my comment saying as much has been upvoted repeatedly in the short period it's been up. The question mark reads as rhetorical, and even if you meant to ask in order to get them to reflect, it's unlikely you know them well enough or expressed that intention well enough for it to not just read as someone being a jerk on the internet
I can absolutely empathize with the idea that it is easier to check out and want to live small than to fight. And I can certainly understand wanting to fight back when you perceive that others are doing that, because our future is all on the line. I just left a long comment about it on another thread where I shared some quotes I found validating or poinant with respect to my struggle to keep fighting for things bigger than myself when I can barely function.
I get that it's important for people to fight, but what you said to them kinda sucks, and isn't a good way to engage with someone you don't know at all.
Edit: adjusted to reflect the fact I also made assumptions in the initial version of this comment. Apologies if parts feel out of sync, I'm editing this while fairly sleep deprived.
You're a good person who seems able to see both points of an argument. Thank you. You're right, I don't know the person who said they wouldn't have children. They had a quick quip and I had a quick quip too and didn't really want to get into my argument.
Comments like "That's why I'm not having children" get positive upvote and attention, but it could have been "And that's why I'm ready to fight for climate change so that there's a future for humanity". To me it is a statement of surrender and being proud of essentially waiting for the end of the world, which tells me a bit more about the person making the statement.
Anyway, I didn't realize my initial comment would come off that negatively and I'll try to be more respectful.
Thank you for being willing to consider my perspective, I appreciate it :)
And I can understand the frustration. I try really hard to make choices, even when small, that support the issues I care about. I have a lot of friends that think those issues matter, but won't make changes to support the changes they wanna see in the world, and it definitely frustrates me sometimes, though I choose not to be overly judgey about it because I think it's counterproductive.
I have a friend who is extremely politically minded and further left than I am on many issues, but she still insists on using twitter, a platform who's value is derived from everyone using it, and who's owner is bankrolling the election of a fascist to the highest elected office in the US. Even if she doesn't wanna use Mastodon, like bluesky is RIGHT there 😅. I can't say I really understand, but then again, she's a different person from me with a different perspective, and the cost benefit analysis for her must be different.
Its frustrating to feel like people won't make choices to support the things we wish were better about the world.
Regardless, I hope you have a good day today, take care :)