Support NeoGAF

[CeroFrio996]

Utterly myopic and arrogant of you

I could say the same thing for our current inaction. How expensive does climate change need to be before it's worth the cost? Not to mention the longer we remain fossil fuel reliant the more likely we are to fall behind in a global move towards renewable energy technology. We need to invest, another thing the democratic party doesn't talk about. It's not just about spending money. We can create value in our economy by introducing massive new industries. It's not going to be an easy transition, but I prefer a difficult transition to no transition at all. I'm currently working on my enrollment to a trade school program specializing in solar energy. It's a highly sought after position in my area, even moreso than the other trades.

 

[Papa]

I could say the same thing for our current inaction. How expensive does climate change need to be before it's worth the cost? Not to mention the longer we remain fossil fuel reliant the more likely we are to fall behind in a global move towards renewable energy technology. We need to invest, another thing the democratic party doesn't talk about. It's not just about spending money. We can create value in our economy by introducing massive new industries. It's not going to be an easy transition, but I prefer a difficult transition to no transition at all. I'm currently working on my enrollment to a trade school program specializing in solar energy. It's a highly sought after position in my area, even moreso than the other trades.

The common ground is that we agree that there needs to be R&D investment. The immediate focus should be on technology that limits or even prevents carbon emissions from being released into the atmosphere, e.g. sequestration, while the development of renewables tech happens on a longer timescale. If we burn fossil fuels but the emissions don't escape into the atmosphere, what's the problem? I guarantee there would still be protests because it is no longer a problem of science but one of ideology. That's why I reject the "but we must do something!" chicken littling that completely ignores the China problem.

 

[Vicetrailia]

The common ground is that we agree that there needs to be R&D investment. The immediate focus should be on technology that limits or even prevents carbon emissions from being released into the atmosphere, e.g. sequestration, while the development of renewables tech happens on a longer timescale. If we burn fossil fuels but the emissions don't escape into the atmosphere, what's the problem? I guarantee there would still be protests because it is no longer a problem of science but one of ideology. That's why I reject the "but we must do something!" chicken littling that completely ignores the China problem.

Reducing emissions is leading because we're actually sure that it will deliver. The problem is that it's systematically hard to reduce emissions.

Negative emissions tech for fossil fuels in particular is something that needs to happen, but its issue is scale, and not being able to offset emissions.

Waiting for China is a delay tactic for the biggest contributors. We put more burden on everyone else including China, and ourselves, by waiting. But luckily no one is waiting outside of certain sectors.

 

[DragoonKain]

The consensus is around humans causing it. Not that it's happening.

Also, the right have been dragging their feet on this subject for decades. They have no excuse for their position on the topic, what with their deep ties to oil money. Maybe if they had been helping to participate in the topic rather than outright deny it's existence we'd have better solutions by now.

I don't think most on the right take it seriously enough. They ignorantly mock it, while admitting it's real, but don't think it will have the detrimental impact scientists say. I hear stuff like "the planet is supposed to change, it's always changing, getting warmer is just part of it."

 

[DoctorEkkoUK]

The Earth has gone through several climate cycles in its lifetime before complex organisms even existed.

If you think we (humans) can do anything to change it you’re wrong and also full of shit.

This doesn’t mean pollute the environment and stop giving a shit. It just means we cannot alter the course the planet is on.

If you want to place carbon taxes and other nonsense so your belly feels nice and warm at night - good luck. The Earth doesn’t care.

Aren't we already altering the course ? isn't that what human caused climate change is? we are just altering it in the wrong direction right now.

 

[timeflais]

You will not drown or burn, planetary cycles.

What if the "scientific consensus" was a corruption fueled agenda?

 

[Makariel]

Just imagine how many billions of dollars and brainpower have been spent over the decades to decide that "humans have cause global warming"

Ok, great job scientists.

Now what?

Reduce carbon emissions. Like... taking a walk to the shop instead of the car. Just yesterday I was walking to get my groceries (less than 10 minutes walk), when I saw two guys from my neighbourhood driving in their car the same distance, being at the shop after me since they had to search for parking and returning to their house roughly the same time as I was, and all they bought was some ice cream. They looked half my age, I think they would have survived walking.
Stop rapid deforestation just to make space for palm plantations like seen in e.g. Indonesia.
If you have air conditioning set it a few degrees higher or turn it off when not actually needed.
etc.
There's plenty of things you can do, without burning down your house (not a good idea anyway, the carbon emissions!) and living like a hermit in the forest.

 

[Makariel]

That's why I reject the "but we must do something!" chicken littling that completely ignores the China problem.

China has been heavily investing in renewable energy generation:

China Is Set To Become The World's Renewable Energy Superpower, According To New Report

"No country has put itself in a better position" claims new report, noting that China accounts for almost a third of all renewable energy patents in the world.

www.forbes.com

The report points out that China has taken a lead in renewable energy and is now the world’s largest producer, exporter and installer of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and electric vehicles.

So if you're waiting for China, you've waited a bit too long, they've overtaken you already.

 

[Liljagare]

Greta Thunberg is trying to get all the adults in Sweden to have a mass climate strike on September 27th in favour of following the Paris accords. I actually wouldn't mind participating in this (although I won't be showing up with my Kia Stinger in tow).

 

[Papa]

China has been heavily investing in renewable energy generation:

China Is Set To Become The World's Renewable Energy Superpower, According To New Report

"No country has put itself in a better position" claims new report, noting that China accounts for almost a third of all renewable energy patents in the world.

www.forbes.com

So if you're waiting for China, you've waited a bit too long, they've overtaken you already.

I'm aware of China's investment in renewables but that's not what I mean by the China problem. What I am referring to is China overtaking the US as the dominant global superpower when the US cuts its economic balls off to satisfy the climate change beast. Think about the cultural ramifications of China dictating the terms of global trade when they subject their own people to slave labour, are willing to murder journalists who criticise the government, have an organ harvesting black market, have no respect for IP or copyright, have a saving face culture that disincentivises telling the truth if it means upsetting the hierarchy, and just abolished term limits so that Xi Jinping is now effectively a dictator for life. We are talking about a totalitarian communist regime that is fuelled by the economic prosperity provided by a fundamentally capitalist economic system with a monoculture unencumbered by the social tensions of race and gender issues that we have in the West. This is not a culture we want in charge of the world. Besides, their investment in renewables is primarily to emancipate them from fossil fuel-driven Western economies, not some greater moral purpose.

 

[timeflais]

China is perpetuating the lie.

 

[Papa]

China is perpetuating the lie.

To be clear, I don’t think manmade climate change is a lie. I think the proposed solutions and especially the Paris agreement are a farce. This is the problem when you teach that all cultures are equal and treat science as the new word of god. We just walk willingly into the jaws of the ravenous, salivating beast because our new god told us to.

 

[timeflais]

The best lies are half-truths.
When fear is injected people tend to lose the ability to think long-term.
The greatest contradiction/hypocrisy.

 

[Makariel]

I'm aware of China's investment in renewables but that's not what I mean by the China problem. What I am referring to is China overtaking the US as the dominant global superpower when the US cuts its economic balls off to satisfy the climate change beast.

You are aware that renewables are a growth industry worldwide? The US employs now more people in wind power and related industries than with coal... investing in renewables is not cutting off your economic balls, it's growing a pair.

 

[Papa]

You are aware that renewables are a growth industry worldwide? The US employs now more people in wind power and related industries than with coal... investing in renewables is not cutting off your economic balls, it's growing a pair.

Why did you do that obnoxious thing where you snip out a particular part of a post to snarkily respond to and ignore the rest?

Yes, renewable energy is a growing industry. No, it is not yet advanced enough to sustain the energy offset required to meet carbon emission reduction targets. If you read my other posts in this thread, you would see that I have advocated for more long term R&D in renewables with short term focus on emission capture tech. This would simultaneously help to address the climate change issue while providing a soft economic landing.

If you’re going to be a snarky, condescending cunt, at least give me a better argument to contend with.

 

[bad guy]

If weed was legal, earth would be more chill.

 

[Makariel]

Why did you do that obnoxious thing where you snip out a particular part of a post to snarkily respond to and ignore the rest?

Because I'm only objecting to the argument that it would make no economic sense. I do overall agree with you that I don't want China to be the dominant trading force, so I saw little sense in reacting to the rest.

 

[strange headache]

Why did you do that obnoxious thing where you snip out a particular part of a post to snarkily respond to and ignore the rest? [...] If you’re going to be a snarky, condescending cunt, at least give me a better argument to contend with.

Oh stop being such a sourpuss. Makariel is being fairly reasonable here.

China is a much smaller greenhouse polluter than the U.S. and their economy is growing despite their heavy investment in renewable energy.

 

[Papa]

Because I'm only objecting to the argument that it would make no economic sense. I do overall agree with you that I don't want China to be the dominant trading force, so I saw little sense in reacting to the rest.

But “the rest” was the main point. You guys are focusing on pure emission accounting. I’m talking about the bigger cultural picture of ceding power to China, which will absolutely happen if we continue pushing farcical “solutions” like the Paris agreement.

 

[Papa]

Oh stop being such a sourpuss. Makariel is being fairly reasonable here.

China is a much smaller greenhouse polluter than the U.S. and their economy is growing despite their heavy investment in renewable energy.

I’m not sure you’re getting my point, strange. I’m not concerned about emissions accounting. The growth of the Chinese economy that you refer to is what I’m worried about. For me it’s a damned if we do, damned if we don’t catch-22. Scenario 1, we cede dominance to China and suffer the consequences. Scenario 2, climate change is not arrested in time and we suffer different consequences. I’m more comfortable confronting scenario 2 because I’m somewhat of a technological optimist in that I think once there is sufficient demand for it, we will find a technological solution. Sufficient demand will occur when we start feeling tangible consequences. Yes, I realise this is one of the traps of climate change, but I’m not convinced that we can’t engineer a way out of it.

 

[Mohonky]

I disagree that we’re causing it because history has already gone through ice ages and such.

We’re making it arrive at a faster rate though.

Well yes, thats the entire point. Its not about the change itself, but the rate at which it is occurring, thats what the whole climate change discussion is.

The change is inevitable, its whether humans are contributing to the acceleration of it, which by all accounts seems to be the case.

 

[Makariel]

But “the rest” was the main point. You guys are focusing on pure emission accounting. I’m talking about the bigger cultural picture of ceding power to China, which will absolutely happen if we continue pushing farcical “solutions” like the Paris agreement.

No I'm not focusing on emission accounting, I'm focussing on what the most reasonable way is to generate our energy needs in the future. And it is reasonable to invest in wind, solar thermal & PV, geothermal (where available) and hydro where not overly exploited yet, along with nuclear power to compensate for lack of coal in the short term, with natural gas and/or hydrogen for storage (since batteries simply don't have the energy density required at this point). All of this is technically achievable now, while you make it sound like less carbon intensive power generation is science fiction. The UK generated about 30% from renewables last year (the majority of that being wind), while just 10 years ago it was less than 5%, and we didn't go broke in the process (that will happen after Brexit ).

http://gridwatch.co.uk/ is always fun to look at, at the time of writing we get about 15 GW from renewables (half solar half wind), 16 GW from gas, 6 GW from nuclear and zero from coal. Just 10 years ago the majority of generation on a day like today would still have been from coal.

Yes there are issues integrating non-dispatchable generation like wind and solar into the grid, but they can be solved. The main issue that plagues e.g. the wind industry in various countries is that every incoming government wants to change all the rules and re-invent the wheel, not understanding that the power industry considers 20 years as short-term planning, while governments think from one election to the next.

How you feel about China doesn't really factor into this

 

[Papa]

No I'm not focusing on emission accounting, I'm focussing on what the most reasonable way is to generate our energy needs in the future. And it is reasonable to invest in wind, solar thermal & PV, geothermal (where available) and hydro where not overly exploited yet, along with nuclear power to compensate for lack of coal in the short term, with natural gas and/or hydrogen for storage (since batteries simply don't have the energy density required at this point). All of this is technically achievable now, while you make it sound like less carbon intensive power generation is science fiction. The UK generated about 30% from renewables last year (the majority of that being wind), while just 10 years ago it was less than 5%, and we didn't go broke in the process (that will happen after Brexit ).

http://gridwatch.co.uk/ is always fun to look at, at the time of writing we get about 15 GW from renewables (half solar half wind), 16 GW from gas, 6 GW from nuclear and zero from coal. Just 10 years ago the majority of generation on a day like today would still have been from coal.

Yes there are issues integrating non-dispatchable generation like wind and solar into the grid, but they can be solved. The main issue that plagues e.g. the wind industry in various countries is that every incoming government wants to change all the rules and re-invent the wheel, not understanding that the power industry considers 20 years as short-term planning, while governments think from one election to the next.

How you feel about China doesn't really factor into this

No, it’s not achievable now. The UK is lucky in the sense that it is a relatively small land mass. This allows efficient distribution from centralised sources. Taking that approach and trying to apply it to a land mass the size of the US or even Australia would not work. And a change from 5 to 30% in the UK over 10 years isn’t enough anyway if you buy into the doomsday timeline.

And yes, you are focusing on emissions accounting because you’re ignoring what happens to the trade balance between countries that are net fossil fuel exporters and China, a net importer. How about the countries Middle East whose entire economies are built on oil? Do you think they will give up their economic prosperity without a fight? How about developing countries like India for whom coal is still the cheapest energy source that will allow them to enter the first world?

The climate change problem is a real one but the bullheaded flick-a-switch and change it overnight approach will not work. There is more to this problem than just the science.

 

[strange headache]

Scenario 1, we cede dominance to China and suffer the consequences. Scenario 2, climate change is not arrested in time and we suffer different consequences. I’m more comfortable confronting scenario 2 because I’m somewhat of a technological optimist in that I think once there is sufficient demand for it, we will find a technological solution.

I am getting your point, but "scenario 1" is not relevant since I've shown you that China is perfectly able to challenge your economic dominance despite their heavy investments in green economy. Digitization and renewable energy are shaping up to be two of the biggest job markets in the near future, there's just no reason to assume that switching to a green economy will put the U.S. at a disadvantage.

The reason why Europe and the U.S. are struggling to compete with China is because they outsourced most of their production to China's cheaper labor force. "Made in China" is the new "Made in the U.S.A." but that doesn't have anything to do with the Paris climate accords or the transitioning to clean renewable and independent energy production.

If you think that global warming can be tackled by technological means, then you need to stay ahead of the curve and invest into these technologies. Signing the Paris accords would have been one major step in pushing your market into the right direction. It's not putting the U.S. at a disadvantage, on the contrary, sticking to fossil fuel will ensure your economic downfall in the long run. As it stands, you're merely lining the pockets of big oil companies trying to maximize their short term profits because they're aware that they are on their way out.

 

[Tesseract]

the paris accords were shit tho, basically a wealth redistribution scheme

 

[iconmaster]

How do we differentiate between man made climate change and natural climate change?

Scientifically, I don't think you can. You'd have to observe the climate play out over the same time period both with and without humans.

 

[NickFire]

If a climate activist is really concerned, they should really distance themselves from most leftist policies in the US. People can say snarky things like why not both, etc. But the reality is if you align yourselves with people who scream negative adjectives at half the country day in and day out, you are never going to be a really successful advocate. Your message is drowned out by your company.

 

[Al Abaster]

Scientists agree that the climate changes. As if this is big news. So if everyone agrees that the climate changes, then there's really no point to a bunch of political "solutions" that cost everyone another arm and leg in taxes, is there? Funny how every solution to every "crisis" that comes along is "sign up with the Democrat party."

Sheesh. And there's always whole slew of chicken little's ready to buy into the snake oil. On both sides of the party aisle. Heck with parties, heck with politics, and heck with government solutions. No matter which side is "solving" all they really want is the content of your wallet, and to cement their hold on their seat in office.

It's all a scam, and every one of them and their paid "scientists" is a charlatan.

 

[DeleteriousObnoxious]

i tried to argue with my family but they won't listen... the human mentality of despair is non logic agreeing.

 

[pr0cs]

You can argue that China is leading in their renewable energy investments but they also leading in their willingness to create new coal powered installations as well. Feels pretty disingenuous to suggest that China is some bastion of green resources when they're doing everything they can (green or otherwise) to meet their energy demands.
There is no way to discuss climate change WITHOUT having China at the table

 

[Blood Borne]

The argument isn’t about if there’s global warming, the argument is about the proposed solution. Socialism/Communism will not stop global warming.

Also what the hell does a scientific consensus even mean. There’s no democracy in science, 2 + 2 = 4 is a fact and has nothing with consensus.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

There is no way to discuss climate change WITHOUT having China at the table

Yup.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

Also what the hell does a scientific consensus even mean

consensus means enough people believe the same thing. so basically there is no doubt left that people who believe the same thing all believe the same thing.

im like, great, you guys figured out you all think the same thing. after another 10 years of studies about other studies to get that final 100% and all scientists agree the same thing, then maybe they should start working on solutions to this problem, instead of patting themselves on the back for agreeing there is a problem.

 

[Vicetrailia]

I am getting your point, but "scenario 1" is not relevant since I've shown you that China is perfectly able to challenge your economic dominance despite their heavy investments in green economy. Digitization and renewable energy are shaping up to be two of the biggest job markets in the near future, there's just no reason to assume that switching to a green economy will put the U.S. at a disadvantage.

The reason why Europe and the U.S. are struggling to compete with China is because they outsourced most of their production to China's cheaper labor force. "Made in China" is the new "Made in the U.S.A." but that doesn't have anything to do with the Paris climate accords or the transitioning to clean renewable and independent energy production.

If you think that global warming can be tackled by technological means, then you need to stay ahead of the curve and invest into these technologies. Signing the Paris accords would have been one major step in pushing your market into the right direction. It's not putting the U.S. at a disadvantage, on the contrary, sticking to fossil fuel will ensure your economic downfall in the long run. As it stands, you're merely lining the pockets of big oil companies trying to maximize their short term profits because they're aware that they are on their way out.

This is correct.

But don't get me wrong. Although China is the leader, The US is right behind China in green technology patents, so we are heavily investing.

We just shouldn't allow China to become the world's superpower on renewables. But unlike fossil fuels, renewables will be much more diversified because countries can depend on themselves more. It's less about luck and more about investment.

Countries like Russia better get on the ball though. The importance of renewables will change trade and alliances.

 

[Ornlu]

Oh stop being such a sourpuss. Makariel is being fairly reasonable here.

China is a much smaller greenhouse polluter than the U.S. and their economy is growing despite their heavy investment in renewable energy.

Putting up a "per capita" graph doesn't really work with vastly larger populations. China is producing much more CO2 than the US, and their consumption is going up over time, not down.

What does the "w/o LUC" mean in the graph?

 

[Mihos]

Ha i'm nearly 50. I'll live just long enough to see it really begin and then sweet oblivion.

Damn right

 

[FoundressofNothing]

I've just started this book Losing Earth about how man-made climate change could have been stopped in the 1980s but for the actions of big business and politicians. I was shocked to find out that climate science had pinpointed the cause and method of stopping man-made climate change as early as 1979.

Even now, the lies and obfuscations continue, making a lot of well-meaning people very confused.

 

[DeleteriousObnoxious]

I've just started this book Losing Earth about how man-made climate change could have been stopped in the 1980s but for the actions of big business and politicians. I was shocked to find out that climate science had pinpointed the cause and method of stopping man-made climate change as early as 1979.

Even now, the lies and obfuscations continue, making a lot of well-meaning people very confused.

Never once taught about in school, never told by parents. World is just insane occupied by crooks and lunatics self suiciding parasites are we.

 

[Papa]

Never once taught about in school, never told by parents. World is just insane occupied by crooks and lumatics self suiciding parasites are we.

Maybe you went to a bad school or simply weren’t paying attention. I was taught about chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), acid rain, and global warming.

 

[DeleteriousObnoxious]

Maybe you went to a bad school or simply weren’t paying attention. I was taught about chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), acid rain, and global warming.

When your 16-20 years old it is to late to learn and take your choice. Most of your identity is created in early childhood.

 

[Gargus]

I've always wondered how much of it is man made. In the life of this planet we have existed for the blink of an eye, and we have only really gained the technology to really understand things in the past 100 years. It wasn't but 300 years ago we thought illness was caused by frogs in our stomachs and crazy people needed a hole drilled in their head and people knew the world was flat. Hell in the 70s time magazine had a cover story proving nuclear energy was causing a new ice age.

What I mean is the earth has been here for billions of years before us and in that time it has lost the ozone layer and been beaten by cosmic radiation and then gained it back, had world wide fires, world wide floods, world wide freezing, worldwide draughts, constant tectonic plate shifting, entire land masses breaking apart to form continents, a reversal of the magnetic poles, entire species live and die and so on. And this all has happened many many times. The world is in a constant state of chaos but because the earth has been around like 4 billion years and we not very long it's hard to keep that kind of perspective. Maybe this is just another chaotic cycle starting up that might have happened even if we never evolved to humans and to us it's a huge event that from the planets perspective is just the same old thing.

But when I think about all the destruction on this planet and its age it makes me wonder if less than 100 years of heavy industry out of 4.5 billion years is really enough to damage this planet or actually change it. Is it really all us, or are we just finally here long enough to see yet another change in the planet that is inevitable?

I'm not arguing against what's been shown scientifically or dismissing any of it. I just like to consider other plausible possibilities and consider other things instead of what I just told but don't actually know for myself or prove in some way myself.

 

[Robot Carnival]

how about we take all the people who's climate change deniers and put them over at the coast of Florida and let them live there? let's see how they deal with that problem in a few years.

 

[DeleteriousObnoxious]

I've always wondered how much of it is man made. In the life of this planet we have existed for the blink of an eye, and we have only really gained the technology to really understand things in the past 100 years. It wasn't but 300 years ago we thought illness was caused by frogs in our stomachs and crazy people needed a hole drilled in their head and people knew the world was flat. Hell in the 70s time magazine had a cover story proving nuclear energy was causing a new ice age.

What I mean is the earth has been here for billions of years before us and in that time it has lost the ozone layer and been beaten by cosmic radiation and then gained it back, had world wide fires, world wide floods, world wide freezing, worldwide draughts, constant tectonic plate shifting, entire land masses breaking apart to form continents, a reversal of the magnetic poles, entire species live and die and so on. And this all has happened many many times. The world is in a constant state of chaos but because the earth has been around like 4 billion years and we not very long it's hard to keep that kind of perspective. Maybe this is just another chaotic cycle starting up that might have happened even if we never evolved to humans and to us it's a huge event that from the planets perspective is just the same old thing.

But when I think about all the destruction on this planet and its age it makes me wonder if less than 100 years of heavy industry out of 4.5 billion years is really enough to damage this planet or actually change it. Is it really all us or are we just finally here long enough to see yet another change in the planet?

I'm not arguing against what's been shown scientifically or dismissing any of it. I just like to consider other plausible possibilities and consider other things instead of what I just told but don't actually know for myself or prove in some way myself.

Im sorry to break it to you but just learn about how we have ruined our oceans that stock Co2, learn about the extreme deforestation happening in our jungles that also works like earths own aircondition units.

Then learn that ones we lose north/south pole making them ice free, then we wont get them back for millions of years or maybe never.
In other words the south and north pole sends cold air and water currents through the entire planet
Which means greenhouse gas loop could run wild making earth similar to Venus. The oceans vaporized at 1000 degree celcius. We did This, we can argue if the effect was inevitable going to happen With out us combating it. But we know that earth recover and life recovers when we put greed aside. That is a fact documented by david attenborough excellent storytelling.

 

[FoundressofNothing]

I it makes me wonder if less than 100 years of heavy industry out of 4.5 billion years is really enough to damage this planet or actually change it. Is it really all us or are we just finally here long enough to see yet another change in the planet?

It is long enough. You are right that the Earth's climate is in constant flux. My understanding is that the difference with man-made climate change is the speed and intensity of the change. It's far too fast for the ecosystems on the planet to adapt, making this climate change event more akin to something like an asteroid strike or mega-volcano eruption than something like the Little Ice Age.

Also, it isn't just modernity that has polluted the planet. For example, Roman Empire metal smelting sent so much lead into the atmosphere that it settled as far away as Greenland. If humans could do that 2,000 years ago, imagine what we can do now.

 

[n0razi]

Yeah I'm not having kids.... having kids right now is pretty much sending them to eventual doom

 

[NickFire]

Yeah I'm not having kids.... having kids right now is pretty much sending them to eventual doom

Umm, every person is born on a path to their eventual doom.

 

[n0razi]

Umm, every person is born on a path to their eventual doom.

OK, reword that to early fiery hellscape doom

 

[Papa]

When your 16-20 years old it is to late to learn and take your choice. Most of your identity is created in early childhood.

Climate change is an identity now?

 

[JordanN]

Yeah I'm not having kids.... having kids right now is pretty much sending them to eventual doom

Very weird post.

How come we don't see this type of alarmism used across the world? In fact, shouldn't scientists be warrning the countries that have 8 babies per mother to stop?

You also seem to accept extinction like it's a 100% known fact.

Imagine if everyone decided to not have babies shortly before or during WW2?

 

[DeleteriousObnoxious]

Climate change is an identity now?

Yes because it makes everything thought about prosperity and that life is a growing development of Even better opportunities a false statement.

And Kids are not learning that essential Survival growing own stuff are still very relevant. Luxury is taken for granted. It's a huge problem one society had created.