Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

FredPolk t1_iuzzvkw wrote

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

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