[marshmallow_12]

Probably the worst possible damage a person can do to the enviroment is to have children. Everything else is basically just a drop (of pollution) in the ocean. I have my own opinions here, which i won't say, but i'm just addressing the elephant in the news.

[jay_kyburz]

Yes but, to be clear, we are only fixing the climate emergency _for_ our children, and their children.

Climate change will not really impact most of us alive today.

This is why it has been so hard to get people to make real changes, spend real money reducing our footprint. A lot of people just don't care because they will be dead and gone when the real trouble starts.

[mbgerring]

> Climate change will not really impact most of us alive today.

Climate change is already effecting millions of people worldwide in drastic, life-changing ways, and those effects will only increase over current lifetimes even under the most aggressive plausible decarbonization scenarios.

[ekianjo]

> Probably the worst possible damage a person can do to the enviroment is to have children

Sure, let's nuke the whole world and get rid of the human species to save the environment! What a wonderful take.

[mariusor]

A "take" is knee jerk replying to a valid statement, albeit not sourced in this case, with what is an outrageous exaggeration.

Reducing the number of humans is not the same thing as extinction. Your argumentation is lacking.

[carpedimebagjoe]

Omnicidal and suicidal thoughts are multiplying as people lose hope in the future and their future specifically.

Furthermore, is there any sensible, hopeful, safe, stable, productive, and generally happy society that has mass shootings and addictions/crimes of despair nearly everyday?

[seriousquestion]

If we end up with an upside down population pyramid, we'll have bigger problems than a slowly changing climate.

[corty]

There are some countries with an upside down population pyramid and it isn't the end of the world. Certainly less apocalyptic than most climate change scenarios.

[marshmallow_12]

agreed, but that's the inevitable conclusion of any inquiry into solving climate change. Should we therefore do nothing? Probably not. But again, i won't elaborate.

[test_alpha]

Increasing population levels in highly emitting countries whose populations have naturally leveled off or are decreasing is very bad too (not to mention all the other horrific problems with this neocolonial type of immigration).

[mariusor]

Of course. The two are perfect equivalent. (/s, just in case)

[carpedimebagjoe]

I happen to like kids and want someone to bury me in the right plot that was already set-aside (in basically the middle of nowhere). We also need some people sensible enough to fix the damage done to the Earth by the reckless and selfish generations of FF burners, meat eaters, jet-setting frequent-fliers, long-distance/single-occupant car commuters, and concrete pourers who came before.

[corty]

We do not need humans to "fix" anything on earth, the ecosystem will find a new balance on its own. Absent a few chaotic effects that might happen, without human disturbance, this balance will be reached faster than with humans meddling.