Ok so I have a question about one thing in your list.
If you don’t have kids then you would not have people to continue your virtue and belief on the next generation. While the people who are denying climate change have all the kids they can spit out of their body. And guess what, children are the ones who have a higher percentage of continuing their parents beliefs.
So in a few generation their side will outnumber your side.
Climate change really has to be solved in this generation. You’re thinking too long term, we don’t have that kind of time.
Additionally, not all children of climate sociopaths become sociopaths. The planet increasingly makes a convincing argument even for those who weren’t taught to hear. That’s why the old propagandists have to ramp up their effort
yup. there are HEAPS of loving kids needing homes. There’s no need to add to an overpopulation already when there are so many kids needing homes already.
You make a good point but then again, the numbers game would still be tilted in favor of those who multiply the most.
Why not have 1 child and adopt another, preferably of the same age so that both children won’t be lonely and have someone to depend on as family when the parents are gone.
Who says I’m doing nothing? Im just saying you don’t understand human behavior if you think that “we just need to change” is the answer. People are lazy and need incentive to do shit. So systemic implementations are always going to be more effective.
Nah, any reduction is good, including social encouragement for others to join you in things like going car-free. Plus, outside of the environmental effects, cars are horrifically unsafe things when used en masse, and every one we take off the road makes our neighbors safer.
When you subtract 1 from 1,000,000, you wouldn’t be wrong in saying there is a reduction, but is it significant enough? Or is it just febreezing a giant pile of shit?
reminder: the greatest things you can do to help the environment: Go Vegan; Don’t have kids; if you can, walk/catch public transport/cycle.
Ok so I have a question about one thing in your list.
If you don’t have kids then you would not have people to continue your virtue and belief on the next generation. While the people who are denying climate change have all the kids they can spit out of their body. And guess what, children are the ones who have a higher percentage of continuing their parents beliefs.
So in a few generation their side will outnumber your side.
Climate change really has to be solved in this generation. You’re thinking too long term, we don’t have that kind of time.
Additionally, not all children of climate sociopaths become sociopaths. The planet increasingly makes a convincing argument even for those who weren’t taught to hear. That’s why the old propagandists have to ramp up their effort
You can still do that by adopting kids someone else made. No sense adding to the population when some kids already don’t have parents.
yup. there are HEAPS of loving kids needing homes. There’s no need to add to an overpopulation already when there are so many kids needing homes already.
You make a good point but then again, the numbers game would still be tilted in favor of those who multiply the most.
Why not have 1 child and adopt another, preferably of the same age so that both children won’t be lonely and have someone to depend on as family when the parents are gone.
there’s nothing that says you can only adopt one kid :)
deleted by creator
Thank you for doing this, but unless we have systemic change, this is just feel-good shit.
Systemic change is going to force the same lifestyle changes anyway.
Right? It’s like people want to be forced at gunpoint to do the things they know they SHOULD be doing now. What the fuck??
Who says I’m doing nothing? Im just saying you don’t understand human behavior if you think that “we just need to change” is the answer. People are lazy and need incentive to do shit. So systemic implementations are always going to be more effective.
“I don’t want to change, everyone else should change”.
Yep that’s not what I’m saying but alright.
Nah, any reduction is good, including social encouragement for others to join you in things like going car-free. Plus, outside of the environmental effects, cars are horrifically unsafe things when used en masse, and every one we take off the road makes our neighbors safer.
When you subtract 1 from 1,000,000, you wouldn’t be wrong in saying there is a reduction, but is it significant enough? Or is it just febreezing a giant pile of shit?