|
Fly Molo posted:lol, by that logic when is the correct 'moral' time to have kids? Throughout the entirety of the Cold War, there was a good chance anyone having kids was going leave them to grow up orphans (or dead) in the ruins of a nuclear holocaust. Pre-WWII? Nope. Earlier? Nope, there's a good chance they'd die in a different huge war/crop failure/epidemic. Nobody knows their kids are going to have a better life than them, in any time period, in any country. I think the difference for these postets is that: -Cold war: death is uncertain, quality of life is still increasing, death by nukes likely quick. Worth. -Earlier: death is uncertain, quality of life still increasing, death by famine is painful but the risk is mitigated by being regional, not global like MAD -Now:  Whether the last point is true depends on your read of climate inflection points (they seem to generate the most  itt and elsewhere--it's the inflection points within 1.5-2C scientists will tell you over a beer that they think will transformatively affect our already-strained biosphere). For someone who believes that the greatest sum of human suffering to be borne by war, hunger, conservative totalitarianism, and disaster is going to be shouldered on those who are already alive, children are as out of the question as giving birth into a meat grinder.
Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Apr 7, 2018 |
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 14:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:55 |
|
|
I think the greatest sticking point I've received on Thug reactions to newly discovered tipping points is distaste for the nonstop "Well bottom line this only represents X GT or Y years of emissions," as though (a) the pace of their discovery both in climate models and in the living planet isn't an alarm to horrifying net emissions we don't yet have a magnitude to assign (b) we don't keep finding as a rule of thumb that everything we understood economically, politically, and in paleoclimate as of ar5 is uselessly optimistic You either can look up from the page and note, "Golly, we're evolving our understanding of climate science awfully fast and almost entirely in a bleak direction" or keep tallying two GT here, a year of anthropogenic emissions equivalent there and convince yourself that everything is going to be fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 14:50
|
|
|
There is a frustration coming out of ar6 The frustrations of wg2 are and have been technical, ie "this is genocide of small islands" Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Apr 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 14:54
|
|
|
Fly Molo posted:lol, by that logic when is the correct 'moral' time to have kids? Throughout the entirety of the Cold War, there was a good chance anyone having kids was going leave them to grow up orphans (or dead) in the ruins of a nuclear holocaust. Pre-WWII? Nope. Earlier? Nope, there's a good chance they'd die in a different huge war/crop failure/epidemic. Nobody knows their kids are going to have a better life than them, in any time period, in any country. Do you get the difference between 'poo poo might suck' and 'poo poo will suck'?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:There is a frustration coming out of ar6 I'd be very interested in hearing more about this if you have any more info or material.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
call to action posted:Do you get the difference between 'poo poo might suck' and 'poo poo will suck'? You're right, correction: anyone ever born suffers. It's inevitable. Life and death go hand in hand, but I'm still glad to have existed. Not having kids won't save the world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
Fly Molo posted:You're right, correction: anyone ever born suffers. It's inevitable. Are you really pretending like there's no difference between the normal amount of suffering we all get in our comfortable first world lives and what the future is going to look like for the next generations? Fly Molo posted:Not having kids won't save the world. Yeah no poo poo, individual action is worthless at this point and everyone knows it. Anyone who disagrees needs to accept that having kids is the literal worst thing you can do for the environment. The big difference with this individual action is that it creates an entirely new person to experience an incredible magnitude of suffering for your own selfish nonsense reasons, whereas adopting a kid helps you alleviate to some degree what will still be a significant amount of suffering. If people really can't see eye to eye on the idea that "creating more human suffering is worse than alleviating it" then I think we're all best off ditching this idiotic derail that never proves to be worth anything every time it happens for 200 posts. ChairMaster fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Apr 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:we really should collab on some kind of OP update that represents some kind of summary-truce so we can stop going round and round *as* much What I put in the OP is absolutely irrelevant because only two people have ever read it: me, and some guy who found a typo in it. Case and point, I've had the section you just requested in the OP since I first posted it over two years ago: Uranium Phoenix posted:f. Overpopulation People have been spazzing out about child-chat and other asinine bullshit since the thread before this. Short of a mod agreeing to probate/ban anyone who posts those same boring rehashes, the lovely posts in this thread will continue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
Guys, part F of my OP concerns humane access to family planning. But don't talk about not having children, we can't have that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 07:41
|
|
|
it's "case in point" OP
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 07:55
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:But don't talk about not having children, we can't have that. ChairMaster posted:Are you really pretending like there's no difference between the normal amount of suffering we all get in our comfortable first world lives and what the future is going to look like for the next generations?  Choosing to have or not have kids depends entirely on your value system. If "Reduce # of Suffering" is the only goal in your ethical system, hail SS-18 Satan, let nuclear fire cleanse the earth, by all means. But the foundation principle of that system is "people being dead/not existing is better than being alive/existing". By that logic, human extinction is a goal, rather than something we should work collectively to prevent. Suffering is inevitable, and things are going to get way loving shittier over the coming years and decades. But a lot of people also place value in the fact that you're giving your kids a chance to do things right, an opportunity to live and love and experience. The number of anti-natal folks in this thread has been bizarre to me. Go ahead and don't have kids, that's your choice, but don't act like it's some universal truth. You see why people react to such statements (my bolding) with, "you sound depressed", right? That's straight-up suicide logic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 08:41
|
|
|
Ero, the best environment is the one everything dies and ends suffering. Jrpg epa head
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 12:58
|
|
|
It's not just about what's good for humanity, or what reduces or minimises human suffering. There's a non-zero and growing chance humans will devastate earth's entire biosphere. We're already causing extinctions at a record rate and we don't seem to be slowing down. How much value should we place on human civilization if it's mutually exclusive with the existence of other life on this planet?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 14:21
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:What I put in the OP is absolutely irrelevant because only two people have ever read it: me, and some guy who found a typo in it. Case and point, I've had the section you just requested in the OP since I first posted it over two years ago: quote:People have been spazzing out about child-chat and other asinine bullshit since the thread before this. Short of a mod agreeing to probate/ban anyone who posts those same boring rehashes, the lovely posts in this thread will continue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 15:41
|
|
|
ubachung posted:It's not just about what's good for humanity, or what reduces or minimises human suffering. There's a non-zero and growing chance humans will devastate earth's entire biosphere. We're already causing extinctions at a record rate and we don't seem to be slowing down. How much value should we place on human civilization if it's mutually exclusive with the existence of other life on this planet?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
You guys cannot be arguing in good faith if you're still trying to insist that saying "don't have kids" is the same thing as "sterilize the human race". If you still think that individual action matters at all, then: owning a gas guzzling car that you don't need makes you a piece of poo poo, flying to every continent to take pictures of cats makes you a piece of poo poo, eating a lot of beef makes you a piece of poo poo, and above all else creating children rather than adopting them makes you a huge piece of poo poo. There's really no way around it. Even in camp nihilist where we don't care about changing our life style to reduce emissions because global human civilization is ending either way, we still wouldn't have kids because of what a nightmare the future's going to be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:This is repugnant. That doesn't make it incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
Do we even need to have this argument? Fixing our social issues with abortion and birth control so we don't have unwanted pregnancy may be enough. Out of everyone i know, only one couple actually sat down and decided they wanted kids. Everyone else had a "surprise" they felt pressured to keep.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 16:38
|
|
|
we are all mistakes
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:If you still think that individual action matters at all, then: owning a gas guzzling car that you don't need makes you a piece of poo poo, flying to every continent to take pictures of cats makes you a piece of poo poo, eating a lot of beef makes you a piece of poo poo, and above all else creating children rather than adopting them makes you a huge piece of poo poo. There's really no way around it. You left off "pissing away electricity from coal-burning plants just to read and post on the SA forums" We're all poo poo, but does planet Earth even have any intrinsic value without the Something Awful dot com forums?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I think the greatest sticking point I've received on Thug reactions to newly discovered tipping points is distaste for the nonstop "Well bottom line this only represents X GT or Y years of emissions," as though (a) the pace of their discovery both in climate models and in the living planet isn't an alarm to horrifying net emissions we don't yet have a magnitude to assign (b) we don't keep finding as a rule of thumb that everything we understood economically, politically, and in paleoclimate as of ar5 is uselessly optimistic Okay this is great. I do all the math to show that these Arctic emissions amount to ~5% of human emissions at most, and so you come back telling me that actually we can't quantify them because "we don't yet have a magnitude to assign". You're essentially telling people to be really worried that permafrost melt is happening at all, but that we can just ignore the mounting evidence about its relatively low emissions rate. What a truly desperate argument. This is what happens when you pick your conclusion beforehand rather than following the evidence. Also it's not at all true that "all our predictions are optimistic" or that the science is leading "almost entirely in a bleak direction". I know people are very invested in that narrative but it's time to grow up and face the facts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
davebo posted:You left off "pissing away electricity from coal-burning plants just to read and post on the SA forums" We're all poo poo, but does planet Earth even have any intrinsic value without the Something Awful dot com forums? Food for thought: "being a poo poo" is a spectrum and not a binary. Browsing SA is less bad than mining bitcoin is less bad than lobbying for oil companies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
Talk about anything else, please. This is beyond tiresome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
Does anyone believe that genuine global cooperation on any effective climate plan is even possible? Like, the tech could be powerful and lowering fertility by standard of living is noble but it doesn't matter if the rich want to stay rich and everyone else would rather point fingers at different-colored others than pinch their comforts by going green unilaterally (beyond the self-serving token "I take the train and recycle bottles" BS). This is ok because the right people will survive the coming hellscape and be better off for it. If you have a computer and could afford the  you and your spawn probably belong to this in-group. If people disappear from large parts of the earth it just means a return to a more natural state. If many people die, it solves the population problem. If pandas and elephants go extinct, it makes room for cool new variants of crows and dogs. If you feel guilty, remember that the problem is due to large scale social dysfunction far beyond your control. Everything is going to be ok. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
Bishounen Bonanza posted:Do we even need to have this argument? Fixing our social issues with abortion and birth control so we don't have unwanted pregnancy may be enough. Out of everyone i know, only one couple actually sat down and decided they wanted kids. Everyone else had a "surprise" they felt pressured to keep.  Also  Car Hater posted:That doesn't make it incorrect. It's repugnant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:This is repugnant. Which part exactly? I stated some facts and posed a question. I didn't even state my own opinion. That's a pretty telling response though. Life on earth goes beyond humanity, valuing human civilisation above all other life on earth is far more repugnant than anything I've written. If I had to choose between humans and the rest of the natural world humans would be gone. Hopefully that's not an actual binary that we face.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
Wait so is having kids good or bad
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:"It would be better if everyone died" is not a statement with an empirical truth to it, it's a value statement. It can't be correct or incorrect, it can only be right or repugnant. ubachung posted:It's not just about what's good for humanity, or what reduces or minimises human suffering. There's a non-zero and growing chance humans will devastate earth's entire biosphere. We're already causing extinctions at a record rate and we don't seem to be slowing down. How much value should we place on human civilization if it's mutually exclusive with the existence of other life on this planet? ubachung posted:Which part exactly? I stated some facts and posed a question. I didn't even state my own opinion. That's a pretty telling response though. I have no idea how telling people that they should kill themselves to save the planet is in any way a good thing to publicly say, especially if you want more people to support environmentalism. No one is going to listen to environmental policies from a person who wants every human dead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:I have no idea how telling people that they should kill themselves to save the planet is in any way a good thing to publicly say, especially if you want more people to support environmentalism. Where did I say anyone should kill themselves? If you can't argue in good faith, addressing the actual words in front of you instead of an imagined strawman, don't bother responding.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:This is repugnant. It's also completely specious. Humanity is not going to wipe out life on earth. We've already been through five mass extinctions, and that's only counting the biggest ones, and humans can at worst trigger a sixth. Animal life will eventually recover and keep going for another few hundred million years until solar intensity rises and wipes it all out, returning the planet to the microbes. But beyond that, it doesn't actually matter if animals go extinct beyond what humans have invested in them, (morally, practically, or otherwise). The average lifespan of a mammal species is around one million years, and every species we're conserving will eventually join the 99.9% of species in extinction. There is no morality in nature. So, in addition to being completely ethically bankrupt, that guy's perspective makes no sense. It's based on a prosaic, anthropocentric view of a nature that values conservation and preservation, whereas nature itself is completely amoral and will, in time, wipe out these species with far greater ruthlessness and totality than humans could even possibly hope for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
ubachung posted:Where did I say anyone should kill themselves? If you can't argue in good faith, addressing the actual words in front of you instead of an imagined strawman, don't bother responding. ubachung posted:If I had to choose between humans and the rest of the natural world humans would be gone ubachung posted:I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but at this point I expect humanity is going to at best kill off a large portion of itself. Honestly my biggest concern is that we might manage to take a significant proportion of animal and plant life with us. Hmmm, not sure
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
Ok you've changed my mind. Forget hypotheticals, regardless of the threat to the rest of the natural world all humans should definitely die, preferably by their own hands.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:Wait so is having kids good or bad good because it means u did sex
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
ubachung posted:Ok you've changed my mind. Forget hypotheticals, regardless of the threat to the rest of the natural world all humans should definitely die, preferably by their own hands.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
FistEnergy posted:good because it means u did sex I have children and did ivf- so I didn’t even have sex to make mine :/
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #82 posted:I have children and did ivf- so I didn’t even have sex to make mine :/ Does this mean you got cucked by a test tube?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Does this mean you got cucked by a test tube? Or the fertility doctor!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
Fly Molo posted:Hmmm, not sure As I read it, he's reacting to the possibility of something akin to murder-suicide. As a species, we rely on 'free' goods and services from the environment. While improbable, it's possible that we will alter the environment past the point where humanity can be supported. I think he's reacting to that supposition with eliminationist rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
Have as many kids as you want, just don't raise them to be civilized.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:55 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:What's your socio-economic context? Everyone I know knows how to use condoms Poor to lower middle class in the American south. Almost nobody I know with children planned for them, and they all seem to be really poor and unhappy about having them. I guess my point is lets worry about that first because its a much less controverial argument. Lets get to the point where only happy stable couples are having children. Then if the population is still rising too fast we can go from there. WorldsStongestNerd fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Apr 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 05:13
|
|