View Full Version : Raising a Child in a Doomed World
Here's a fellow who took the occasion of his daughter's birth to whine about our inevitable destruction on a planet as overheated as his own rhetoric. He speaks disapprovingly of having children, which struck me as odd, given the circumstances. He speaks approvingly of a guy who doused himself with gas and set himself alight as a statement about fossil fuels. The term "snowflake" gets tossed around a lot, often unfairly. But in this case it seems to apply. Despair seems like a poor legacy for our children, even if we think it justified. I found myself wanting to shake this guy and tell him to Daddy up unless he wants to create a neurotic mess in his own image. We'd have never have made it through the Ice Age with guys like this around.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/opinion/climate-change-parenting.html
Well, interestingly, your post was next on my internet browse after reading an article about Trump's pulling back on Obama-era regulations on car emissions. So, I'm angry right now and very sympathetic to this author's ear. We have all fallen into two camps on this forum, and in general: those who believe climate change, unfettered capitalism, and the upset of the ecological web of life is a real problem, and those who don't.
Is the author of this piece being hyperbolic? Maybe. His tone is a bit despairing.
I didn't get that he disapproves of having children--he was stating a fact: increasing the burden of a human population that refuses to rein in practices and behaviors that are simply not sustainable is just going to make things worse faster.
I am optimistically hoping that before it's too late, we can back-pedal on our mass-suicidal tendencies to gobble up all the resources that sustain us as part of the web of life. His best paragraph was toward the end:
Living ethically means understanding that our actions have consequences, taking responsibility for how those consequences ripple out across the web of life in which each of us is irrevocably enmeshed and working every day to ease what suffering we can. Living ethically means limiting our desires, respecting the deep interdependence of all things in nature and honoring the fact that our existence on this planet is a gift that comes from nowhere and may be taken back at any time.
I know some of us on this forum are in the first camp, and those who are in the second. I'm not going to disparage this author's fears. I share them, frankly. It's odd that it isn't enough to overfish, kill coral reefs, melt the Arctics, smog up cities and make people sick with asthma and cancer, drive to extinction millions of species, drive away the livelihoods of indigenous people in order to make profit, and deny the findings of 95% of scientists worldwide who say greenhouse gasses are creating havoc and will continue to do so, while we watch extreme weather flatten whole towns. That's not enough. Because we, in the first camp, are just a bunch of snowflakes.
Painful to read, so I stopped.
One wonders how someone so gloomy ever managed to find someone to procreate with.
I have my melancholy moments, but I'm a wellspring of joy next to this bloke.
ETA: The world population is on track to contract; people across the board are having fewer children.
Alternative fuel sources abound; moreso in civilized countries than in this one, but California and other areas are leading the way.
I'm in neither camp; I see that we are mucking up the earth (which i believe will survive us), but also that we are slowly beginning to remediate the muck. I'm an optimist by nature, not a Kochist fossil fuel wastrel.
We have all fallen into two camps on this forum, and in general: those who believe climate change, unfettered capitalism, and the upset of the ecological web of life is a real problem, and those who don’t.
Just the two camps? I don’t agree it’s as cartoon-simple as you suggest.
I think there’s a whole spectrum of opinion, from hysterical despair to grave concern to hopeful optimism to complete indifference on the topic.
Me, I’m a bit of a hopeful optimist. I think we can address the problem through a combination of adaptation, policy and technology. I’ve seem doomsday rescheduled too often in the past to succumb to overwrought handwringing.
ApatheticNoMore
8-2-18, 5:05pm
It's odd that it isn't enough to overfish, kill coral reefs, melt the Arctics, smog up cities and make people sick with asthma and cancer, drive to extinction millions of species, drive away the livelihoods of indigenous people in order to make profit, and deny the findings of 95% of scientists worldwide who say greenhouse gasses are creating havoc and will continue to do so, while we watch extreme weather flatten whole towns. That's not enough. Because we, in the first camp, are just a bunch of snowflakes.
those without the courage to face reality are the snowflakes. Btw snowflakes? Is that really the term to use in the face of global warming?
Is it hopeless? Well ... *probably*, but not with absolutely certainty, but if we lack the courage to face reality then with certainty for sure, and the human race isn't very much into courage and facing harsh realities it seems to me - nor political organization and coordination unfortunately. It's not enough the whole world is on fire (not just California- 17 fires burning now, but also near the arctic circle), the whole world is breaking temperature records, the arctic was 50 degrees above normal in winter, the oceans are dying etc.. I think the world population is on track to hit 8 billion but maybe it will contract upon hitting 12 billion or so (ok really it will probably contract with a lot of people dying needlessly before then mostly poor people but ...). Geoengineering? Not against it in principle, but I have never seen any very convincing evidence it would *work*. If it would it should be being seriously considered now but ... it doesn't seem to be, which is another reason it seems dubious to me! Is denial a good legacy to leave future generations? It depends on if one finds any value in facing a reality, even a potentially doomed reality or not, but some have found value in it.
The future world will need good leaders and smart scientists with a good sense of right and wrong to help whatever environmental challenges the future has in store for us. I would think that responsible parents can have the possibility of raising children with those qualities. It is the parents negligent of our future possibilities, or in third world countries with traditionally large families and few opportunities for education, that might be the better ones to consider limiting child birth. I suspect if the future is as dire as some predict, population may become self-limiting.
It's always fun to see the narcissism of first time parents.
Just the two camps? I don’t agree it’s as cartoon-simple as you suggest.
The two camps thing is actually pretty good shorthand.
I think there’s a whole spectrum of opinion, from hysterical despair to grave concern to hopeful optimism to complete indifference on the topic.
What about reasonable despair? What about idiotic optimism?
Me, I’m a bit of a hopeful optimist. I think we can address the problem through a combination of adaptation, policy and technology. I’ve seem doomsday rescheduled too often in the past to succumb to overwrought handwringing.
Is there anything about this doomsday that is different than the others?
The two camps thing is actually pretty good shorthand.
“With us or against us” is the black-and-white shorthand of limited thinking. You can agree that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, but disagree on the measures to take.
I see that a consortium is planning a new development in Arizona, set to house 180,000 people and employ myriad forward-looking technologies:
https://www.techrepublic.com/article/why-bill-gates-wants-to-build-an-80m-smart-city-utopia-in-arizona/
Lately I've been on a kick of watching lots of Youtube videos on this topic, so I'm feeling pretty despairing at the moment too. For a number of years now, just about everything I've read or watched on this topic seems to point in the same direction--that not only is global warming occurring, it's happening at a faster rate than all but the most pessimistic scientists predicted. Never mind exceeding the 400 ppm threshold for carbon, which means a minimum 2-degree Centigrade temperature rise by the end of this century is (pardon the expression) baked in. The melting of polar ice is apparently progressing at a rate faster than even the most pessimistic forecasts of a few years ago predicted. Feedback loops are increasing--as arctic ice melts, that huge body of water will absorb more heat, and melting permafrost will increasingly pour methane, a nearly 20x more potent greenhouse gas than carbon, into the atmosphere. That's in addition to the warming that comes from carbon.
In response to all this, the techno-optimists have little to offer other than vague talk about "increasing fuel efficiency," "alternative sources of power," "carbon capture" or iffy and possibly dangerous schemes like seeding the atmosphere with various chemicals, or launching giant mirrors into space to reflect the sun's rays back at it.
I don't think humanity is doomed. Humans are nothing if not adaptable. But I do think the next century is potentially shaping up to be a very, very ugly period in human history, so if this guy is worried about his kid's future, he's got good reason to be.
Gardenarian
8-3-18, 12:15pm
I read "Drawdown" and am involved with a local group working to implement the changes recommended. Has anyone else read this? There are also a number of YouTube videos with the author, Paul Hawken.
Teacher Terry
8-3-18, 1:01pm
I totally agree Catherine!
Saw today that we are on track to have the 4th hottest weather worldwide in history.
I really think there is no turning climate change apocalypse around. Even if we went whole hog on the problem today as worldwide community, we'd probably still be screwed.
And the fact is: We'd first need a worldwide community (probably never happen) and we'd need to do everything right with it (definitely never gonna happen).
The momentum of conspicuous consumption and environmental destruction is just too fast and powerful and everyone is so into it! Even the best environmentalists I know personally do not live a sustainable life.
So I don't worry much about how things will go over the next hundred years.
Even the best environmentalists I know personally do not live a sustainable life.
I remember how dismayed I was when I took this ecological footprint test: https://www.footprintcalculator.org/
You can agree that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, but disagree on the measures to take.
Yes, and perhaps we will have the technological and political wherewithal to get there, but certainly not under the current leadership. That's why I was in such a bad mood with my first post on this thread. It's frustrating. And I do think the environmental problems are so systemic, it's going to take tremendous effort to correct-course. This is not an issue to be solved simply by people going back to paper straws.
But, I am basically optimistic, so here's some good news:
https://www.facebook.com/PachamamaAlliance/videos/10155967448238305/
Ultralight
8-4-18, 10:03pm
People -- the techno optimists particularly -- say: "Look how many problems of the past we solved through technology! We're so innovative and inventive and adaptive. We'll figure out a way to overcome the climate change problem!"
And I think: "Which problems did we overcome? If the list is so long, give me five of them."
So, give me five examples of problems we humans solved through technology. Try me.
iris lilies
8-4-18, 10:19pm
People -- the techno optimists particularly -- say: "Look how many problems of the past we solved through technology! We're so innovative and inventive and adaptive. We'll figure out a way to overcome the climate change problem!"
And I think: "Which problems did we overcome? If the list is so long, give me five of them."
So, give me five examples of problems we humans solved through technology. Try me.
seriously?
just off the top of my head
Sanitary Sewers—overcame cholera
polio vaccine—overcame crippling disease of polio
printing press—overcame problem of only a tiny minority of a population having access to written ideas
Fermintation—overcame many bad things in liquids drank by everyone
Anaesthestia—help pstients in pain
But I I think I understand your assumption behind this question. Just today I was thinking about how we humans like to think that technologies will solve all of our problems and I was thinking about crime in my neighborhood, and how everyone always is hot for the latest Camera System to be installed. Sure that kind of thing helps, but the criminals still know how to thwart the technology. And each tecnological innovation brings its own set of problems.
Ultralight
8-4-18, 10:58pm
Sanitary Sewers—overcame cholera
polio vaccine—overcame crippling disease of polio
printing press—overcame problem of only a tiny minority of a population having access to written ideas
Anaesthestia—help pstients in pain
To have these things you need a huge industrial infrastructure built on fossil fuels. What problems are caused by a huge industrial infrastructure built on fossil fuels?
iris lilies
8-4-18, 11:49pm
To have these things you need a huge industrial infrastructure built on fossil fuels. What problems are caused by a huge industrial infrastructure built on fossil fuels?
Well yes, that is technology ( in general) bringing its own set of problems.
Catherine, I watched the video, but I'm afraid it didn't cheer me up much. Most of the "good news" it touts are band-aids, baby steps or liberal feel-goodism--I'm all for indigenous peoples around the world sharing their wisdom and for people planting trees, but I doubt either will do much to slow global warming, given that every bit of fossil fuel that's now in the ground needs to stay in the ground or we've got catastrophic warming (6 degrees C) by the end of this century. Yeah, more than a million people marched in Washington after Trump was elected, and we see how much good that's done so far. (I suppose it did result in some political organizing, and we'll see how effective that was in November.)
But the bottom line is that most efforts to fight global warming are small, tentative and experimental, when what we need is a WWII-level mobilization of resources by every industrialized country in the world NOW. That ain't happening, and it ain't going to happen. The next generation may be willing to make more sacrifices as it becomes more obvious things are spinning out of control, as things get hotter and hotter, as the killer hurricanes and floods become more common, the forests continue to burn, and the polar icecaps melt. But by then it may be too late; indeed, it may be too late already.
It would be nice if we could get rid of those horrid disposable plastic bags, though. God, I hate those things.
ApatheticNoMore
8-5-18, 1:24pm
To have these things you need a huge industrial infrastructure built on fossil fuels.
which actually might be sustainable as well (though maybe not have advanced as rapidly I don't know) which a population of 2 billion or something. But that's not human nature either it seems (no matter how good the technology gets).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.