and what then?
Indeed. What.
More doomer bait, courtesy of “Loy.”
8 Likes
There are not a ton of well educated or professional people on my side of the family, but many of them have had many more children than they can care for (or even want, which is a whole depressing side conversation about addiction, mental illness, and generational trauma). My one male cousin whose father was a professional computer programmer chose not to have children, though. My limit is two. “Replacement level.” I honestly don’t know if I would have had them if I started today, but I made sure we all have passports.
Unfortunately there aren’t many great places to go.
4 Likes
yes. Im asking. what then?
bait? the very headline of this thread implies “doomerism” from the professionals in this field.
“Franzen got enthusiastically jumped on at the time for depressing and disempowering people. Particularly young people. (The irony of that is even richer, five years on!)”
1 Like
so, the thing that makes the world worse (the globalized industrialized society leading to climate catastrophy leading to a mostly uninhabitable planet) is equally making the world better? in the same timeframe, no less? so, the price to make the world better is to make it worse? is that what youre saying?
2 Likes
16 Likes
Obligatory to this conversation:
In every moment there’s the possibility of a better future, but you […] won’t believe it. And because you won’t believe it, you won’t do what is necessary to make it a reality. So, you dwell on this terrible future. You resign yourselves to it, for one reason; because that future does not ask anything of you today.
14 Likes
we are now at a point where we have to do all these things not really because to make a better world and to avert the catastrophy (thats in the toilet) but by not making it worse by business as usual.
all I say is that hopium isnt helpful either.
How does lumping scientists operating in good faith with actual bad actors working on behalf of the worst emitters (as the author unconvincingly tries to do) help achieve any of those goals?
Reading the article, the only thing that proudly self-identifying “doomer” seems interested in is the empty vengeance of being seen by posterity as The Only Same Man in the Room™.
5 Likes
can you point me to that specific statement? (also I think youre linking to the wrong post of mine).
Sorry. I’m referring to Jonathon Porritt, the author of the piece you posted above where he (not Franzen, whose quote he’s framing) says:
By not calling out these incontrovertible realities, mainstream scientists are at risk of becoming the new climate deniers.
[* The “incontrovertible realities” to which he refers, by the way, aren’t propositions into which he in particular has some special insight; they’re pretty uncontroversial to anyone trying to observe this hyperobject from m a good-faith, reality-based perspective, whether we’re talking about mainstream climate scientists, novelists, or non-doomers on this BBS. The same goes for the Franzen quote.]
5 Likes
i actually used to be a science wonk.
i had a long string of people who had or wanted kids justify selfish, discriminatory, and bullying behaviors because they felt entitled to more than others, and it really made me go to a dark place for a spell, as a queer, autistic appalchian first generation post grad.
people told me when i was young i’d change my mind about kids – i wish i’d been able to get a vasectomy at 22 rather than be forced down the path I was.
(then again, i also met a lot of people who fronted as allies but viewed supporting queer rights as a very you do your thing thing – people who you had to hide your bisexuality from because they’d round you up to gay and want nothing to do with you – i saw it, numerically, i’d have okcupid matches drop 15-30% if I was honest about being a 2 on the kinsey scale)
anyways… i believe the headline.
my worry is mixed in with very well meaning, good hearted progressives is a very coniving type of person who stays silent unless the issues at hand impact them… the type who take controversial positions on things like planned parenthood but never stick their neck out if it won’t benefit them.
(I think TERFS are an example of this?)
4 Likes
Actually, it still strongly holds true that wealthier families tend to have fewer children, both in the US and worldwide. It’s an interesting phenomenon, because people often cite higher cost of living as a reason not to have kids. Yet the reality is that the more money you have, the fewer kids you have.
If course, that can be for all sorts of reasons, like higher education and professions making it harder to find the right time to have children, because of still-existing inequalities for women who have children.
3 Likes
Im pretty sure he never claims to have that “special insight”, does he?
what is your point? Im not starting a discussion here about the authors intentions, yes?
Stating the obvious as if it’s new information to the reader strongly implies that.
For reference, here are the incontrovertible truths he’s sharing with us
The speed with which the climate is now changing is faster than (almost) all scientists thought possible.
There is now zero prospect of holding the average temperature increase this century to below 1.5°C; even 2°C is beginning to slip out of reach. The vast majority of climate scientists know this, but rarely if ever give voice to this critically important reality.
At the same time, the vast majority of people still haven’t a clue about what’s going on – and what this means for them and everything they hold dear.
The current backlash against existing (already wholly inadequate) climate measures is also accelerating – and will cause considerable political damage in 2024. Those driving this backlash represent the same old climate denial that has been so damaging over so many years.
The science-based institutions on which we depend to address this crisis have comprehensively failed us. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is incapable of telling the whole truth about accelerating climate change; the Conference of the Parties (under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) has been co-opted by the fossil fuel lobby to the point of total corruption.
Golly gee whiz, that’s new information to anyone interested enough in the climate emergency to read the article! /s
My point is to ask the question I posted above about the piece you chose to post:
Whether the goal is trying for a better world, trying to mitigate the crisis, or trying to adapt to the new and grim realities, doomer articles like Porritt’s are not remotely helpful. At worst this one indulges in conspiracism about “elitist scientists denying the truth.”
Mainstream climate scientists are not denying these things. That includes the ones polled in the original article, whether or not they choose to have children.
6 Likes
I think @Brainspore’s point is that is maybe starting to change, because of the cost of living and maybe fears over the climate, too.
5 Likes
so, if he is just stating the obvious, how can his article then be a “doomer” piece as you say? because he calls himself ironically a “doomer”? or because he doesnt present “solutions” besides the obvious?
and again, just to leave it there and to close my replies on this particular topic of “doomerism”;
Because the author himself unironically identifies as a “doomer”:
And there goes my reputation as a “glass half-full sort of a guy”! I will, from herein on, be badged as a full-on “doomist”, a “prophet of apocalyptic despair”, an anarchist/communist/subversive seeking “to bring down capitalism” by “existentializing” (I kid you not!) the “perfectly manageable threat of climate change”.
Guilty as charged.
Which would be fine if he didn’t use that as a justification for smearing scientists who are working in good faith and against fierce resistance to achieve one or more of the goals mentioned above.
I’m glad you posted the article, though. It might not have been your intention, but you’ve let people here know that Jonathan Porritt is not a serious person on this issue. Nor are those who nod along with him.
5 Likes
