this post was submitted on 10 May 2024
681 points (96.7% liked)

World News

39000 readers
2321 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A fifth of female climate scientists who responded to Guardian survey said they had opted to have no or fewer children

Ihad the hormonal urges,” said Prof Camille Parmesan, a leading climate scientist based in France. “Oh my gosh, it was very strong. But it was: ‘Do I really want to bring a child into this world that we’re creating?’ Even 30 years ago, it was very clear the world was going to hell in a handbasket. I’m 62 now and I’m actually really glad I did not have children.”

Parmesan is not alone. An exclusive Guardian survey has found that almost a fifth of the female climate experts who responded have chosen to have no children, or fewer children, due to the environmental crises afflicting the world.

An Indian scientist who chose to be anonymous decided to adopt rather than have children of her own. “There are too many children in India who do not get a fair chance and we can offer that to someone who is already born,” she said. “We are not so special that our genes need to be transmitted: values matter more.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 111 points 6 months ago (11 children)

We're not in a movie. Climate change isn't going be solved by one brilliant scientist. It's not even a scientific/technology problem at this point, it's a political one.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

I would have done it, but when i looked around, looked to the future, and realized people had been horrible to me overall, i declined.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago

Maybe his kid was going to assassinate a bunch of billionaires.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

…. And all we needed was that brilliant orator, the Great Persuader on the side of good, someone to rally around to save the world!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

They just get called woke gay snowflakes then the accusers go eat 10 steaks and jack off.

Theres no way to fix this with kind words, only through force

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Cool, now you, an educated, well intent person with good morals won't have any offspring to pass those values to, and thus won't have any representation in the next generations. Meanwhile redneck Terry will make 7 children with 3 different women and teach them to hate the libruls and that the earth is flat.

It is your decision not to have kids, I chose so myself too. But your line of thinking is in discord with the argument.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Have you met the kids of those rednecks? A lot are estranged from their parents.

Especially with the internet, parents have a limited amount of control over kids, the more important part is education.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

the more important part is education.

And that's why there's growing far-right movements around the world (especially the Western world) who want to defund education!

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago

You nailed it with this comment, I agree completely. We have the technology, we've HAD the technology to solve the problem, and we've KNOWN what the problem is for a long time now. We have GREEDY fucks in high positions of power who wouldn't make any money solving it though, that's the problem.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If it is solved it will definitely be through technology of some sort. While I agree it will not be one brilliant scientist, technology will be the solution.

That technology may come in the form of a way to produce more energy without fucking up the climate, and the engineering and logistical capacity to roll out the change at a breakneck pace.

It may come in the form of simply developing a way to control the global climate directly.

It might come in the form of some technology to control the behavior of humans so that we can actually respond appropriately.

Or it might come in the form of the singularity, when self improving machines grow so far beyond us so fast that they can just do what is needed whether we like it or not.

But one way or another I guarantee that if it's solved, it'll largely be a technological solution, because getting humanity to just...stop using energy at our current rate...is just not going to happen.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago

The issue with technosolutionism is that it can't fit the necessary parameters to address climate change. We already know we can't go further with infinite growth. It's not possible to tackle climate change. We need degrowth. Without it, it's impossible.

The problem is that our economy is based on growth, and this growth will generate the new tech. If you're for state developed and owned technologies, you have to change the political dogma et system first.

Addressing the climate crisis is a change in the politic and in the economic system. Without both of them, it will continue.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Maybe it is going to be solved by a brilliant political activist or leader. Jokes aside, of course it won't be a couple of people who will magically solve something. Strong leaders will however ease the cause by promoting issues best.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Political problems can be addressed through science and technology. Like the firearm, or the bicycle, or bittorrent. We need a way to coordinate a defense that won't simply be shut down.