Looked at it through the "climate change" lense it means that the late 1700s - early 1800s English industrialists should have just called it quits when it came to make use of abundant English coal, all in the interest of "climate change". Of course, that would have also meant no Industrial Revolution and hence future generations not enjoying the benefits of modernity (such as antibiotics and the like, for example), because there would have been no modernity without the Industrial Revolution.
Maybe in 200 years, or 50, this fearmongering will be considered a crime against humanity and an insane power grab by privileged eugenicists who rule the world.
Are you accusing the parent commenter of not only being privileged, not only being a eugenicist, but also ruling the entire world? Maybe they just worry for the future of humanity.
Stop making ridiculous assumptions. I'm suggesting that the green/climate agenda has been pushed by people who don't have our best interests in mind.
>Maybe they just worry for the future of humanity.
If the elites seriously worry about the future of humanity, then you should expect them to commit mass murder in short order. You know, to reduce carbon emissions asap.
The "facts" are abused by those in power to paint a picture that favors their worldview, which is that the world has too many people. Even if it's mostly true, they won't be the ones paying for the "solution."
Am I the only one who is worried about the widespread proliferation of the boomer hate? What's even the point? Can't help but see parallels with Jews being scapegoats - hoarding property, holding political power, in general being guilty of everything wrong in the world.
It also seems quite hypocritical - I don't see young voters overwhelmingly voting environment parties, but even those who do enjoy their frequent flights to exotic destinations and likely have a higher carbon footprint than boomers at the same age.
It's an unfortunate reality that people will take the hedonistic way and rather enjoy life to the fullest rather than worry about abstract problems lying in the future. But that's common to all generations, and just throwing all guilt on a specific generation won't help solving it.
In the context of the article it's not all boomers that are being decried, it's specifically political leaders that are not taking climate change seriously.
Given the median age of political leaders the "intergenerational crime" is not taking action to avert problems that will fall on younger citizens after older leaders have passed on.
The greatest change, on the order required, won't come to pass via individual recycling or otherwise discreet choices, it needs to come at scale from policy that leads changes in energy delivery, usage, recapture, et al.
> In the context of the article it's not all boomers that are being decried, it's specifically political leaders that are not taking climate change seriously.
Yet, they chose this title to join the hate bandwagon. There's no chance they weren't aware of what associations this title will provoke.
> The greatest change, on the order required, won't come to pass via individual recycling or otherwise discreet choices, it needs to come at scale from policy that leads changes in energy delivery, usage, recapture, et al.
Indeed, this must be a major part of the equation, but isn't the climate crisis so serious that environment-conscious people should chip away wherever it is possible? Specifically, flights have a really high carbon footprint, yet I don't seem a meaningful shift in behavior, no matter the age. This is the hypocrisy, young people making no sacrifices to their personal life, yet jumping on any opportunity to blame the old generation that they didn't sacrifice parts of their comfort for them.
But I don't want to play the blame game. It won't help find a solution, only spread hate.
Not sure why the article was flagged, maybe because it is Australia specific ?
Anyway I think it does apply to the world as a whole and I think at this point we either have a controlled fall of living standards or an uncontrolled fall. Our choice. If governments started working on this 50 years ago as US Pres Carter wanted to, we would not be here.
In the US a vote one way will pretty much guarantee an uncontrolled fall. A vote the other way, maybe something will be done, but current evidence point against that.
The quickest way in the US to reduce CO2 is stop subsidizing the Oil Industry and allow Auto Fuel prices to double or triple. But as we see, the party that says it will do the right thing is doing all it can to keep prices low.
Right now, like the scientists said, the future ls looking very bad right now.
It's all just fearmongering to lower your expectations because those at the top want more wealth inequality. That means you'll own nothing and be happy -- but, oh, that's not because they've funneled away all wealth and control away from you; it's the climate, you see, you selfish monster. Cloud compute via dumb terminal; it's greener than owning your own computer!
14 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 49.3 ms ] threadLooked at it through the "climate change" lense it means that the late 1700s - early 1800s English industrialists should have just called it quits when it came to make use of abundant English coal, all in the interest of "climate change". Of course, that would have also meant no Industrial Revolution and hence future generations not enjoying the benefits of modernity (such as antibiotics and the like, for example), because there would have been no modernity without the Industrial Revolution.
>Maybe they just worry for the future of humanity.
If the elites seriously worry about the future of humanity, then you should expect them to commit mass murder in short order. You know, to reduce carbon emissions asap.
It also seems quite hypocritical - I don't see young voters overwhelmingly voting environment parties, but even those who do enjoy their frequent flights to exotic destinations and likely have a higher carbon footprint than boomers at the same age.
It's an unfortunate reality that people will take the hedonistic way and rather enjoy life to the fullest rather than worry about abstract problems lying in the future. But that's common to all generations, and just throwing all guilt on a specific generation won't help solving it.
Given the median age of political leaders the "intergenerational crime" is not taking action to avert problems that will fall on younger citizens after older leaders have passed on.
The greatest change, on the order required, won't come to pass via individual recycling or otherwise discreet choices, it needs to come at scale from policy that leads changes in energy delivery, usage, recapture, et al.
Yet, they chose this title to join the hate bandwagon. There's no chance they weren't aware of what associations this title will provoke.
> The greatest change, on the order required, won't come to pass via individual recycling or otherwise discreet choices, it needs to come at scale from policy that leads changes in energy delivery, usage, recapture, et al.
Indeed, this must be a major part of the equation, but isn't the climate crisis so serious that environment-conscious people should chip away wherever it is possible? Specifically, flights have a really high carbon footprint, yet I don't seem a meaningful shift in behavior, no matter the age. This is the hypocrisy, young people making no sacrifices to their personal life, yet jumping on any opportunity to blame the old generation that they didn't sacrifice parts of their comfort for them.
But I don't want to play the blame game. It won't help find a solution, only spread hate.
The point is to prime everyone to be OK with the neglect and elimination of old people in the near future, to help alleviate the demographic collapse.
Anyway I think it does apply to the world as a whole and I think at this point we either have a controlled fall of living standards or an uncontrolled fall. Our choice. If governments started working on this 50 years ago as US Pres Carter wanted to, we would not be here.
In the US a vote one way will pretty much guarantee an uncontrolled fall. A vote the other way, maybe something will be done, but current evidence point against that.
The quickest way in the US to reduce CO2 is stop subsidizing the Oil Industry and allow Auto Fuel prices to double or triple. But as we see, the party that says it will do the right thing is doing all it can to keep prices low.
Right now, like the scientists said, the future ls looking very bad right now.