Ok, so translating that article into XT speak, the answer is…no, it won’t make any measurable difference. Right? That’s good to know. Thanks for answer.
Greta Thunberg addressed her speech to global leaders - maybe them. China kinda has a head start on that, with the ‘One Child Policy’. Not sure how it would work in the developing nations.
It appears that industrialization, with its associated reductions in child mortality and female education and employment, tends to reduce population growth sort of automatically. OTOH industrialization isn’t what is being suggested, and it is going to be a heck of a lot harder to industrialize if cheap energy isn’t available, and there are no current cheap energy sources available that will scale up to replace fossil fuels (apart from nuclear).
Which is much of the problem with Ms. Thunberg’s speech - long on passion and rhetoric, rather short of practicalities. Certainly moral certitude is far from unheard of from the young. Things are simple when you’re young and somebody else is paying the bills.
Thing is, her speech wasn’t aimed solely at Trump.
Cite.
Regards,
Shodan
Right now we aren’t paying our own bills, so we are leaving that for her generation and those that follow to deal with, while they also have to live in the world we are leaving for them. Things are simple when you can just kick the can down the road and have the kids and grandkids clean up the mess.
You say that like if I would oppose the inclusion of others who are not doing enough.
No. The future is appearing dystopian enough without octopus as head of the eugenics department.
Seriously though, the talk of depopulation is something that is bound to be more controversial than anything I can think of. But…
HD has made the assertion twice now that Greta Thunberg is rich: the original post and a subsequent quoting of that post, yet he has not offered a cite for that as requested in post #29.
That’s the advantage of being 16 - you can make these kinds of speeches, and it doesn’t seem quite fair to talk too much about the implications of what she is saying.
Everyone can admire her passion, then you run up against the hard edge of “OK, what do we actually do about it?”
Like I said, she’s 16 - “there’s a crisis coming - do something!!!” looks like helping when you’re 16. It’s much of a piece with AOC’s “just - pay for it” approach to governance.
Many problems are simple when you are not the one who has to fix them.
Regards,
Shodan
And many problems are “impossible” to fix when it would cost those in power something, and while they won’t be around to live with the consequences of inaction. I call that the “fuck the grandkids” mindset.
I meant it as short-hand for this bit of the OP: “… she hit the birth lottery. Born in a 1st world country, in the golden age of our species, she has benefited from fossil fuels in every aspect of her life.” I doubt she’s a 1%er, but looking at her privileged position compared to the rest of history and humanity, she’s probably not all that far off.
That is the weirdest ad hominem I’ve ever read.
Shows how little they have to attack her for, but attack her they must! Always gotta have someone to aim the right wing hate machine at.
There have no doubt been some savage attacks on her in some corners of the internet. My noting her privilege would barely seem to register among them.
Here’s how it works.
The extremely rich and powerful run things. They, in fact, pretty much always have. They run governments. Our Senate is the best example of this, but the other facets of government are also included. Acknowledging global warming caused by fossil fuels is unacceptable financially for them because the sun has one horrible and non correctable fault: you can’t put a meter on it. To acknowledge global warming would be, to them, financial suicide. They just won’t do it, which means the people they own in government won’t do it, either. They will continue to call solid, basic science “rubbish”.
Yes some corners of the internet have some truly odious people that think its ok to bully and attack a 16 year old because they disagree with her, just like those same corners attacked teenage survivors of a school massacre that had just watched their friends die.
Are you saying that you have collected more vicious material to attack her with, but you are just holding back out of a sense of propriety? Please enlighten us with all of the excellent material there is out there to attack her with if you want, or you can just stick with insinuations like that one.
Meh. It’s also fairly pointless to point out when her audience is global leaders and power brokers whose standing and privilege likely outstrips that of a 16 year old girl.
I haven’t “collected” anything of the sort, so I won’t be enlightening you further on that matter. If you’re interested, feel free to do your own research.
I wouldn’t touch your “corners of the internet” with a 100 foot pole while wearing a hazmat suit.
You do seem to be quite aware of these “savage” attacks though. Seems weird to bring that up but then when clarification is requested to decline to elaborate. Almost as if just making the insinuation was enough for your purposes, whatever they may be, in saying that in the first place.
And here I thought that the fact that “her audience is global leaders and power brokers” is just another indication of her privilege.
You and I will almost certainly never be given the privilege of addressing an assembly of world leaders.
Sounds like jealousy, and also an interesting use of the word privilege. I thought the right didn’t think there was such a thing as privilege. Or is it only certain types of privilege that are supposed to not exist? Or does it only exist when you can use it as a political cudgel against someone you disagree with?
You seem to be intent on picking a pointless fight. Dial it back.
[/moderating]