Why wouldn't one be anxious about impending environment crisis and inability of institutions to act quickly enough.
Because it is a slow moving event that will unfold over the next century.
It cannot be both so incredibly anxiety causing and also lacking in any urgency at the population level simultaneously.
I think at least 60% of people would beg to differ.
Also, where do your data from? We're seeing the impacts right now and although we still have a chance of minimising the impact we're still emitting GHG at dangerous rates.
As a climate activist, my data comes largely from the NOAA/EPA as well as independent think-tanks.
Slow moving event? It seems you've already gotten used to quarterly news reports of wild fires, floods, cyclones, storms, drought and mass animal graves be it terrestrial or aquatic life forms. Humans are losing their homes and lives to these events routinely. There's already a term coined for such climate refugees, making all the countries nervous about the future.
Even to generously concede your statement... you're referring to the course of their lifetime, that century. By the end of which, apocalypse.
Not really, the apocalypse scenario was averted by the banning of CFCs, which were a much worse greenhouse gas that were on track to cause a 4+ degree rise instead of the 2 we're on track for now.
Also, it was an apocalypse scenario because the damage it was doing to the natural atmosphere was liable to pair that temperature rise with everyone getting every kind of skin cancer imaginable from unfiltered solar radiation.
Watch "The Human Future" by Melodysheep, it gives a real perspective moment on just how hard life would be to dislodge even in a major die out scenario.
An event which wipes out 99% of all humans alive now would still leave the earth populated by 80 million people, which is a larger number than the total global population was for a massive stretch of our history.
Glad to hear that you wouldn't describe a 99% die off of the human population as apocalyptic, let alone all the life not able to adapt to rapid change. Whilst the remaining 1% sits in the wreckage of a blighted environment now incredibly hostile to life. Let's hope the remaining 80 million are fairly centrally located and don't just starve, freeze or kill each other in the wasteland, to round out that non-apocalypse.
Don't forget to have kids, Gen Z, we need more fodder for the impending mass death event.
Tell me you drove your literature teacher into day drinking without telling me you drove your literature teacher into day drinking.
Get off the internet and learn some reading comprehension skills angsty.
Beautiful.
I just think they lack any real issues. I grew up poor and constantly insecure. I had real issues, and it has given be perspective. I'm grateful for every day I have food and shelter. I don't have a lot of bandwidth to care about stuff which might affect people 100 years from now.
Of course I'm glad that they grew up with such privileged lives. I just wish they'd care a little more about poor people today.
You mean like the threat of the end of democracy? Or the housing crisis? Or the student debt crisis? Inflation (which is largely just greed)? Increasing wealth disparity? Frozen wage increases? Loss of pensions? Threats to social security? Medical costs increasing and insurance paying out less and less?
Have empathy, and look around. Just because you are OK now doesn't mean everyone is.
I mean, plenty of Gen Z end up on the streets too, just like any generation, because housing availability and income is just getting worse for poor people.
Anxiety issues are fairly associated with poverty.
Most the young people I know (California, USA, I'm a young millennial) are precarious, and most feel precarious. They are also watching baby boomers (sometimes their parents and grandparents) end up on the streets in high numbers, but also don't have the extra income to put into retirement or get a healthy savings to secure a future for themselves, much less help their ailing family members. Their health issue incidence is high, and the availability of care for those health issues is low and very expensive. People living off of Gig apps and part time jobs (because jobs with benefits are unavailable without a college education, and sometimes even with). If they live separate from their family most of their income goes to rent.
And climate change isn't something that affects people 100 years from now, it affects us right now in certain zones. The number of homes destroyed/damaged in various disasters each year where I live has gone way up, and a lot of the people who are displaced end up on the streets or in ever growing slums/camps.
There's a general sense that the future will be worse than the present, which makes present struggles feel worse. People turn to drug use, sometimes to self medicate for physical and emotional issues.
People don't want to have kids, because they don't see a future for those children, and don't have the resources to provide for them.
I agree there needs to be more solidarity, especially with the most impoverished. Part of the struggle is worsened by atomization and individualism, and propaganda deriding the impoverished.
Why wouldn't one be anxious about impending environment crisis and inability of institutions to act quickly enough.
Because it is a slow moving event that will unfold over the next century.
It cannot be both so incredibly anxiety causing and also lacking in any urgency at the population level simultaneously.
I think at least 60% of people would beg to differ.
Also, where do your data from? We're seeing the impacts right now and although we still have a chance of minimising the impact we're still emitting GHG at dangerous rates.
As a climate activist, my data comes largely from the NOAA/EPA as well as independent think-tanks.
The poster you're responding to is correct.
Slow moving event? It seems you've already gotten used to quarterly news reports of wild fires, floods, cyclones, storms, drought and mass animal graves be it terrestrial or aquatic life forms. Humans are losing their homes and lives to these events routinely. There's already a term coined for such climate refugees, making all the countries nervous about the future.
Even to generously concede your statement... you're referring to the course of their lifetime, that century. By the end of which, apocalypse.
Not really, the apocalypse scenario was averted by the banning of CFCs, which were a much worse greenhouse gas that were on track to cause a 4+ degree rise instead of the 2 we're on track for now.
Also, it was an apocalypse scenario because the damage it was doing to the natural atmosphere was liable to pair that temperature rise with everyone getting every kind of skin cancer imaginable from unfiltered solar radiation.
Watch "The Human Future" by Melodysheep, it gives a real perspective moment on just how hard life would be to dislodge even in a major die out scenario.
An event which wipes out 99% of all humans alive now would still leave the earth populated by 80 million people, which is a larger number than the total global population was for a massive stretch of our history.
Glad to hear that you wouldn't describe a 99% die off of the human population as apocalyptic, let alone all the life not able to adapt to rapid change. Whilst the remaining 1% sits in the wreckage of a blighted environment now incredibly hostile to life. Let's hope the remaining 80 million are fairly centrally located and don't just starve, freeze or kill each other in the wasteland, to round out that non-apocalypse.
Don't forget to have kids, Gen Z, we need more fodder for the impending mass death event.
Tell me you drove your literature teacher into day drinking without telling me you drove your literature teacher into day drinking.
Get off the internet and learn some reading comprehension skills angsty.
Beautiful.
I just think they lack any real issues. I grew up poor and constantly insecure. I had real issues, and it has given be perspective. I'm grateful for every day I have food and shelter. I don't have a lot of bandwidth to care about stuff which might affect people 100 years from now.
Of course I'm glad that they grew up with such privileged lives. I just wish they'd care a little more about poor people today.
You mean like the threat of the end of democracy? Or the housing crisis? Or the student debt crisis? Inflation (which is largely just greed)? Increasing wealth disparity? Frozen wage increases? Loss of pensions? Threats to social security? Medical costs increasing and insurance paying out less and less?
Have empathy, and look around. Just because you are OK now doesn't mean everyone is.
I mean, plenty of Gen Z end up on the streets too, just like any generation, because housing availability and income is just getting worse for poor people. Anxiety issues are fairly associated with poverty.
Most the young people I know (California, USA, I'm a young millennial) are precarious, and most feel precarious. They are also watching baby boomers (sometimes their parents and grandparents) end up on the streets in high numbers, but also don't have the extra income to put into retirement or get a healthy savings to secure a future for themselves, much less help their ailing family members. Their health issue incidence is high, and the availability of care for those health issues is low and very expensive. People living off of Gig apps and part time jobs (because jobs with benefits are unavailable without a college education, and sometimes even with). If they live separate from their family most of their income goes to rent.
And climate change isn't something that affects people 100 years from now, it affects us right now in certain zones. The number of homes destroyed/damaged in various disasters each year where I live has gone way up, and a lot of the people who are displaced end up on the streets or in ever growing slums/camps. There's a general sense that the future will be worse than the present, which makes present struggles feel worse. People turn to drug use, sometimes to self medicate for physical and emotional issues. People don't want to have kids, because they don't see a future for those children, and don't have the resources to provide for them.
I agree there needs to be more solidarity, especially with the most impoverished. Part of the struggle is worsened by atomization and individualism, and propaganda deriding the impoverished.