Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com>: Sep 15 07:53AM -0700
I have to say, I hadn't noticed the sudden silence in the last few months.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/opinion/letters/hasidic-schools-yeshivas.html
"The West burns under a heat dome as Pakistan drowns, Arctic permafrost melts and the great rivers of Europe go dry.
"Where have all the climate-crisis deniers gone, and why are they being allowed to hide?"
Stephen Cooper
Los Angeles
_____________________________________________
However, it just might be a good idea for environmentalists not to say, rudely, "I told you so." That way, the deniers can stop sulking after a while and have enough time to scrape their dignity together and - maybe - remake themselves as fighters of climate change, if not quite in the way their enemies were hoping for.
At any rate, I think the two of the biggest reasons liberals are having trouble with fighting climate change are:
1. Their unwillingness to say, loudly and frequently, that in a First World nation, no, it should NOT be acceptable to have more than one child - if that, no matter how married or rich you are. Any modern environmentalist will tell you that, if asked. (Older ones, like Al Gore and Dr. David Suzuki somehow never thought of that, even in the 1970s - when each of them had children!) One reason it's different in Third World nations is that people there don't consume nearly as many resources. Another is that having children is often the only form of Social Security, and each couple has to anticipate that at least one child will die in childhood. But even "only" 8 billion people may not be able to eat three meals a day if disasters keep happening, so any economic problems we will have by shrinking the birth rate even further will just have to be dealt with - likely through teaching extreme personal frugality.
2. Their unwillingness to say that frugality should NOT be just for adults. Why does anyone expect future generations to sacrifice their First World lifestyles (and the environmental harm that comes from consuming) when parents act as though it's OK for kids to demand almost anything, on a whim, without so much as telling the KIDS to pay for it? Yes, they'll be crushed, but they'll get used to WORKING for what they want or even not wanting it any more - and the parents won't have to make any depressing lectures about the environment - or the family's lack of money.
(IMO, the only time parents should say "we can't afford it" as opposed to "it's not good for you" or "earn it" is when they're talking about things like the basics of food, clothing or shelter. Of course, any homeless kid already knows the parents are poor.)
|
Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com>: Sep 15 11:29AM -0700
On 9/15/2022 7:53 AM, Lenona wrote:
> However, it just might be a good idea for environmentalists not to say, rudely, "I told you so." That way, the deniers can stop sulking after a while and have enough time to scrape their dignity together and - maybe - remake themselves as fighters of climate change, if not quite in the way their enemies were hoping for.
> At any rate, I think the two of the biggest reasons liberals are having trouble with fighting climate change are:
> 1. Their unwillingness to say, loudly and frequently, that in a First World nation, no, it should NOT be acceptable to have more than one child - if that, no matter how married or rich you are. Any modern environmentalist will tell you that, if asked. (Older ones, like Al Gore and Dr. David Suzuki somehow never thought of that, even in the 1970s - when each of them had children!) One reason it's different in Third World nations is that people there don't consume nearly as many resources. Another is that having children is often the only form of Social Security, and each couple has to anticipate that at least one child will die in childhood. But even "only" 8 billion people may not be able to eat three meals a day if disasters keep happening, so any economic problems we will have by shrinking the birth rate even further will just have to be dealt with - likely through teaching extreme personal frugality.
Today, we have a whole political party which seems to have the intention
that EVERY baby that can possibly be conceived has to be carried to
term. First, banning abortion, then they will be aiming at banning birth
control in every form they can get away with. They seem to want to ban
sex unless it is for the purpose of producing babies.
|
Dim Witte <dakadldo2@gmail.com>: Sep 15 11:46AM -0700
On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 6:53:39 AM UTC-8, Lenona wrote:
> Los Angeles
> _____________________________________________
> However, it just might be a good idea for environmentalists not to say, rudely, "I told you so." That way, the deniers can stop sulking after a while and have enough time to scrape their dignity together and - maybe - remake themselves as fighters of climate change, if not quite in the way their enemies were hoping for.
We are conditioned by childhood tales, like Chicken Little, who said "The sky is falling," when it wasn't. Always some who identify with storm and stress issues, because it suits their disposition.
> At any rate, I think the two of the biggest reasons liberals are having trouble with fighting climate change are:
My impression is that liberals, in fact, identify with causes like climate change, because they need a survival band stand to advertise their lack of independence and traditional values.
> 1. Their unwillingness to say, loudly and frequently, that in a First World nation, no, it should NOT be acceptable to have more than one child - if that, no matter how married or rich you are. Any modern environmentalist will tell you that, if asked. (Older ones, like Al Gore and Dr. David Suzuki somehow never thought of that, even in the 1970s - when each of them had children!) One reason it's different in Third World nations is that people there don't consume nearly as many resources. Another is that having children is often the only form of Social Security, and each couple has to anticipate that at least one child will die in childhood. But even "only" 8 billion people may not be able to eat three meals a day if disasters keep happening, so any economic problems we will have by shrinking the birth rate even further will just have to be dealt with - likely through teaching extreme personal frugality.
"Acceptable" to who? Communist nation like China tried to limit child birth, then backed away. Long tradition of disfavoring female babies.
> 2. Their unwillingness to say that frugality should NOT be just for adults. Why does anyone expect future generations to sacrifice their First World lifestyles (and the environmental harm that comes from consuming) when parents act as though it's OK for kids to demand almost anything, on a whim, without so much as telling the KIDS to pay for it? Yes, they'll be crushed, but they'll get used to WORKING for what they want or even not wanting it any more - and the parents won't have to make any depressing lectures about the environment - or the family's lack of money.
Communist China has called it "social reform," and established work camps for re-education.
> (IMO, the only time parents should say "we can't afford it" as opposed to "it's not good for you" or "earn it" is when they're talking about things like the basics of food, clothing or shelter. Of course, any homeless kid already knows the parents are poor.)
Let's face it, in U.S. the poor and homeless are the result of parents who are poor and homeless, so single mothers depend on government hand outs, drug addiction is rampant, need for abortion a consequence of sex trade for drugs, and our male gangsters not only throw free drug parties, but bankroll police and judges with income from trafficking and collusion with enforcers and political lobbyists.
IMO, what's being ignored and even accepted is political party collusion with government trafficking with tax money to sell arms and manipulate its free market economy. The economy that has evolved is now going into inflation, so that the value of money is going down, and we must depend even more of government socialist programs.
Thanks for using the forum as an advertising platform.
|
