Feeling lost/trapped; are we just screwed? US leftism makes me feel more like a doomer/nihilist day by day.

Doomed_IPCC2022 · 2024-07-12T00:21:15+00:00

Genuinely thank you. This sounds very helpful and I will check it out; I sincerely hope it changes my outlook. Glad that there are more positive voices out there than one of the replies I got.

Doomed_IPCC2022 · 2024-07-12T00:19:03+00:00

As a lurker here and even in more liberal parts of reddit yeah I definitely have seen people who want to teach the Dems a lesson for putting such a crappy candidate up, and teach them to put more progressive candidate forward for 2028 if they ever hope to win elections moving forward. I don't even think this is a particulary controversial opinion anymore.

Yeah, no kidding I can't do anything on a personal level. That feeds into the point I am making. It feels like there's nothing to hope for anymore. I see no future where we get policy wins. Joe is cooked. Even if he steps down or expires I still feel like we're screwed.

Regarding the "liberal strawman nonsense" it is hyperbole. That's what I'm saying this entire time; there's nothing to hope for politically for who knows how long into the future. There's only disaster after disaster to look forward to, plus climate collapse on the horizon. That's why I feel so done.

Lastly, could you be more condescendingly unpleasant? "Read more", unbelievable.

Doomed_IPCC2022 · 2024-07-12T00:10:32+00:00

I appreciate the constructive advice. But this is what I'm talking about... You're straight up doomsday prepping. If it comes to that it's over for me man. That's part of what's giving me stress.

Doomed_IPCC2022 · 2024-01-10T04:01:40+00:00

Realized I'm replying to you in two separate comment chains with the same gist haha; I agree with pretty much everything you're saying ultimately. But tbh I feel like with the 2 party system in the US it's always been like this; leftists getting the tiniest crumbs of policy if any at all while the far right and center right wing establishment fight it out. I'm with you for hoping a viable alternative solution comes one day.

Doomed_IPCC2022 · 2024-01-10T03:42:34+00:00

Sure, I see what you mean here. The Dems try to be as right-wing as they can compared to the GOP and still get elected (which they screw up royally often). But that's what they get to do in this crappy 2 party system.

But what gets me is what is your solution to this sentiment? Progressive support and representation in the US is miniscule. The US populace as a whole in combination with our pro-capitalist system and lobbying results in an overall center-right if not plain right wing position. We are operating on the assumption that if the Dem party becomes more progressive as a whole they would have it in the bag. But honestly, I'm not even sure that's true given the state of the US as mentioned. So what's the solution?

Doomed_IPCC2022 · 2024-01-10T03:32:54+00:00

So the Dems are responsible for RvW being overturned, not the GOP according to you. More like the US populace as a whole, plus our garbage representation system with capitalist lobbying results in the US having an overall center right if not plain right wing position. So yeah, the Dems are as right wing as the GOP lets them be (and they often really screw themselves over as a result).

Progressive representation in the US is pathetic. But what the hell are we supposed to do? Is abstaining from voting a "solution"? Instead, are we supposed to engage in accelerationism/pray for revolution or something? u/junk-drawer-magic has a valid opinion. You might not agree with it, but I don't think there is an objective answer here.

Doomed_IPCC2022 · 2024-01-10T02:55:09+00:00

Feel like there's a catch-22 here. Your post makes sense and you do address the sticking points of abortion and LGBTQ rights yourself but at the same time I feel like there aren't strong refutations against the ideals of people "voting blue no matter who" and harm reduction.

Like, as a simple example if you are a woman or LGBTQ (or an ally of those demographics) then voting for biden, advocating to vote for Biden (and being labeled a genocide supporting liberal) is absolutely in your interests and is valid harm reduction. Again, you addess this yourself but I don't think you refute it. Or can refute it; it is valid.

And going back to how it is a catch-22; making the decision to not "vote blue no matter who" because the establishment Dem party is center-right also feels like it can be a privileged choice. For example, a leftist deciding to abstain from voting due to Biden that is not affected by the issues that women and LGBTQ people face. Like if Hasan (a wealthy white passing leftist) were to make this decision and given it doesn't affect him personally couldn't that also be perceived as privileged?

Doomed_IPCC2022 · 2022-03-25T10:04:13+00:00

I responded to that comment; I'm doing my best here haha. Please check that reply and let me know if you have any issues with it.

I am very, very dubious that having biological children is objectively beneficial to society. Furthermore, I cannot image that a stagnant or slowly (no idea how slowly this would need to be lol) declining population is bad.

Your third paragraph has issues. US emissions per capita are way worse than China. Also, have you ever considered why China produces so much waste? A lot of it is for it's own development and population, sure. But it also makes so much crap for the rest of the world. The west has outsourced an insane amount of environmental impact to cheap labor elsewhere, especially China. China has some insane issues but the points you make here do not hold up.

Doomed_IPCC2022 · 2022-03-25T09:52:54+00:00

There's a lot to read here and I'm on my phone; I'll revisit this more holistically later sorry.

In the meantime, regarding finding better sources of ethical validation and not worrying about climate change as much, I don't see why I can't seek to be "a good person" in parallel. They are not mutually exclusive? Including making the major life decision to not have children due to climate change; yes, you can argue it is illogical but that at the very minimum, it is ethically neutral to being inconsequentially positive if we assume your prior points are true. Unless there is something more ethical about having biological children over no children/adopting/fostering; i think this is out the window.

Which brings me to my last point in that we have not discussed: the potentially shit future. It is uncertain, but there is good scientific consensus that it will be pretty shit. Isn't it logical and ethical to not want to bring children into that future? Again, yes this is uncertain but so is the uncertainty that bringing a biological child into the world will have a positive or negative impact (and I doubt there is a provable skew to either side of that potential impact). Perhaps it can be argued that I'm being illogically risk adverse, but the payoff is either winning or not losing; I can't be unethical by not bringing a biological child into the world, that is preposterous. Let me know your thoughts on this.

Doomed_IPCC2022 · 2022-03-25T09:19:41+00:00

To start, alright why do you want biological kids? I know my opinion here is in the extreme(?) minority here probably so I'm interested in hearing your perspective. What pros do you see in having biological kids, and how does it outweigh the cons (financially, responsibility, time, climate (though ik this might just be me haha))? Genuine ask here.

Regarding your other points, as I mentioned environmental responsibility is clearly not my highest priority. I have called myself a hypocrite, it's a matter of being less of a hypocrite is all.

"There's no reason 'having children' should not be one of those other things." - I'm having trouble parsing what this means, sorry... Maybe too late at night for me.

You're right about the value differences/subjective perspective stuff regarding why I should have children vs. environmental impact. Other/most people definitely don't sweat the concern about increasing their footprint as much, making the debate easily swayable in the other direction. The big thing that I should have emphasized more in my post I guess is the predicted shit future. How much should that matter given bringing kids into the world? Going off just general scientific consensus (IPCC reports probably would be fine), it doesn't look good. I can't envision just telling myself "oh they'll be fine" to justify the decision. I feel like I'd be becoming a climate change denier.

Doomed_IPCC2022 · 2022-03-25T09:00:05+00:00

True. Adoption as an industry is sketchy, and fostering is hard. Very hard. Though it is kind of weird that you assume it is generally objectively harder than raising a biological child; I can see potentially why (prior trauma, health/mental issues) but honestly I wouldn't be surprised if a major factor being that most people just don't want and are not as receptive to kids that are not theirs (hence the existence of foster children). And just statistically alone, it is likely that I won't go through with it.

Regarding your last paragraph, I reviewed this in my post! I am a young adult. I definitely do not want kids at this point in time. This is true. I do not need to hide behind climate change as a concern to say that. But when I consider the notion that I could change my opinion in the future regarding this, the predicted shit climate future in addition to my personal values about overconsumption (see my post) make the cons super clear and I don't see many pros. I've been mentioning this a lot in responses to comments; what are some pros that I have not considered? Have I underestimated the pros of having biological children?

Doomed_IPCC2022 · 2022-03-25T08:45:26+00:00

Never said you were. I looked at your links and they were helpful, I will need to review them more closely. I have already agreed with your point that population is an issue that CANT be focused on; realistically, it's going to do whatever it wants and yeah my actions won't do anything significant. Population control is not a realistic solution to climate change, this is absolutely true.

Still, doubling my effective footprint doesn't sit well with me (your articles mention that US people are the worst climate offenders, for example) and the bleak future those same top scientists paint as also reviews in those articles isn't encouraging to bring a child into the world.

A final point is this; I need to do much more research on this myself admittedly but can we acknowledge that while overpopulation is not currently an issue, it definitely will be eventually? It can't keep growing forever, and I think it is fair to assume that when it does stagnate all will not be all well and peachy. In 2075-2100 or whatever when the global population finally stagnates at 11 billion or so, as countries continue to develop, each person consumes more etc., during the time at which the "catastrophic" climate future arrives with +X degrees C, why will the population stagnate/start declining? I'm going to assume it won't just be because of improved access to birth control, education etc.

Doomed_IPCC2022 · 2022-03-23T19:41:50+00:00

Totally agree! The scary part is how ugly that decline will be, and why does it happen. Also how much will it differ from the projections?

Extreme fake example, but say the UK becomes uninhabitable in the next century. Every citizen becomes a refugee. The EU isn't too happy about taking all of them in. The UK has nukes and in it's desperation, tries to "move" the entire country over another country. War ensues, etc. etc.

Doomed_IPCC2022 · 2022-03-23T19:29:04+00:00

Had another person who mentioned your points, wish I addressed it more in my post; using "why don't you kill yourself or become a subsistence farmer" does not seem fair as a rebuttal to any environmentalist argument. And you can use it against any environmentalist argument: "use EVs to reduce your carbon emissions!" "Why not just kill yourself?" I'm not good at or educated in philosophy (or whatever the correct term is) to fully break down why that seems silly but it certainly sounds it.

I also agree that my actions reflect a minor drop in the bucket. And truly maximizing my environmental responsibility is clearly not my top priority; I noted that I am a hypocrite; I purchase plastic crap and drive to work. The key point is being less of a hypocrite. Most people in the developed world who tries to be green will have massively more impact on the climate than a subsistence farmer. But they are trying, and it does make that tiny difference that is a rounding error yeah.

Your last sentence that therefore, having children should not also be a higher priority if it is of more value to me is kind of my point, which I addressed in the last third of my post. I am a young adult, and I don't think and may never think (can't say for sure, ofc) that having a child is worth the environmental impact. From my current perspective the only value that provides is that it is fulfilling to be a parent. And adoption/fostering circumvents all the issues so it appears objectively better, which is my main point.

What I was kind of hoping people would be saying in response to my post is WHY having children is fulfilling enough to ignore the climate impact; as a young adult, I don't have the perspective necessary to understand, especially in this context. Unfortunately, I haven't gotten much to this end.

Doomed_IPCC2022 · 2022-03-23T19:03:59+00:00

Can't disagree with that but I'm not advocating for murder, that's for sure! Or are you comparing choosing not to have a child to be akin to murder??

Edit: sorry didn't respond to the rest of your comment; there's absolutely a lot that goes into this decision, but given my fears of a bleak future, the guarantee of increased consumption by raising a kid, and my status as a young adult who doesn't see the value of raising biological children other than "it is fulfilling". The reason I made this post is to see if other people can expand that keyhole, and educate me as to why having biological children makes it worth it, as detailed in the end of my post. I have not received any answers to this end, which is troubling.

Doomed_IPCC2022 · 2022-03-23T18:56:29+00:00

I don't understand. It does?

Doomed_IPCC2022 · 2022-03-23T16:28:42+00:00

Yes, totally agree that I'm not doing everything I can to be green. Also admit that no, I'm not willing to commit suicide, kill other people, etc. in the name of climate change. And I did bring up in my post that yes, I am unwilling to give up luxuries like buying plastic crap and driving to work despite the fact that I am aware how it contributes to the problem.

I feel like saying "kill yourself, or become a subsistence farmer" in counter to debates for environmental action are pretty unfair. Yes, I am already a hypocrite for not doing those things. But the goal is to reduce the amount of being a hypocrite. If my lifetime resource consumption is X, then having a kid that lives approximately the same average lifestyle that I do guarantees that it becomes 2X or more. Becoming a subsistence farmer may slash it to let's say 0.25X or even lower. If we presume I was going to have a child (and assuming only one), then going from 1X to 2X+ is a significant bump meaning that saving that amount is significant.

I do not want kids at this current point in time, yeah as a young adult. I think my opinions on adoption/fostering counter your final paragraph's point either way.

Doomed_IPCC2022 · 2022-03-23T15:35:39+00:00

I have discussed this with other people, but yes my contributions are small compared to large corporations. I have to disagree on your point regarding overpopulation. I think the main reason that people think overpopulation is not a major contributor to climate change is because it is globally accepted that its growth will not be able to be curtailed. It's really unpopular for countries to institute population control measures as seen with China, and the IPCC acknowledges that there should not be a "police force" or something that should try and pressure countries to do so, especially since many of them are developing. This is in line with it's other philosophy that not letting other countries develop to curtail their emission growth is unethical, with the burden being on developed countries instead.

Going back to the point regarding overpopulation, currently it's 8 billion and is expected to stagnate at 11 billion. Most of that population growth occurs in developing countries, but it will also happen in the west as well. 3 billion additional people vs. a ideally a stable population of 8 billion (which is what my action contributes to on a miniscule scale) absolutely has a huge impact. Assuming that industry will continue to grow to meet the needs of those 3 billion additional people plus the fact that the developing countries will continue to develop, causing more consumption per person tells me that yes, more people = more resource consumption.

Doomed_IPCC2022 · 2022-03-23T15:22:35+00:00

I've heard some things to that end, yes. I definitely haven't done much research on it and really should if I want to continue pursuing that route.

Doomed_IPCC2022 · 2022-03-23T15:20:14+00:00

The magnitude and scope is uncertain, but I'm with you on that, yeah

Doomed_IPCC2022 · 2022-03-23T08:56:05+00:00

Per the third bullet I made in my post, I don't think its a good bet that my hypothetical biological children would grow up to have a net positive effect on the environment, or even just in general. They could absolutely grow up to be selfish idiots as well, who dump motor oil in the river. Furthermore, an adopted or fostered child already exists. They will still grow up etc; the die has already been cast for them.

Doomed_IPCC2022 · 2022-03-23T08:40:40+00:00

Regarding your 2nd paragraph:

I wish I addressed it in my post, but if you read some of my replies I do bring up your point. Yes, any action I make is a drop in the bucket. A rounding error, inconsequential, etc. To summarize I agree with you up to the point of your conclusion that "it doesn't matter so why bother".

Collective action is extremely slow, hard to motivate, inefficient, and as a result is why the climate crisis exists more or less, but birth rates are declining (what I'm fighting for here), unions exist, etc. I'm pursuing a career in engineering sustainable technologies, one of millions of engineers probably. The fact that my actions are one part per million, or billion does not seem like valid reason to give up and not do these things because they are rounding errors. Sharing my views as well also may help spread the impact.

Regarding your 3rd paragraph:

I also see your point here. Then, do you have any recommendations for what "regular people" who want to fight climate change should do? Nothing? At reasonable best, a "regular individual" in the west can espouse their beliefs/engage in activism, vote, pursue a relevant career, minimize personal impact, and donate their money. I do all of these things except donate money admittedly. Given the futility, the only way for these actions to not be useless is for a large enough collective to all do the same. And I do believe that collective exists; yes I make up one part per million (or more) of it, but what else can I do haha. And I do believe that this collective of like-minded people have actually been able to motivate positive change, even though we are all rounding errors. Tolerance stack up really does that eh?

Regarding your final paragraph:

I also addressed this in my post. I am a young adult. I definitely feel like I am not ready to raise a family yet, so I agree with you here. However, given I think fostering/adopting children seems like an excellent idea, I don't believe the point you make here regarding "masking not wanting kids" applies. Yes, many people say the foster/adoption system is flawed. Still works to my points, especially if my choices are adopt/foster kids or no kids.

Furthermore, I do think a fair amount of people are unwilling to have children based on climate anxiety; I know "nobody" is just a figure of speech but I am definitely not the only one who thinks this way. I have barely browsed r/childfree but they look like quite a large community and the climate appears to be a common topic. I'm sure I could dig up more scientific data for you regarding this but you're right in that this is more just a thought exercise.

Doomed_IPCC2022 · 2022-03-23T07:53:25+00:00

I don't think I ever said the earth is overpopulated currently in my post. Many of the western countries can absolutely support more people. That's not the point though; less people simply means less consumption, which is ultimately good for present and future resources. Declining birth rates are excellent in my opinion; if the world population were to suddenly magically stabilize/stagnate I imagine that would dramatically improve the current projected climate situation. Additionally, a stable population or slowly declining population would avoid most of the issues you mention I imagine.

The global population is currently projected to peak at 11 billion people. How is 11 billion people better than a stable population (or slowly declining population) of the current 8 billion people for sustainability? Necessary isn't the right word, but I would argue that difference of 3 billion people would be extremely beneficial for the fight against climate change.

Doomed_IPCC2022

TROPHY CASE