Elections JD Vance: "Women that don't want children due to climate change are sociopaths"

[Hit-N-Run]

This whole line of speech is geared towards getting incels on board. Trump team already has that voting block. Not sure why they keep putting effort on a group they already own.

 

[Stump]

Also in many parts of the developing world too given that a hundred years ago many were still under colonial rule.

That's even more absurd, the idea that we're on the verge of a climate apocalypse is hysteria. I addressed the idea of lower living standards because its a more reasonable, if still unreasonable IMO, version of the argument but someone who really thinks we're facing an imminent threat to civilization needs to take a deep breathe.

Disagree, mate.

The concensus opinion by the relevant experts in the field point to something much closer to an imminent threat to civilization than to some kind of a mere inconvenient reduction of the standard of living.

Unless you're willing to disregard what the scientific community says are likely outcomes, you can't fairly label concerns about the worst case societal breakdown and associated large-scale starvation and potential nuclear warfare as "hysteria"

And if you are going to create your own take on the ramifications of climate change, why bother buying into it at all? Just join the party. Drill baby drill.

It sounds like you're really close to that. In your opinion, even just a lower standard of living is an "unreasonable" prediction? Do you give any value to the climate change models and descriptions (which we are seeing happening)? Do you think they've got the right idea but you just know kt won't actually be the way it's described due to some kind of secret knowledge or faith?

 

[UberHere]

Nothing wrong with not wanting kids no matter what the reason.

 

[Zazen]

Misery loves company. Dude probably hates his kids and wants others to know his suffering

 

[Deorum]

There still much land to be used, I think the world* can support many more people. Maybe even 15 trillion. More people means more culture, more geniuses.

We'll probably get nowhere near 1 trillion much less 15 trillion but I agree we are far from hitting some limit.

There is a lot of land, and the US can sustain a much larger population than it has now even as is with its wildly inefficient utilization of space and hodgepodge infrastructure. But the big open country of "nothingness" as it would appear on a population density map that lies west of the 100th meridian and east of the Sierra Nevadas and Cascades overwhelmingly falls into at least one of three categories in its designation or use: crop farming, cattle ranching, and/or federally protected public lands in the form of national parks, forests, monuments, recreation areas, and wildlife refuges. These are not areas where rampant encroachment with commercial, industrial, and residential development is desirable. You either erode the country's greatest tangible asset (and the most fundamental component of national security) or desecrate national treasures and turn the country into America The Ugly.

(^^ It's really more like the 98th meridian but '100' has the superior aesthetics and keeps with John Wesley Powell's OG field survey; and he came really damn close to nailing it precisely)

 

[curryjunkie]

Also in many parts of the developing world too given that a hundred years ago many were still under colonial rule.

That's even more absurd, the idea that we're on the verge of a climate apocalypse is hysteria. I addressed the idea of lower living standards because its a more reasonable, if still unreasonable IMO, version of the argument but someone who really thinks we're facing an imminent threat to civilization needs to take a deep breathe.

you havent the slightest idea what is coming, to dismiss it as hysteria is complacent, colonialism has fuck all to do with it.

 

[cincymma79]

I mean the good news is any babies liberals were going to have get the hook anyway

 

[Islam Imamate]

Disagree, mate.

The concensus opinion by the relevant experts in the field point to something much closer to an imminent threat to civilization than to some kind of a mere inconvenient reduction of the standard of living.

Unless you're willing to disregard what the scientific community says are likely outcomes, you can't fairly label concerns about the worst case societal breakdown and associated large-scale starvation and potential nuclear warfare as "hysteria"

And if you are going to create your own take on the ramifications of climate change, why bother buying into it at all? Just join the party. Drill baby drill.

It sounds like you're really close to that. In your opinion, even just a lower standard of living is an "unreasonable" prediction? Do you give any value to the climate change models and descriptions (which we are seeing happening)? Do you think they've got the right idea but you just know kt won't actually be the way it's described due to some kind of secret knowledge or faith?

As unfair as it sounds the worst climate models tend to show that developing countries like those in the Indian subcontinent or around Lake Chad will suffer the most. We may very well see more and more climate refugees in the future and many people will suffer.

But in general if you live in the developed West and especially the US you will be fine.

There is a lot of land, and the US can sustain a much larger population than it has now even as is with its wildly inefficient utilization of space and hodgepodge infrastructure. But the big open country of "nothingness" as it would appear on a population density map that lies west of the 100th meridian and east of the Sierra Nevadas and Cascades overwhelmingly falls into at least one of three categories in its designation or use: crop farming, cattle ranching, and/or federally protected public lands in the form of national parks, forests, monuments, recreation areas, and wildlife refuges. These are not areas where rampant encroachment with commercial, industrial, and residential development is desirable. You either erode the country's greatest tangible asset (and the most fundamental component of national security) or desecrate national treasures and turn the country into America The Ugly.

(^^ It's really more like the 98th meridian but '100' has the superior aesthetics and keeps with John Wesley Powell's OG field survey; and he came really damn close to nailing it precisely)

I'm not much of a fan of the Trump idea of using federal lands to build new cities in the middle of nowhere to solve the housing crisis. With efficient land use policies there's plenty of room to grow in and around existing cities. My utopian dream would be something like a near continuous urban area on the eastern seaboard with transit connections from NYC to Miami with medium density suburbs filling in the space between the cities. Think like the Greater Tokyo Area which is centered around Tokyo proper but includes six neighboring prefectures which collectively represent a massive, continuous urban area.

The benefit of maximizing population density and clustering most of your population in a few cities is that you maximize the agglomeration effect while better preserving agricultural land and nature reserves.

you havent the slightest idea what is coming, to dismiss it as hysteria is complacent, colonialism has fuck all to do with it.

To be clear we should worry about climate change but I don't buy it as a reasonable or even sincere reason as to why someone decides not to have a child.

 

[Andy Capp]

Also in many parts of the developing world too given that a hundred years ago many were still under colonial rule.

That's even more absurd, the idea that we're on the verge of a climate apocalypse is hysteria. I addressed the idea of lower living standards because its a more reasonable, if still unreasonable IMO, version of the argument but someone who really thinks we're facing an imminent threat to civilization needs to take a deep breathe.

I'm not sure what you mean by a climate apocalypse but it is most definitely too late to prevent some pretty awful disasters as a result of climate change. Many people are going to suffer who wouldn't have had action been taken 50-ish years ago when the alarm was first being sounded.

That's not the same thing as an imminent threat to civilisation but it's still shitty and didn't have to happen. Just sayin'.

 

[Jon!]

I'm not sure what you mean by a climate apocalypse but it is most definitely too late to prevent some pretty awful disasters as a result of climate change. Many people are going to suffer who wouldn't have had action been taken 50-ish years ago when the alarm was first being sounded.

That's not the same thing as an imminent threat to civilisation but it's still shitty and didn't have to happen. Just sayin'.

Yeah, we're gonna have a lot of unstable silliness and people will die, but the earth isn't going to become uninhabitable overnight.

It was totally unnecessary to let shit get this far, and anyone who loses a loved one needs to interrogate the dickheads that denied climate change all this time.

 

[lsa]

I have never heard people that do not want children (my self included) only having a single reason for it. Well except "I hate kids".
I would like to see some poll / source for this.

Most people I know have several reasons for it.
Its often something they have thought about.

 

[chardog]

If you limit your perspective to an unbelievably narrow one of the first world without regard to migration patterns, geography, or time itself...sure.

*Edit*
BTW, just for the sake of juxtaposition, certainly it may be coincidence, I don't care what conclusions you draw, if any, but since this falls directly within context, for the giggles, I offer you the global temperature average...

Earth has plenty of land

If we take the population of 8 billion with a population density of 2500sq/mi, LA county (not LA proper), you would have a mix of big city, and many suburbs, parks, recreation, mansions, apartments, etc. that would require 3.2 million square miles or the size of Rhode Island. The entire world inside Rhode Island. You can scale those numbers in either direction, if everyone demands a nice spacious area, then maybe we need as much land as Texas…. Let’s just say, it’s not possible to run out of land, people want to live near each other, hence the competition.

 

[Madmick]

Earth has plenty of land

If we take the population of 8 billion with a population density of 2500sq/mi, LA county (not LA proper), you would have a mix of big city, and many suburbs, parks, recreation, mansions, apartments, etc. that would require 3.2 million square miles or the size of Rhode Island. The entire world inside Rhode Island. You can scale those numbers in either direction, if everyone demands a nice spacious area, then maybe we need as much land as Texas…. Let’s just say, it’s not possible to run out of land, people want to live near each other, hence the competition.

LA can't sustain itself. It's running the Colorado River dry. It imports nearly all of its food.

You can't pick a population density and say it's viable, projecting it onto the whole of the earth, when you're citing an area that can't sustain its own life without massive aid from other land masses.

 

[Stump]

As unfair as it sounds the worst climate models tend to show that developing countries like those in the Indian subcontinent or around Lake Chad will suffer the most. We may very well see more and more climate refugees in the future and many people will suffer.

But in general if you live in the developed West and especially the US you will be fine.

The developed world and the developing world are on the same planet. In your first post, I agreed that immigration is a popular bogeyman for the talking heads on the right, but as parts of the world become unliveable for billions, I think it's quite unreasonable to think that these people won't do whatever they possibly can to survive. They won't shrug their collective shoulders and decry how "unfair" it is, they'll do something about it. Something very short-term oriented because they're concerned only about their survival.

This is the way society unravels: Immigration pressures so extreme that we'll need a new word for it. A level of deprivation (starvation, lack of fresh water) that leads to truly desperate actions which will threaten the foodweb. Extreme territorial skirmishes by nuclear-armed nations. If you think the Middle East is a potential tinderbox for global strife now (it is), what do you think will be the case when the temperature rises to unliveable levels, the available freshwater decreases and the crops can't be relied on like they used to?

This isn't CERTAINLY the way things will go, but as I say, you need to be in a position of fundamental disagreement with the relevant experts in the field to dismiss these sorts of potential futures as "hysteria."

 

[chardog]

LA can't sustain itself. It's running the Colorado River dry. It imports nearly all of its food.

You can't pick a population density and say it's viable, projecting it onto the whole of the earth, when you're citing an area that can't sustain its own life without massive aid from other land masses.

You have a point, but we do sustain ourselves to a degree, definitely can sustain power if we wanted.

i have no doubt that all the farm land in Texas can feed the entire world to American standards. But of course, in reality, most people don’t eat to American standards.

 

[Stump]

in reality, most people don’t eat to American standards.

Thank God.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

Okay.

The argument is that climate change is so bad and inevitable that one should not have a child in light of that because they'd be destined to a worse living standard. I think that is deeply misguided, children born now in the developed world will largely be fine.

That's awful to be clear but from the POV of family planning its not like a child born a hundred years ago is better off than one born today because they had access to more forests.

Is your position in general that you don't give a fuck about species other than humans just so we're clear?

 

[Islam Imamate]

The developed world and the developing world are on the same planet. In your first post, I agreed that immigration is a popular bogeyman for the talking heads on the right, but as parts of the world become unliveable for billions, I think it's quite unreasonable to think that these people won't do whatever they possibly can to survive. They won't shrug their collective shoulders and decry how "unfair" it is, they'll do something about it. Something very short-term oriented because they're concerned only about their survival.

This is the way society unravels: Immigration pressures so extreme that we'll need a new word for it. A level of deprivation (starvation, lack of fresh water) that leads to truly desperate actions which will threaten the foodweb. Extreme territorial skirmishes by nuclear-armed nations. If you think the Middle East is a potential tinderbox for global strife now (it is), what do you think will be the case when the temperature rises to unliveable levels, the available freshwater decreases and the crops can't be relied on like they used to?

This isn't CERTAINLY the way things will go, but as I say, you need to be in a position of fundamental disagreement with the relevant experts in the field to dismiss these sorts of potential futures as "hysteria."

Well to be clear when I say climate change will generally affect the developing world that's not my saying that its not our problem. I'm American and I do see my country as a leader on the world stage so as climate change affects more and more countries I want the US to be at the forefront of the solution whether that's developing new, sustainable technologies or contributing to international efforts at disaster relief directly.

All I'm saying is that climate change is not a reasonable reason to decide not to have a kid.

Is your position in general that you don't give a fuck about species other than humans just so we're clear?

No not at all. All I'm saying is that climate change is not so severe that you might as well not have children.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

Well to be clear when I say climate change will generally affect the developing world that's not my saying that its not our problem. I'm American and I do see my country as a leader on the world stage so as climate change affects more and more countries I want the US to be at the forefront of the solution whether that's developing new, sustainable technologies or contributing to international efforts at disaster relief directly.

All I'm saying is that climate change is not a reasonable reason to decide not to have a kid.

No not at all. All I'm saying is that climate change is not so severe that you might as well not have children.

What if someone was concerned about the future of the planet in general though. I wish people would stop pushing climate change as if it's the only concern when we have arguably bigger issues with plastics, deforestation and are midway through a mass extinction event

 

[Islam Imamate]

You have a point, but we do sustain ourselves to a degree, definitely can sustain power if we wanted.

i have no doubt that all the farm land in Texas can feed the entire world to American standards. But of course, in reality, most people don’t eat to American standards.

Also I'm pretty sure LA's intense water demand is in part because they have a large water intensive, export oriented agriculture industry and not so much its large population. So idk that its fair to say LA can't sustain itself when it has a very productive agricultural sector that feeds demand across the country and beyond.

What if someone was concerned about the future of the planet in general though. I wish people would stop pushing climate change as if it's the only concern when we have arguably bigger issues with plastics, deforestation and are midway through a mass extinction event

Those are all serious issues and we have to do a lot more to address them but I stand by my core point that none of this is so severe as to warrant despair at the thought of bringing a child into the world.