Talk:Anti-natalism

	This philosophy related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Surprised by the lack of criticism against it

Certainly I can find thousands of criticisms against anti natalism from a cursory web search, surely criticism section could be expanded with them rather than linking to a bad debate video which ultimately has nothing to do with the subject that is being critiqued?^{— Unsigned, by: 2409:4073:195:2349:6f5a:105:4518:685d / talk}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.

The article as a whole is pretty bad. One person’s pet project, barely touched by anyone else because it’s not particularly missional. Christopher (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Dark Triad and Anti-Natalism

https://osf.io/pj5wt/ Natalie (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Bible verse for antinatalism

Ecclesiastes 4:3: So I admired the dead, who had already died, above the living, who are still alive. But better than both is he who has not yet existed, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.

Should we mention this in the article? It seems to support antinatalism. Sievert 81 (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, Wikipedia lists several historical Christian theologians and thinkers who supported what we would today describe as anti-natalism, so I think saying Judaism and Christianity are opposed is an oversimplification. At the very least, Evangelical Christianity is hardly the only right wing philosophy to obsess a little too hard over birth and promoting population increase. —2607:FB90:5129:3D03:FD36:E37B:6499:5C50 (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Human extinction"

These reasons are conveyed primarily by the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, which seeks voluntary human extinction because human existence is immoral from an environmental perspective.

This is questionable. I wouldn't bring a kid into this world because I cannot justify to myself bringing a child into a world increasingly periled by systems decay and collapse. I also do not call for the extinction of the human race. Carthage (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Too bad for your non-existing children since things keep getting better for most of humanity. They are losing a great ride. I'm honestly a bit jealous of my son, even though I'm also very happy for him.GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

We are just getting started.

I'm sure that all the world leaders proudly proclaiming a "low-carbon future with fossil fuels" applaud your noble shitposting. Even a 1.5 rise in average global temperature would be disastrous. You know that. Carthage (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Saying that the world is decaying is literally conservative shitposting. Or denialism. Anyway, you are known for both. Pretty much every prediction says that things will be better for most of humanity in 2100. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Every prediction? By climate scientists and ecologists? You're hijacking a thread that was questioning the accuracy of this specific statement. Also, I'm sure the rising number of the homeless in major American cities agree that this world just keeps getting better and that the system hasn't failed them. So, again, can you please stop shitposting? Carthage (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Also where is the limit for extreme poverty at? Carthage (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Living 120 years in a much richer world is definitely terrible. Cherrypick as much as you want, but at least look at the aggregate data.[1][2]

Nice evasion, but if you wanna look at aggregates... ok. Let's look at the global mental health crisis (and there is one): [3] [4] [5] [6] Carthage (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "Saying that the world is decaying is literally conservative shitposting. Or denialism."

What do you think systems decay means? I'm not talking about moral decay. Systems decay. The mental health system is demonstrably in decay. Carthage (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Economic woe also has a demonstrable link to negative mental health: [7] Carthage (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

You want another example? This has special relevance to me. Look at the decay and even collapse of abortion rights and availability in the United States. You know who that will hurt the most? Those who can't afford to fly out of state or country to get an abortion, thereby degrading the availabity and quality of reproductive healthcare. Back-alley abortion clinics were not known for being up-to-code, to put it lightly. Systems decay. You're a denialist. Carthage (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I've asked you a dozen of times, but could you please read your own links before posting them? Three of them are about the pandemic, and the first one focus on Canada. None of them say anything about a long-term trend. Anyway, do you have a link arguing that mental health has deteriorated over the last 200 years, just like the image I posted? Because saying that the the system is decaying because of that is a terrible argument: most people didn't even live until 5 to get depressed until not so long ago. We're on the brink of defeating poverty, child mortality, illiteracy, many diseases, life expectancy is skyrocketing, technology is advancing as its fastest pace ever... So, yeah, even if you were right this is not enough evidence to say that things are getting worse for most people. Regarding abortion economic woes, are you saying that we have more economic woes today? Because the economy had never been so stable: if it weren't for covid, the decade between 2010 and 2020 would be the first in American history without a recession. Talking about America, you do know that abortion rights are becoming more secure in most of the world, right? See Timeline of reproductive rights legislation. Don't treat an exception as a rule. Not that things are getting worse for most Americans, of course. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, and yes. The number of homeless people is also dropping.[8]. It's almost 10% lower than 2007 despite the increase in overall population, the Great Recession and the pandemic. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

That report also found that there was an increase in the number of homeless people from 2021 to 2022. Carthage (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ So, regional systems collapse isn't a thing? And what does it matter that hypothetically speaking mental healthcare is better than it was when we thought mental illness was the result of possession? One of those articles is from 2022, the others are from 2021. Not that long ago. To say that the pandemic hasn't had a lasting impact on healthcare as of 2023 is bullshit. And, no, you're reading too much into what I'm saying about mental health and the economy. There's a demonstrable link between economic insecurity, economic downturns, and negative mental health. The Great Recession was only in 2007 and 2008. The children growing up then who were affected by the effects of economic woe on abuse factors are having children of their own. Carthage (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you trolling or just moving the goalpost? Because we were clearly talking about the whole world, not about American states. And yes, for the vast majority of the population things are getting better and yes, it is denialism to claim otherwise. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 17:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

What happens in one area is going to affect elsewhere. I am providing examples of systems collapse and decay happening right now in response to questions you asked. These are the reasons I will not be having a child. You barged in with an asinine and irrelevant statement that had nothing to do with my own feelings. Also, climate change is already causing deaths: [9]. Also I emphasize mental health because your vaunted achievements... they don't cover mental health, which does affect quality of life. Carthage (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Also you never answered what the benchmark for extreme poverty globally is. Carthage (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

You're free to have children or not, but if your reason is "I think the system is decaying", then you need something else, because it is working for most people. You're not giving examples, you're just doing a textbook example of a gish gallop because, quite frankly, these are pretty weak and most of them are not based on evidence. Also, where did I claim that climate change is not killing people? I didn't answer because I didn't see your question. You can see here if you want to know more.[10] GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Tell me how it's weak. If you're discarding the UN as a reliable source... I also paraphrased from that paper I linked about economic woes and mental health. Did you even read it? And when you say the "world's not having an ecological crisis" why not ask ecologists about that? Because anyone even with a surface level familiarity of ecology knows that's bullshit. Carthage (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

And also here we have your inconsistent standards of evidence again. Remember when you linked the RationalWiki (a site with much lower standards of evidence than Wikipedia) article on folk and indigenous science in a debate over indigenous science, versus the peer reviewed paper I cited? Right here I cite the UN, the APA, a peer reviewed paper on the demonstrable links between mental health and economic woes, and I apply basic critical thinking to the abortion crisis, which you steadfastly ignored. What happens in America is going to affect elsewhere. Carthage (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying that your sources are bad, I'm saying that you are torturing (and not reading) them because they don't support your conclusions. Again, about economic woes, considering how recessions are getting rarer and tamer, how are things getting worse in this regard? And when did I claim that the "world's not having an ecological crisis"? Now, regarding that Bar discussion (about that link, just like the ones ITT, you didn't read), that's just a red herring, so I'm not going to answer that. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

I'm not saying that your sources are bad, I'm saying that you are torturing (and not reading) them because they don't support your conclusions.

Do they not say that COVID hasn't had a substantial impact on healthcare that degrades the ability to efficiently deliver healthcare? Do you even know what "systems decay" means?

Anyway, moving on.

Again, about economic woes, considering how recessions are getting rarer and tamer, how are things getting worse in this regard?

I never said that recessions are getting worse. Do you think the children who grew up in the Recession weren't influenced by said Recession? This is a strawman of my argument, which was solely that there is a clear link between economic woes and negative mental health. There is also clear evidence we are having a mental health crisis, and clear evidence of a decay in the healthcare industry as a result of the pandemic.

And when did I claim that the "world's not having an ecological crisis"?

Considering this whole shitshow started because you hijacked a threat about environmental reasons for antinatalism, this is rich:

These reasons are conveyed primarily by the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, which seeks voluntary human extinction because human existence is immoral from an environmental perspective.

This is questionable. I wouldn't bring a kid into this world because I cannot justify to myself bringing a child into a world increasingly periled by systems decay and collapse. I also do not call for the extinction of the human race. Carthage (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Too bad for your non-existing children since things keep getting better for most of humanity. They are losing a great ride. I'm honestly a bit jealous of my son, even though I'm also very happy for him.GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

We are just getting started.

I'm sure that all the world leaders proudly proclaiming a "low-carbon future with fossil fuels" applaud your noble shitposting. Even a 1.5 rise in average global temperature would be disastrous. You know that. Carthage (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Saying that the world is decaying is literally conservative shitposting. Or denialism. Anyway, you are known for both. Pretty much every prediction says that things will be better for most of humanity in 2100. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Every prediction? By climate scientists and ecologists? You're hijacking a thread that was questioning the accuracy of this specific statement.

Carthage (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, you're indeed trolling, aren't you. This will be my last in this thread since, again, you've showed to be incapable of discussing things in good faith. Do you know what systems decay mean? Because saying that a system is falling apart because of a crisis that we're about to surpass is idiotic to say the least. You didn't understand my point about recessions either. You said people now have mental problems because of the Great Recession. How about other depressions/recessions? "There's a demonstrable link between economic insecurity, economic downturns, and negative mental health." Yes, there's probably one. And since recessions are getting rarer and tamer, this is yet another problem we're about to surpass. That was my argument all the time. Also, I said that "the world is getting better" how did you conclude that I said that "world's not having an ecological crisis". This is a... terrible non sequitur. And yes, I've read some IPCC reports before. They are indeed bleak, but I don't remember them predicting a drop in the quality of life indexes (especially those I've posted in my first post). GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Given your consistent refusal to engage with my sources and evidence, to say that I'm the one not engaging in bad faith when you hijacked my thread is bullshit. Also, here's a peer reviewed paper arguing that we're not going to surpass it: [11] Also, again, the QOL measurements don't include mental health. What's so hard to understand about that? Do you genuinely believe that mental health doesn't affect quality of life? I'll be sure to tell the next person suffering from suicidal ideation that the fact that they didn't die at the age of 5 means that their quality of life is better than most of human history and so their problems are meaningless and trivial. Carthage (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

"You said people now have mental problems because of the Great Recession. How about other depressions/recessions?" If you actually bothered to read the paper, which you evidently didn't (that's rich too considering how often you accuse me of not reading my own sources), they answer your question for you. Carthage (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

See, this is what I'm talking about when I mention your bad-faith. I didn't try to hijack your thread, I said that your reason on the OP was stupid. Your study on climate change (which is over 10 years old) claims that a collapse will happen with a 5°C rise in global average temperature. This won't happen according to recent studies.[12]. Still regarding economic woe and mental health, you didn't even understand my point and you haven't answered. How is that evidence that things aren't getting better if we're about to overcome this important cause of mental health degradation? If economic woe causes mental health decline (which is probably true) then having less and less of it means that the world is indeed getting better. Oh, and yes, I think most people are glad that they didn't die as toddlers, something that was the norm throughout our history. Your appeal to emotion is just yet another example of bad faith and bad reasoning. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 19:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You did. You shitposted with a deliberately inflammatory response. You cherrypick a 5°C rise in global average temperature, and ignore everything else the author mentioned that could lead to a collapse. (Also the fact that the paper was published in 2013 is irrelevant if it still has relevant data. Does it not?) This view that current levels of growth are unsustainable is nowhere near limited to this guy in the ecology field, or academia in general: [13] [14] [15] [16] Ecologists tend to have a different view on the situation than you. Also, you magically handwave away sustainability issues with "technology will solve it" as if technology doesn't require resources to be mined and developed, all of which has an ecological footprint. (which is actually an acknowledged underestimate of our impact on the biosphere: [17]) 2019 stats from the UN found that growth has not been decoupled from trends... you know what I'll just quote from the lede of the report:

Economic and social progress over the last century has been accompanied by environmental degradation that is endangering the very systems on which our future development—indeed, our very survival—depends. Globally, we continue to use ever-increasing amounts of natural resources to support our economic activity. The efficiency with which such resources are used remains unchanged at the global level, thus we have not yet seen a decoupling of economic growth and natural resource use. Globally, the generation of waste is mounting. About one third of the food produced for human consumption each year is lost or wasted, most of it in developed countries. Urgent action is needed to ensure that current material needs do not lead to over-extraction of resources and further degradation of the environment. Policies must be embraced to improve resource efficiency, reduce waste and mainstream sustainability practices across all sectors of the economy.

Also the World Bank cut-off for extreme poverty is $2.15. If you make $2.16 you're above the extreme poverty line. Kind of arbitrary, eh?

Also seeing how the appeal to emotion is not the crux of my argument (that we're having a mental health crisis regardless of the arbitrary metrics used in QOL measurements) then this does not count as fallacious. Your dismissal is either in bad faith or the result of incompetence. Take your pick.

A study about material flow found that human demand for resources has either reached or surpassed "critical planetary boundaries." Keep in mind that only about 10% of material stocks are renewable. Look at fishing stocks as an example of this. Carthage (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Saying that ecologists tend to have a different view on the situation than me is a blantant lie, you don't have a meta-research for that. Do you have one? Again, can you post a IPCC report claiming that degrowth a solution? Most of your links aren't studies, those that are were published on terrible journals. Seriously, you have no idea how science is done, you just don't pick a study and call it a day, you should at least do a research on the research as well. This is methodology 101. The fact that you don't read your own studies makes things even worse. No one said that economic growth doesn't have trade-offs, but the UN report doesn't mention degrowth nor it suggests that things are getting worse, it's utterly irrelevant here, just say that we need more policies to control waste. Textbook non sequitur. Oh, and by the way, there are other ways to measure poverty. They all claim that poverty is dropping. You didn't read the World Bank link. You can see here about multidimensional poverty[18] (which was also discussed on the other link). We can also see that the population living under 5 dollars is also dropping, for instance[19]. I've posted the link on the planetary boundaries on the bar months ago, I don't even know why you're posting here suggesting it's news. I never said that technology will solve everything, of course we'll have to change our habits and policies are required. I've also said this many many times. What won't work is making the lives of the global poor even worse, like degrowth brainworms believe. This again, more trolling, more strawman and more bad-faith coming from you. I also never said that the fact the study was published in 2013 means that it is irrelevant, what I said is that the doomsdays scenario was mostly discarted over the last 10 years. According to the IPCC, the temperature will rise from 2° to 3°[20]. We are still facing a disaster, but not the end of civilization according to the new data. The rest of the study didn't age well too. For instance, it predicts a huge population growth, even though population peak ins 2064 and it will be aroud the same as it is today in 2100.[21]

Regarding the mental health crisis, you still haven't answered, though I've asked four or five times. If it is caused at least in part by economic woe, and the economy is getting more and more stable, how is it getting worse? And can you please provide evidence of such decline in the long term? Like, seriously, stop. Claiming that things are getting worse is straight up denialism. And what is more important, avoid the use of these fallacies. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 15:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Terrible journals and "links that aren't studies"? The Annual Review has an impact factor of 16.4, which according to Wikipedia makes it the "third of 127 journals in the category 'Environmental Studies (Social Science)' and sixth of 274 journals in the category 'Environmental Sciences (Science)'." The Footprint Network is an organization composed in large part by ecologists and scientists in related fields: [22] The Conversation has a rating of "least biased" and "very high factual reporting" from Media Bias Fact Check, as does Smithsonian Magazine. Phys.org, another link I cited, has "merely" a high record of factual reporting: [23] I also cited from Nature, and if you think Nature is an unreliable source I have a bridge to sell you. I'll give you that Sustainability is a predatory journal, so I've removed it. The IPS is a think tank with a factual reporting record of "mostly factual". Furthermore, attacking the source does not in anyway undermine the truth value of the content of those sources. Likewise, whether or not I read what I've cited does not undermine the truth value of what I say. You've been called out for this dishonest tactic before: [24]

The UN report says that growth has not been decoupled from material use. To say that this is a "non-sequitur" when the decoupling of growth from resource usage and extraction is one of the arguments against degrowth is dishonest.

Did I say that human civilization was gonna end? No, the crux of my argument has always been systems decay and collapse. My argument is that there's a genuine risk of collapse, and even if civilization doesn't collapse things will be noticeable different, and worse, than before.

You are underselling the dangers of three degree warming. Even if we assume warming will be kept down to 1.5 degrees, that will wreck havoc on global infrastructure. Our infrastructure was built for a stable climate. We no longer have that. Remember, systems decay is not the same thing as systems collapse. Climate change has already been linked to worsening the Syrian crisis: [25] Heat waves influenced by climate change has been linked to the deaths of 70k in the European summer of 2003: [26] and has contributed to power outages in Shanghai. These will continue and will only get worse with every passing year unless immediate action is taken now. Otherwise, as Plutocow said here, hundreds of millions will die. That seems pretty damn apocalyptic to me. Does that equate to the total collapse of human civilization? Not exactly, but it's certainly a destabilization factor. Oh, and billionaires are already prepping for apocalypse: [27] [28] [29]

"I never said that technology will solve everything, of course we'll have to change our habits and policies are required." How likely is that going to be in the timeframe required to avert course when world leaders seem pretty damn adamant on continuing exploitation of fossil fuels?

I will address the rest of these criticisms later, FTR. Carthage (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

So, you've posted two studies (one that even you decided to remove, which was the one I've checked, so I assumed that the other one was just as bad) and a bunch of opinion articles and you believe that this is good faith? Also, how am I underselling the dangers three degree warming when I called it a "disaster"? My point is, overall things have improved and will likely improve in the future. Yeah, people died during the 2003 summer. Many people will died because of floods and droughts in Africa. But overall less people will die, because life expectancy will still rise (in Africa more than in the rest of the world),[30], so yeah, things will improve when it comes to death reates. People will be richer and more equal[31]. Education will also skyrocket.[32] Child mortality will drop even more.[33]. Doesn't this look like a better world for most people? And I'm not even mention the technological advancements that we can only dream about. Oh, and by the way, the link that you posted (and didn't read) does say "collapse".You used the world "collapse" in your first post (the same that you accused me of "hijacking"). Now you've changed your arguments and are using more weasel words. Ah, and I don't know what those billionaires have to do with with anything, this is just another red herring. Like seriosly, I don't have to anything else to say to you, you're just to dishonest and stupid. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

So instead of responding to my arguments, you've taken to undermining the sources by calling them "opinion articles" as if that changes the truth value of their content. I've also posted more than one study, all from reputable journals. I removed one study that I accidentally posted twice, yes. I can acknowledge when I made a mistake. Anyway, this right here is the definition of bad faith argumentation.

"Nor the technological wonders I can only dream of..." which all have ecological footprints through the process of resource extraction. You say that technology will solve this issue, or imply that anyway, but given the abysmal failure of previous attempts at techno-optimist (really just denialist) "solutions" to climate change like carbon capture, I remain skeptical. This seems like an appeal to the future. Sure, we may see a repeat of the Green Revolution.... but we also may not. You're pretending like this is a guarantee when the track record for technological solutions to climate change as of 2023 is... subpar for your narrative (just look at the cult of Musk as an example of this cult of techno-optimism. EVs are not a panacea: [34] [35]. We need decarbonization. You have argued that citing EVs is a stupid argument, but do the public or policymakers know that?). Global elites also remain firmly entrenched in fossil fuel exploitation. Just see this year's COP28. Or you can read this still relevant piece by Mike Davis from 10 years ago. I doubt you will, but the link's available. You're also ignoring how all of these achievements have been built off infrastructure based on a stable climate. We no longer have a stable climate. You are committing denialism.

"I don't know what those billionaires have to do with with anything" Billionaires are the financial elite. They influence policy to a great extent. The fact that the same people pushing climate denial are building apocalypse bunkers is telling. Don't play dense.

"Many people will died because of floods and draughts in Africa." The fact that you mention this like an afterthought does not help remove my impression that you are underplaying the dangers of climate catastrophe. Total collapse is unlikely. Regional collapse though? What social effects do you think climate change is going to have in a civilization with infrastructure built for a stable climate in a world with an unstable climate?

I have several times addressed your arguments and even adjusted my own to accommodate that. You do not do the same for me. You attack my sources and undermine my credibility rather than try to engage with what I bring to the table. That is bad faith. You mentioned I was using weasel words without giving any examples. Carthage (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Very rich from you to accuse me of incivility when in your first answer you accused me of "trolling" and "shitposting". See, this is what I'm talking about when I mention your lack of good faith. I didn't discredit your sources, I said that you couldn't bring scientific articles to back your main point that we live in world "increasingly periled by systems decay and collapse". You brought only one source from 2013 that really didn't age well (I hope at least about that you are convinced, though I assume you won't admit it). Saying that the fact you don't read your sources is not relevant is a blantant lie: it is relevant because they often don't say what you argue, something that I've shown many many times. I've said many times that technology won't simply resolve everything, you're strawmanning me again. Regarding EVs, I've said that they are NIMBY bullshit more than once, I don't even know why you're using them as an example, at least use something like, say costs of renewable energy[36]. And the most important thing here. You are the one committing an appeal to the future (things have got better over the last 200 years for almost everyone, but maybe they'll start getting worse in the future; technology will stop improving even though it hasn't).

How big are those "regional" collapses? I mean, how big are the "regions" we're talking about? Because, as I said, even the poorest and tiniest countries are expected to see a rise in their living standards. I'm not saying that small regions suffering because of climate change is a fair price to improvements in our living standards, but how many people are going to face "decay and collapse" to a point that their quality of life (measured especially by HDI) will drop? This is my main argument and one of the two things you've ignored on every single one of your posts. Income per capita will rise. Inequality will fall. Education levels will rise. Life expectancy will rise. Child mortality will drop. How is that ""decay and collapse"? Even then, this is an entirely different argument from your first, that the whole world was facing "decay and collapse". In the end, you didn't "adjust" your point to accommodate my criticism. You changed your whole denialism point to something a lot milder (though I expect you to deny that too). The other point that you've ignored even though I've asked you many times: if economic woe causes mental health decline and the economy is getting more stable, how is your argument valid? Of course I don't expect you to answer these two points since you've ignored them since the first post. There are a few other points that you've ignored too, like the homeless question; if there is a long term panel suggesting that mental health is declining; or how do you know that ecologists tend to disagree with me without meta-research, especially considering that the IPCC doesn't prescribe the policies you seemingly support, but whatever. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'll respond to everything else later, but have you ever considered that not every usage of the term "world" is literal? I have always taken the position that total collapse is unlikely. I rather think that "the crumbles" is more likely, where thing will just keep falling off like crumbles as specific subsystems go to shit. Systems decay as opposed to collapse. We saw that with Taco Bell shortages back in 2021 and rising gun violence in New Mexico. You keep ignoring my point that these 200 years of progress were based off of infrastructure built for a stable climate. We no longer have a stable climate. Global capital seems pretty damn adamant on continuing to exploit fossil fuels while paying lip service to combating climate change, which you also ignored. I'll also respond more in-depth to your post later. Also it's rich to accuse me of denialism when you're the one downplaying the destabilizing nature of climate change. Things will change. My OP was also, again, not predicated solely on collapse. Do I think it's a possibility? Yes. Do I believe total collapse is likely? It depends on how you define "collapse." To me, rising rates of authoritarianism and climate catastrophe is "collapse" and "systems decay." Your mileage evidently varies. Carthage (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Before I go I just wanna say that this: "things have got better over the last 200 years for almost everyone, but maybe they'll start getting worse in the future; technology will stop improving even though it hasn't" is a complete strawman. My argument was specifically this:

You say that technology will solve this issue, or imply that anyway, but given the abysmal failure of previous attempts at techno-optimist (really just denialist) "solutions" to climate change like carbon capture, I remain skeptical. This seems like an appeal to the future. Sure, we may see a repeat of the Green Revolution.... but we also may not. You're pretending like this is a guarantee when the track record for technological solutions to climate change as of 2023 is... subpar for your narrative (just look at the cult of Musk as an example of this cult of techno-optimism. EVs are not a panacea: [37] [38]. We need decarbonization. You have argued that citing EVs is a stupid argument, but do the public or policymakers know that?). Global elites also remain firmly entrenched in fossil fuel exploitation. Just see this year's COP28. Or you can read this still relevant piece by Mike Davis from 10 years ago. I doubt you will, but the link's available. You're also ignoring how all of these achievements have been built off infrastructure based on a stable climate. We no longer have a stable climate. You are committing denialism.

The fact that, rather than engage with the fact that the progress you so love to cite was built up with infrastructure reliant on a stable climate which we no longer have, which you completely ignore, and that global elites are also dead-set on continuing to exploit fossil fuels, and the fact that technological development requires resource extraction and processing which has a material and ecological footprint, so you decide to strawman my argument instead, is honestly incredibly bad faith. Carthage (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

(EC) Oh, I see. The fact that you used the word "world" and posted a study talking about the whole world didn't mean that you were talking about the world. And I already said, that technology won't solve the issue alone. This is yet another lie. Looking forward to your answer. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 13:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it. This has devolved into a pointless and counterproductive flame war. Let's take a break from discussing this for a few days, then come back. Is that fine with you? I'd rather focus my energy elsewhere for now. Carthage (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ One more thing: I know you will likely completely ignore this or do some similar bad faith bullshit, but a 2022 paper published in 2022 called "Climate Endgame" takes the opposite assumption about the feasibility of total collapse from you, that it is worth discussing and considering as a serious possibility:

Prudent risk management requires consideration of bad-to-worst-case scenarios. Yet, for climate change, such potential futures are poorly understood. Could anthropogenic climate change result in worldwide societal collapse or even eventual human extinction? At present, this is a dangerously underexplored topic. Yet there are ample reasons to suspect that climate change could result in a global catastrophe.

Does this mean I believe total collapse is inevitable still? No. But I think saying that it is impossible or infeasible is foolish (which the authors also agree with, read the conclusion). And before you do your tired old chestnut routine, I have read this paper. Feel free to cherrypick from it as you usually do.

Carthage (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

You're right about what I'm going to say. You didn't read this study either. It doesn't say what you're arguing. It argues that we should study this scenario more. It doesn't however provides any statistics or evidence that this scenario is likely. It is a very good article, I learned from it, but it more like an essay (nothing wrong about that). Other have argued that it's pretty much otherwise: we've discussed too much about this worst-case scenario that is not probably going to happen.[39] Nor I've said that the "total collapse" is impossible, what I said is that according to the most accepted data it is "exceedingly unlikely". And yet, you still haven't answered. Since the vast majority of the population will live longer, earn more, and be more educated, how will the quality of life of your potential child be worse the quality of life of the average person in 2023? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 15:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I did. I made sure to read through it before posting this here. Do you think "we should do more research on this scenario" is somehow different from "we should take climate catastrophe seriously as a line of inquiry"?

Also, again, for the umpteenth time: how do you square "things are going to get better" when those 200 years of progress are based off of an infrastructure built for a stable climate that we no longer have? That same paper also concludes that "there is ample evidence that climate change could be catastrophic at even mild levels of warming". This same infrastructure also built to extract nonrenewable resources, which at current levels of extraction is unsustainable?

You act like the economy is a perpetual motion machine. How is the deaths of hundreds of millions, severe climatic shifts, and everything else associated with climate change not going to affect the infrastructure, which is built for a stable climate, that the economy is based off of? Remember, growth has not been decoupled from material usage.

I also found an interesting Intercept essay: [40] I'm going to quote from it now:

The second of Nordhaus’s errors is the use of reductionist mathematical formulas. He employs something called a quadratic to calculate the relationship between rising temperatures and economic outcomes. Among the properties of a quadratic is that it permits no discontinuities; there are no points at which the relationship implied by the function breaks down. But smooth functions chart smooth progressions, and climate change will be anything but smooth. Such calculations do not account for extreme weather, vector-borne diseases, displacement and migration, international and local conflict, mass morbidity and mortality, biodiversity crash, state fragility, or food, fuel, and water shortages. There’s no measurement of amplifying feedbacks and tipping points such as Arctic sea ice loss, shutdown of vital ocean currents, collapse of the Amazon, and the like.

So, since you're an econ student, do your models account for "extreme weather, vector-borne diseases, displacement and migration, international and local conflict, mass morbidity and mortality, biodiversity crash, state fragility, or food, fuel, and water shortages. There’s no measurement of amplifying feedbacks and tipping points such as Arctic sea ice loss, shutdown of vital ocean currents, collapse of the Amazon, and the like." or do they assume a steady rate of growth with minor shock?

Also, it's rich you lambast me for citing an editorial from Nature when you do the same here. For context:

So, you've posted two studies (one that even you decided to remove, which was the one I've checked, so I assumed that the other one was just as bad) and a bunch of opinion articles and you believe that this is good faith?

Your inconsistent standards rear their ugly head again. Carthage (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't even see that you've posted a Nature link, my bad. You spam too much stuff and edit your own comments too much, it's sometimes difficult to follow. I've posted studies arguing that income per capita, income equality, life expectancy, child mortaly and education will improve. Do you believe they are ALL possibly wrong? Is that your argument? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

No. My argument is, and always has been, that there is a risk of collapse or decay that I would rather personally not chance my hypothetical children to have to suffer. My initial premise was rested upon uncertainty. It is a subjective assessment. I do not share your confidence in a better future, and I have laid out my reasons why, but I do not believe in the inevitability of collapse either. Predicting the future is always going to come with a degree of uncertainty.

As for the studies you cited, do they account for the devastating effects of climate change on a global infrastructure built for a stable climate we no longer have? As for whether or not they are wrong, I think that's the wrong line of inquiry to pursue. I want to know about the modeling. What goes in, what gets excluded. What the assumptions of the models are, and how they match up to climate science and ecology. So, basically, I am agnostic. Convince me. Carthage (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm honestly glad that, despite claiming otherwise, you did change your argument from "global" to regional" and and from something that looked almost like a certainty from agnosticism. There is nothing wrong about changing your mind, I think you should swallow your ego and be more honest to yourself about this. Most of the links I've posted (except for the one on inequality, which is from Goldman Sachs) are from Our World in Data, which is, I believe, beyond reliable. You can read their sources yourself and make up your mind. Now, if you believe that people doing these studies are morons that ignore that ignored the single biggest challenge of the century, well, then I'm honestly sorry for you. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 18:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Our World in Data is largely funded by neoliberal billionaires. While that doesn't necessarily mean their facts are wrong, I would take a lot of their conclusions about the sustainability of our current economic model with a grain of salt, as they have a major conflict of interest. Plutocow (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Plutocow This is Shill gambit (I've never seen anyone questioning their accuracy based on their sponsors), but more than that, if you open the links, you'll see that they use data from the UN, it's not original research. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not a shill gambit because number one the links between OWID and billionaires like Bill Gates and Elon Musk are factually established and number two they have received criticism for promoting narratives of sustainable economic growth. It's not really the facts that are in dispute but the narrative they are trying to promote and that you seem to be promoting as well. If the facts come from elsewhere, then you can get them from a source that doesn't have OWID's demonstrable conflicts of interest. Plutocow (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that "Planet Critical" is as reliable as a research team based at the University of Oxford or the most renowned newspaper in the US (which your article also tried to dismiss), but anyway, you can check the links above if you want to dispute their narrative, they link to the UN studies. I'm not going to spoonfeed you because it literally takes 30 seconds. Though the UN's narrative is also "pro-growth" as far as I'm aware, so you might not like it either. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Acting like The New York Times has never been criticized for its coverage of certain issues is absolutely laughable. Anyway, what you have done is an explicit Appeal to authority (these publications are more prestigious than mine, therefore they must be right), Strawman (I don't necessarily agree with everything on that article, but the point was to show that OWID has been criticized for its promotion of certain issues, the article links to many criticisms from scientists over how they interpret their data which demonstrates my point well enough) and red herring (none of your arguments address the conflict of interest, which is my main point). You can't go around accusing me of fallacies and then respond like this. Plutocow (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

You forgot to say that this is also whataboutism from your part, but I think this is getting way too off-topic. Why don't you check the UN links and see if OWID lied? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The point is about misrepresentation, not outright making things up. The article showed several examples of scientists pointing out misrepresented data on specifically the topic of sustainable economic growth, so I think that's enough to show that this source has a blindspot on this topic. It seems that you are constantly missing the point here. Plutocow (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

(EC) The UN also faces governmental pressures, which may influence the assessment of the IPCC. There have also been heavy criticisms of the modeling used in climate economics (I quoted one above, and then asked GJK to answer if the models account for what's listed in the passage. I didn't receive an answer on that, or several other points I've made.) Carthage (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, if everything has a neoliberal bias and the best scholars and organizations in the world aren't reliable because they face a conflict of interest then what should we do? Also, I've answered you, Carthage, just read my post again. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Strawman, appeal to authority. If you're going to respond, engage intellectually rather than with a snide dismissal. Plutocow (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, saying that the UN and the IPCC are our most reliable source in this matter is such a terrible appeal to authority. To quote our own article:

A non-fallacious appeal to authority is based around the following syllogism:

P1: Experts on a subject are usually correct.

P2: Experts on the subject have a consensus that P is correct.

C: P is probably correct.

Neither of them are the most reliable sources on climate science, no. Plutocow (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, the discussion is not about climate change (which I never disputed the disastrous effects, I even called it the challenge of the century) but about quality of life. Do you have an alternative source, more reliable than the UN, predicting these indicators in 2100? Or at least a widely accepted critique of their methodologies? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The article links several critiques of the data. Furthermore, even if the were the most "reliable" that doesn't mean we can't critically examine the conflicts of interest. Plutocow (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

You mean The Intercept article? Because if that's the best you can do then we don't even have any reason to keep this discussion (though I've skimmed though the article and I didn't see it mentioning the UN's life expectancy and child mortality predictions for 2100, though I might have missed something). Call it genetic fallacy if you want, I don't mind, but I'd rather believe in the evil neoliberal UN, I don't think the these allegedly conflicts of interest have ruined their work as the article suggests. By the way don't you think that The Intercept also has its own biases and interests and that also disturbs their job? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Ironically, that is a perfect example of whataboutism (you called out this for having conflicts of interest? Well that has biases too!) but I'm not interested in continuing this conversation as talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. Plutocow (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It isn't whataboutism because I'm directly questioning your own source. My argument is that yes, I think the UN, NYT and Oxford are more reliable than The Intercept and Planet Critical. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 00:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)