Hacker News Reader

Comment by japhyr | Hacker News Reader

> the kubler-ross grief model

That model is really outdated, and was never meant to be the linear model it is so often presented as. I imagine you were speaking lightly, but it's important to call this out.

My wife is a grief counselor, and that is the clearest thing I've learned from her, and it's the single most important thing to share when people are dealing with grief. The prolonged use of this model in society and popular culture leads people to believe that we're supposed to progress through grief, and at some point "get over it". But grief is cyclical, and it's different for everyone.

Environmental grief is real, and it's a pretty crazy time to be a parent. How do you help your kid understand that the world you brought them into is quickly collapsing?

View on HN

Thank you, good point.

Re: kids, I have no idea. I can honestly only handle this with the level of detached analysis I do because I don't have kids. If i did... I would be seriously considering things that one shouldn't type onto message boards at this point.

FWIW, in an attempt to be constructive. If you do rudimentary math around the size of the problem and the timeline to address it, the only person who has even come close is Bernie Sander's plan. This will require an investment, from the US alone, in the 10 - 100T order of magnitude range. Bernie's plan is 16T. Everyone else is in the single-digit Ts.

So if you believe in science, math, and your childrens future... you kindof have to be like not just voting for but actively canvassing/phone-banking/campaigning for Bernie (assuming you're in the US).

Bernie's plan is massive economic command and control from Washington. DC couldn't execute on Obama's stimulus spending and we know state-directed economies have been an environmental catastrophe (see: Soviet Union). A simple, aggressive carbon tax that captured the true externality of carbon emissions is the way to go-- bring economic incentives into alignment with climate goals.

To be fair, Bernie is a supporter of a carbon tax as well. In the past he has said it's "the most straight-forward and efficient strategy for quickly reducing greenhouse gas emissions".

And then you try phase 1 of a 287 phase carbon tax implementation and the gilet jaunes shut you down.

I don't disagree, you and I could probably sit down and hammer out a much different plan based on our preferences. But neither of us are running for president in 2020 are we?

This goes back to the denial thing being more about time and money than the abstract notion. We don't have the time to wait for better plans or options anymore. A bad plan this election cycle is vastly preferable to a better plan in 4 - 8 more years.

There is a 16T command-and-control option on the table in 2020. There is no carbon tax and/or nuclear option on the table. We have to address reality not our preferences for a hypothetical ideal.

Even if Bernie's plan turns out to be a disaster, that's a failure we need to get through as fast as possible so the public accepts a carbon tax funded nuclear renaissance as a plan B. Which again, may be your and my plan A, but its not where either the candidates or the electorate are TODAY.

> state-directed economies have been an environmental catastrophe

Yes, although that's primarily because the state had directed it towards industrialisation. Centralised control would make large scale efforts towards any national goal easier to achieve.

Carbon taxes are a great idea - Australia was ahead of the curve on that one until the right killed it once they gained power.

My concern would be that he also supports strong gun control, and it seems to me that if society does collapse then guns are going to be a necessity.

Well, there's no mainstream candidate who is both against gun control and who believes global warming is real. There's not even a mainstream candidate who's against gun control, actually.

> There's not even a mainstream candidate who's against gun control, actually.

There probably is one with an R by the name...

I know, you weren't talking about them. But there is more than one party running here.

No, I was definitely talking about Trump, if that's who you mean. I added the 2nd sentence after the first, because Trump does support some gun control. He's banned bump stocks, increased prosecution of firearm offenses, and he's strengthened the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

If society collapses, those who survive will be those who can work together most effectively, not those with the most guns.

Those who work together are also going to have to survive those who have guns.

Northern countries will definitively need to strengthen their borders.

If society collapses gun control legislation isn't going to matter either.

Even under the type of gun control Sanders advocates (universal background checks, bans on assault weapons), private citizens will still be able to buy and own firearms.

There may well be scenarios where an AR-15 is preferable to a plain hunting rifle, but in the event of an environmental, economic, and societal collapse I think it's unlikely that the kind of gun some random person owns will be a major factor in their survival.

If anything, once they reach 12 or so, it'll more probably be the kids trying to help parents understand, and do something. Then trying to get to the rest of the adults with their Friday school strike. Ours are in their twenties now, but they and their friends have strikingly clear thoughts on who shafted them and what the future may have store for them. Optimism and like of the current political parties is in short supply.

"How do you help your kid understand that the world you brought them into is quickly collapsing?"

I'd say as a parent it would be pretty irresponsible to say anything that would make the kid feel any sudden anxiety.

We don't really talk about it. If our kids express their worry the we will say the truth - biomes are not doing too good. But we don't really consider it as some major doomsday looming over.

Personally I was really anxious as a kid. I was really scared when I learned that one day sun will turn to red giant and destroy earth. Ditto about asteroids. The Amazon (30 years ago as kid I refused to eat at McDonalds for a while). And there were also actual bad things happening to people close to me - but you get the point. Easily distressed.

As an adult, I see no way this existential anxiety would have done any good to me.

So, as a parent I play it cool. And besides, we don't know what is going to happen. It's not going to be rainbows and sunshine ... but really. If you were with a kid on a train to Auschwitz, would you tell them me and him would soon be gassed to death, or lie to them it's all going to be fine. I'd lie.

I think it depends a lot on their age and maturity.

To use your closing example, that sort of fatalistic passivity is how you end up on the train in the first place. It's better to fight for your freedom than to meekly accept it and everything else being taken away from you.

Life is Beautiful :).

I agree it is a dilemma. For some problems you can make them aware without raising the anxiety level. For some, you just have to hide/overcome your own fears and say that it is/things are alright. Sometimes, kids just need that reassurance from the parent, even if they know that things may not be alright.

Existential dread for the future is why my wife and I plan on adopting children instead of procreating. Tell everyone you know: plenty of kids need parents and you can be that for them without adding to the world population or bringing a new human into an uncertain future.

It's bleak, but pragmatic.

Father of three here. I talk with them on honest terms about what’s broken with the way we’re doing things, and what we need to change to fix it. They don’t need to hear traumatizing tales of worst-case scenarios. At their young age (kinder/preschool), it’s enough for them to know something is good for the planet or bad for the planet. Kids that age can have a surprising innate sense of what’s fair and just, right and wrong.

What? Most parents don't even get that far. Usually it's the children that have to teach their parents.

One method of support is to get out on the streets with them striking, starting this Friday.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com