Hacker News Reader

Comment by crazynick4 | Hacker News Reader

Sad to see. Although, honestly, the parents shouldn't have allowed their kids to put themselves in these 'activist' positions to begin with. What did they expect? And also, a 16 year old girl speaking at the UN? Is that a joke?

I fully support protecting the environment but this is child exploitation for political purposes. These movements should be led by scientists, not children. Is it any wonder people are still skeptical?

View on HN

The movement has been led by scientists for decades. They have been ignored.

If it's shameful that a 16 year old is being forced to lead a movement, the shame is on society and the older generations for not doing anything about climate change despite manifest urgency.

The girl is autistic (no really, she is) and they're just taking advantage of her. It's just the new David Hogg.

So the idea is that children will succeed where the scientists have failed? It certainly doesn't seem to say much for the scientists.

I agree, though I wouldn't single out scientists.

It doesn't say much at all for the generation that's ignoring the issue.

What makes you think that this child abuse is good for the cause? I see a lot of negative reactions

Climate change is a much more important issue than what can barely if at all be termed child abuse.

If you listen to the transcripts, this is essentially what they're campaigning for - for the adults to take charge. And these kids are being congratulated for speaking out while the contents of their message are ignored. It's frustrating to watch.

I guess what I'm trying to say that is that kids, whether they're right or wrong, aren't really qualified to promote a public opinion on any issue. You also have to remember that they're being allowed to skip school to do this. When I was a kid, I would have gone to practically any rally if it meant skipping class..

I'm reminded of a quote: people don't want a democracy, they want a dictatorship that they agree with. I think a similar idea applies here. They don't really care that the child isn't qualified and their brains are still forming; if it's an idea they agree with, they'll use them as political figures to achieve their own goals.

Anyone who's going to be affected is qualified to express their opinion, it seems to me, and children are going to be affected by climate change long after the rest of us are gone.

Let me put it a different way - the kids campaigning for climate action are not convincing anyone who wasn't already on board. It's literally just a show that's riling up the people who are already supporters. It's harmful to the kids and not accomplishing much else.

An utterly baseless assertion. I mean, I guess it’s obvious she’s not changing your mind.

So the people that weren't convinced by the scientists will now be convinced by the children? And no, she's not changing my mind because I already support protecting the environment.

In a world where most “adults” seem self-serving, complacent, or corrupt, I think we should be thankful that our young people are unwilling to embrace this nihilistic state of affairs and demand change. And they’re among the few that are listening to the scientists instead of their narrow self-interest.

I'm reminded of this rather dark few lines from Naked Lunch:

“In lifeproof houses they hover over the young, sop up a little of what they shut out. Only the young bring anything in, and they are not young very long.”

― William S. Burroughs

That's the whole idea. Adults, and politicians, are not doing what we should be doing.

The "kids" will inherit our poor decisions so they're making a stand.

And the 'whole idea' amounts to child abuse. A kid her age is not prepared to be a public figure and all the pressures that come with it. She shouldn't be up there period. And everyone who says that 'the adults aren't doing anything so the kids have to', why aren't the adults who use this argument doing something then?

People didn't listen to Carl Sagan, James Hansen, or other big-name scientists who spoke up. Putting another scientist up there will just get them dismissed like all the others, because at the core of the issue is that we have a huge voting block that doesn't want to change and doesn't want to listen, and will contort whatever any movement leader says so that they can ignore it.

> And also, a 16 year old girl speaking at the UN? Is that a joke?

The real joke are the adult idiots who'd rather destroy our planet than listen to someone speaking uncomfortable truths.

Telling someone there is a problem does nothing to drive the solution. Especially when the problem is known but the solution is incredibly complex.

On the other hand - that kid will draw more general public's attention than even the most famous and accredited scientists. Just reality we're living in - unless it's a public show it will be ignored, no matter how serious issues are.

>but this is child exploitation for political purposes. These movements should be led by scientists, not children. Is it any wonder people are still skeptical?

I know climate change is a huge problem, but using young children like this feels creepy and cult-like.

> Although, honestly, the parents shouldn't have allowed their kids to put themselves in these 'activist' positions to begin with.

Why? If your child is passionate about something, why would you disallow them from pursuing it?

She can pursue it, but I wouldn't let my child skip school to do it.. Also, if it's related to politics there is a ton of misinformation and a child can easily be manipulated into landing on the wrong side of the fence.

School is grossly overrated, especially in the information age. Ensuring your generation still has a future is measurably more important.

Yes, in the age where you need more knowledge than ever in order to have a living wage, where menial labor is being automated faster and faster, we need less education. Good point.

School is not equivalent to education

Reply on news.ycombinator.com