They're talking about raising kids already born, not conditions for having one in the first place. We should separate discussion of the environment from the cost which is the really the main factor for why parents decamp for the suburbs. Causality goes the other way - it's not the compact nature that reduced fertility but the fact that dense neighborhoods are rare and pricey in the US.
I don't think so - children are drivers of consumption and they also reduce the agency of workers by eliminating their financial slack (less ability to jump jobs / take it easy due to higher spending floor e.g. daycare expenses, larger apartment, etc).
GW make it much more likely but they go into the why and it is localized / specific - land abandonment (rural > urban migration, i.e. lack of pruning / plant diversity), wet / dry whiplash (leading to plant growth that is fuel for fires in droughts), reforestation (mostly monocrop). GW isn't specific to Europe but EU is warming 2x as fast. I get what you're saying but your critique - I don't think the piece was written to warrant it.
I get where you're coming from - our vantage point has a lot to do with that though. The average member of the public never had to sacrifice or even know about ozone, and there's so much complexity to climate science. People have a surface deep impression of what stands to be lost and they're working against a powerful propaganda machine. Virtually all extractive industry makes the problem worse, whether cattle farming, timber, energy, etc.
The cost of not addressing it is more distributed: at some point you can't go outside anymore since the UV index is so high, sunscreen can't block high-intensity UV-B and UV-C, plants get damaged to the point of catastrophic crop failures... you can live in denial about climate change in developed countries (for a limited time anyway) but ozone affects everyone.
That's the other component I didn't grok at first - the sheer amount of tailings and their contribution to carbon footprint since mining could result in 200:1 waste pyrite to copper. Looking at near term emissions from mining underestimates the share of emissions from these ores since this process can take decades to centuries to unfold. Neutralization with something like limestone would be a high emissions process itself IIUC.
Thank you, I was just going to leave this caveat since if metal prod is 10% of carbon emissions being off by an order of magnitude on all of metal production would've been massive.
That's okay, hope you enjoyed your petty digs - the world is a simple closed system that just needs some sulfur pixie dust to patch up and all the scientists are doomers. Thanks for your contributions.
I already had the topsoil argument in mind before involving an LLM but your argument is that I shouldn't adopt more precise language or add claims I didn't originally think of because of the source? How is information from a search engine different? Should people purposely have shallower debates whereby they pretend not to know new information simply to appear organic / avoid LLM allegations? You would put an expert into the same bucket for having a comprehensive argument.
That new land has thin, acidic, waterlogged soil with few nutrients, is unstable and prone to collapse (see thermokarst), with photoperiods not suited for what those crops need. What's next is a world of hurt, especially if approached with techno-optimist myopia.
Not just the latest cohort, plenty of folks that grew up with technology in the late '90s (i.e. mid 30s) are jaded by the last 5-10 years. Constantly hearing about dark patterns, grifts, anti-consumer practices (and -worker for that matter) will do that.
I've noticed I have very vivid dreams when going back to sleep in the morning after some time awake (~1hr) - often a split like 6hrs / 1.5 hrs when my partner heads out