Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

sylvanus

(122 posts)

31. Of course not. I, unlike most who express concern for the environment, am not a hypocrite.

Reply to B2G (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 10:36 AM

Jun 2016

I'm 48, married with 3 shelter dogs.
All of which have a smaller carbon foot print, than on
precious bundle of joy.
The worse thing you can do for the environment is have kids,
especially here in north america. (Do to the exponential amount of waste and energy usage.)
and.
What the hell is so bad about human extinction.
I'm not a human exceptionalist. Kinda a good Ol'fashioned nihilist.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

32 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What have we done? [View all] maryellen99 Jun 2016 OP

We don't care Kelvin Mace Jun 2016 #1

Policy? What's that? n/t leeroysphitz Jun 2016 #2

+1 Svafa Jun 2016 #3

Status quo is good! Incrementalism is best! nt riderinthestorm Jun 2016 #10

The article cites the northern jet but the guy is pointing to the southern jet, which, in fact, Warpy Jun 2016 #4

Just on more anomaly, in an ever increasing list. sylvanus Jun 2016 #5

People are supposed to stop having babies? nt B2G Jun 2016 #6

Hell no! Keep having babies, lots and lots of babies. sylvanus Jun 2016 #8

I assume you haven't procreated. B2G Jun 2016 #9

Of course not. I, unlike most who express concern for the environment, am not a hypocrite. sylvanus Jun 2016 #31

If only more could be like you philosslayer Jun 2016 #32

Jeezus. Not having babies would also lead to mass extinction. JaneyVee Jun 2016 #29

Zactly. Duppers Jun 2016 #17

Easy to solve... Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2016 #7

He isn't a scientist at all. He's a novelist. B2G Jun 2016 #11

Honest to God (if one subscribes to the notion) real, credible, working... fleabiscuit Jun 2016 #15

Before you place your bug-out plans on the Pacific NW senz Jun 2016 #30

Geez ananda Jun 2016 #12

In the 70'S they were warning about a new ice age. Nt B2G Jun 2016 #14

There was never any credible articles then about that then. It was a recent created hoax. fleabiscuit Jun 2016 #16

It's not a recently created hoax. B2G Jun 2016 #20

If it is the "Time" article (I believe), then that is the one that was spoofed and spread. fleabiscuit Jun 2016 #23

Climate signs then showed cooling RobertEarl Jun 2016 #24

WaPo published articles too B2G Jun 2016 #25

Ya, nothing that was peer reviewed. nt fleabiscuit Jun 2016 #26

Yes, I rememb erconcern about albedo and the reflective properties of dust HereSince1628 Jun 2016 #19

Thank you; great post. snot Jun 2016 #13

The official GOP response ... lpbk2713 Jun 2016 #18

Pretty much says it all nt maryellen99 Jun 2016 #21

We've made a mess Aerows Jun 2016 #22

I tried to verify this by looking for other scientific reports. Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #27

I am reminded of 'Canadian teen discovers lost Mayan metropolis' here petronius Jun 2016 #28