> Your children will not be alive in 100-200 years so your point is also moot.
Wow, you really love attacking strawmen don't you? No wonder you're such an optimist.
Wow, you really love attacking strawmen don't you? No wonder you're such an optimist.
Are we having the same discussion?
> I did make a deliberate choice to not reproduce specifically because I didn't want to bring a child into an environment that's on the brink of collapse
I suppose I assumed you didn't think "the brink of collapse" would last 100-200 years, rather, that you fear your children would have to (in their lifetime) deal with the fallout from such a "collapse". And that such an event will be so traumatic that it would be better they weren't ever alive to experience it.
I take your pivot towards attacking me as a compliment, and a sure-fire sign you believe your position has weakened. Though I don't care either way. You are free to make whatever decisions you want for whatever reasons you want. I can respect that.
The impetus for my original comment was an "in good faith" attempt to get you to consider (or reconsider) a decision I believed to have been made in ignorance (or at the very least with a healthy dose of hysteria). I have no inclination to change your mind. That's for you to do.