deleted by creator

That’s my whole point lmao. Stopping having kids will do absolutely nothing for the environment in the next 50-60 years, and without addressing the issue now, we’re fucked either way. Not having kids is only beneficial if we can’t find a solution now. And if we can’t find a solution before then, we’re all going to hell in a hand basket. May as well fulfill the biological imperative before the end of times 🤷‍♂️

And please tell me literally anywhere I suggested we kick it down the line? Thats a far cry from me saying children are our best hope at a realistic fix, and any fix we come up will need to also be implemented by the following generations.

Ah, so you think that somehow not having children will fix anything? We don’t have 50-60 years for the population rate to finally begin to decline to hopefully make a dent in a problem we needed fixed 1000 years ago.

Any suggested benefit of not having children speaks suggests children are the problem. They are not. Greed is 100% the problem, and will proliferate for those 50-60 years before abstaining from children would have an impact. Abstaining treats a symptom of the problem: “We live unsustainably, so overpopulation is a problem to the environment.” Whereas if we treat the root cause of the problem, greed, and make the sustainability changes needed, overpopulation becomes not so much of an issue.

It’s not “their job” to fix what we fuck up. But if we don’t fix our shit, it becomes their job whether they want it or not. We will NEED generations of people to apply the needed long term processes of trying to course correct and generations of scientific discovery so we can be smarter and always be seeking better solutions.

The impact of not having a child won’t be seen for decades, and any good not having a child solely for the sake of the environment may have is dwarfed by to good a child raised to care about then environment can do. We should absolutely be taking care of it now, and that’s why abstention of pro-creation shouldn’t be a viable solution. Of course it’s a personal choice, so do what you’re compelled, but the net good of someone who cares is way beyond the net bad of them existing.

To your last point: If we working under the idea that we’re already past the tipping point, have kids or not doesn’t even matter. It’s a slippery slope: wecontinue to exist and put ourselves through such an inevitable outcome?! Wouldn’t it be better for the environment and create less long term suffering to just eliminate humanity? I don’t subscribe to this way of thinking.

It’s the next generation’s issue as well. Until someone currently alive either invents some amazing solution or the vast majority of living people make remarkable changes, children are still one of best hopes. Abstaining from having children fixes none of our current issues, and ensures that there are no future scientists or advocates.

It’s not a “it’ll be their problem, so who cares” mentality. It’s a “nobody right now has a viable/popular solution, even though they’ve had every chance. So hopefully someone in the future might.” It’s unfortunate for everyone involved, but until people stop being greedy that’s where we’re at.

I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase, “too little, too late.”

At the rate we are currently destroying the environment, having kids or not having kids is a moot point. The damage doers are already alive, and based on what I see they are not taking any drastic action to resolve the issue.

Having more kids is simply another nail in the coffin. Take the kids away, and there are still way more nails in the coffin that are sustainable. Does population impact the earth? Yes. But population is a secondary driver and only a problem if we don’t fix the root issues of greed being the main driver of environmental destruction.

No longer having children will do jack shit to help us out of the hole we’ve dug. But there is a chance having children could produce someone who inspires the next generation, or comes up with a more viable solution to our existing problem.

If someone has Stage 4 lung cancer, does stopping smoking solve anything?

It’s the only way to fix the issue. Obviously the current and previous generations won’t do it. Our only hope is to teach the next generation better.

Big doubt that will, happen, but worst case scenario the world is still fucked but we all die much quicker (due to continued population increase) and be in Mad Max status for a shorter period of time (thereby avoiding additional, unnecessary suffering).

Best case scenario, some of these crotch goblins somehow care way more than their parents and come up with a way to save humanity from itself.

But roads are heavily regulated and monitored. In fact, they’re directly managed by the government. If I experience road rage I can call the police with the license plate number and there’s databases of drivers with pictures and VINs etc. This is not the point you think you were making.

the lack of implanted radio telemetry …

Absolutely wild that you’re accusing others of idiotic horseshit

The huge difference between mail or phone and telegram is that both mail and phone work with law enforcement, with useful records being made available upon subpoena. Telegram, by design, will not.

If you think drawing that parallel is useful to Telegram, they would then also be required to maintain the same standards of security as the mail, with package inspections, drug dogs, entire teams of government officials investigating illegal activities etc.

The criminals use it precisely because it is not a parallel to other available channels, as it circumvents those safeguards.

The Catholic Church should absolutely face dire consequences for the abuse they perpetuate and defend. Loss of tax status, prison for all abusers and those who assisted them in avoiding jail. You are making a great parallel.

It’s not that it “could be” used to abuse a child, wtf. It’s that is has already been widely adopted. It’s currently happening. Same as the Catholic Church.

You’re really trying hard to make this about “possible” crimes while ignoring the material ones.

The catch-22 is that it’s impossible to make this tool freely available as-is without also enabling the child abuse. You can’t pry the apart, or at the very least nobody has managed to yet.

So do we accept the abuse and let it proliferate, in the name of privacy? Or do we sacrifice privacy to make sure theres not a safe place for abusers?

There is no answer where no one gets hurt. It sucks when the interests of good align with the interests of bad, and it’s a shit show one way or the other.

Yep. The issue is that they put out a tool that does some good things, but is also heavily adopted by criminals who piggyback on it.

Should we let child abuse just proliferate with these tools, because there’s so much need for privacy? How do you weed out the bad without kneecapping the good? There’s no good answer here. The good parts of the tech working enable the bad parts, too.

There has to be a certain level of knowledge and acceptance of the bad parts to continue developing it. It’s a catch 22, so law enforcement has to pick between sacrificing the privacy or allowing a tool to exist that proliferates child abuse material and other ills.

There are valid arguments for the importance of privacy, and valid arguments for making sure there these crimes shouldn’t have a safe haven. Action to either end will hurt some people and enrage others.

Imagine being so fleeced by a scam that you post messages pretending others are dumb for not falling for the scam lmao

Saying crypto is pretty much the same as cash is disingenuous.

You don’t need to make an account to spend cash. You don’t need to pay fees to give cash to someone else. You don’t need to pay fees to process cash transactions. You don’t need an internet connection to acquire or spend cash. Cash transactions are executed in person, where mistakes can be reversed. If my personal info is compromised, my cash on hand is safe. Cash is generally much more stable, and is generally accepted everywhere.

And let’s address a biggie- cash doesn’t destroy the earth, unlike crypto. For all the protest I see about AI’s energy consumption, crypto was worse in 2022 than AI is projected to be in 2027. Let that sink in.

What is needed before crypto can actually be useful:

• needs to be as easy to use as real currency
• needs to be able to be spent freely on basic necessities
• recourse for fraud
• recourse to recover lost keys instead of losing funds permanently
• protection against market manipulation
• widespread merchant adoption
• address liquidity concerns
• actionable process to protect from illegal activities
• MASSIVE environmental protections- crypto was worse for the environment 4 years ago than AI is projected to be in 2027

There’s more, but I won’t bother as the above issues are more than enough to confirm that crypto is a scam.

How is it convenient? Its not simple setting up a wallet, picking a coin, registering with a market, hoping that the merchant you want something for happens to take your type of coin? And being anonymous is a turn off for most people- the vast majority of people want consumer protection. Merchants carry higher risk with a volatile, unregulated market, so they are hesitant to accept it.

Why would I pay fees to buy a faux currency, to pay for a pre-paid card of the same currency I used to buy to the faux currency, to spend it on things that can’t be paid for with the faux currency anyway? What?!?!

You might have had a salient point if the ancient Greeks made it popular for “solving thirst across the known world,” but really it was a novelty. Or if crypto was marketed as a novelty. But crypto was hyped to be the next big things, spreading around the world, no monetary boundaries. The same people making those claims are spending hundreds of millions on the election to making sure it stay unregulated with no consumer protection.

But sure, crypto somehow parallels steam?

99.9% of people could not pay for what they want or need except the handful of niche places that happen to accept it. Can’t pay medical bills with it, can’t buy my food at the grocery store with it, can’t buy my gas with it, can’t really apply it where I want to, only in the few spaces I get to.

That’s not what the developers claimed it would do, or what the investors wanted it to do. It’s not cost effective or simple. It’s created more problems than it’s solved. It flat out a scam.

Until there is an actual use case for Crypto, it’s definitely a scam as a technology. It exists only for investors and scammers, anyone attempting to actually use it is getting reamed.

My face is your throne, Queen :)