Well that's an interesting gloss. so they probably do want kids, but ... their position in the world, or the condition of the world is such that they do not want them. — unenlightened

I think here the political situation or climate change are a very minor factor.

The bigger factor is simply the cultural change in the society and that you don't need children to take care of yourself when you get older. Starting a family is a big decision today and people tend to leave it quite late. And if they have children, few have more than two. Also loneliness is an endemic.

That the future is bad? I don't think that's really a reason for many.

The reasons the men and women gave for why they would probably never have kids, even though they probably did want them, were: — Agree-to-Disagree

Well that's an interesting gloss. so they probably do want kids, but ... their position in the world, or the condition of the world is such that they do not want them. — unenlightened

I want to have a puppy, but I will probably never get one because of climate change.  :scream:

Just kidding. I want to have a puppy but I don't want to get one because of the cost involved.

Do I want to have a puppy?
- Yes and no.
- I do and I don't.

You can want something and not want it at the same time.
Whether you will probably never have the something is an educated guess about what will happen in the future.

Thank you for that revelation.

What are the implications of this on people's motivation to "save the planet" when they don't have any children (and possibly don't intend to have any). — Agree-to-Disagree

This was your question that I wanted you to answer, since you didn't like my response very much.

I think here the political situation or climate change are a very minor factor.

The bigger factor is simply the cultural change in the society — ssu

And a cultural change in society is nothing to do with the political situation? The end of WW2 produced a baby boom; the prospect of WW3 might likewise account for a baby bust.

I believe that people who don't have any children, and don't intend to have any children, have less motivation to "save the planet" than people who have children, or intend to have children.

I think that most people are inherently selfish. People who have children usually want the best for their children and this can over-ride the inherent selfishness.

If you are not going to spend your money on children then what are you going to do with it? I think that you are likely to spend it on yourself to maximise your "enjoyment of life".

The bigger factor is simply the cultural change in the society — ssu

I agree with this comment. As women's opportunities in life have increased because of better education and more equality with men, they are devoting themselves to a career, marrying less, and having less children. In Japan marriage is becoming less common because women don't want to give up their "single" lifestyle and they don't want the burden of devoting their time to a husband (which is culturally expected).

What about fusion power? You seem to see the downfall of any solution. What about this one? :grin:

What about fusion power? — frank

I think that fusion power sounds very promising. The big problems are getting it to work and getting it to work safely.

If you want a downfall then I would say that "if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is too good to be true".  :grin:

If you want a downfall then I would say that "if it sounds too good to be true then it probably is too good to be true". — Agree-to-Disagree

Yes. One of the problems I see with fusion is that if it works, it will be available to nations that can afford to build fusion power plants. A lot of poorer nations will be left burning whatever they have to burn.

Benkei: Deleted for the misleading crap it was.

The big problems are getting it to work and getting it to work safely. — Agree-to-Disagree

Really? What safety issues exactly?

Really? What safety issues exactly? — Benkei

There are many places on the internet where the dangers and safety issues of fusion power are discussed.

This is a very detailed one:
Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be
By Daniel Jassby
https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-theyre-cracked-up-to-be
Daniel Jassby was a principal research physicist at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab until 1999. For 25 years he worked in areas of plasma physics and neutron production related to fusion energy research and development. He holds a PhD in astrophysical sciences from Princeton University.

Daniel Jassby points out that (as well as all of the other problems):

Nuclear weapons proliferation. The open or clandestine production of plutonium 239 is possible in a fusion reactor simply by placing natural or depleted uranium oxide at any location where neutrons of any energy are flying about. The ocean of slowing-down neutrons that results from scattering of the streaming fusion neutrons on the reaction vessel permeates every nook and cranny of the reactor interior, including appendages to the reaction vessel. Slower neutrons will be readily soaked up by uranium 238, whose cross section for neutron absorption increases with decreasing neutron energy. — Daniel Jassby

If you do a Google search for "fusion power" then the AI overview includes the following

Neutron Radiation:
Fusion reactions produce high-energy neutrons that can damage materials, leading to swelling, embrittlement, and fatigue in reactor components.

Radioactive Waste:
Fusion reactors, while producing less radioactive waste than fission reactors, still generate radioactive materials, including tritium, which requires careful handling and disposal.

Tritium Handling and Leakage:
Tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, is a key fuel for fusion, but its handling and potential leakage pose significant safety concerns.
Daniel Jassby's article says:
Tritium will be dispersed on the surfaces of the reaction vessel, particle injectors, pumping ducts, and other appendages. Corrosion in the heat exchange system, or a breach in the reactor vacuum ducts could result in the release of radioactive tritium into the atmosphere or local water resources. Tritium exchanges with hydrogen to produce tritiated water, which is biologically hazardous. The release of even tiny amounts of radioactive tritium from fission reactors into groundwater causes public consternation.

Gamma Radiation:
Fusion reactions also produce gamma radiation, which, combined with neutron radiation, can be dangerously high

Radioactive Waste Disposal:
While fusion waste is generally considered lower-level than fission waste, it still requires safe and long-term disposal.

Potential for Accidents:
Although fusion is not based on a chain reaction like fission, accidents involving the fusion reactor's containment or materials could still lead to radioactive releases.

Most living organisms on earth, other than the dinosaurs and the ones we're getting rid of, either adapt to their environment and survive, or maladapt and perish.
Homo sapiens will also either adapt to their deteriorating environment, or their numbers will start being reduced, as we're seeing in declining child bearing rates.
It doesn't matter who or what gets the praise or the blame, homo sapiens will either show evolutionary intelligence or evolutionary ignorance.
All of us are part of this evolutionary movement in deciding intelligent or ignorant responses.

Can I say it? Can I say it? AI may make all of this moot. (lol)

Most living organisms on earth, other than the dinosaurs and the ones we're getting rid of, either adapt to their environment and survive, or maladapt and perish. — alleybear

What if an organism could change the environment? They could change the environment to allow themselves to survive. Organisms are part of the environment, not separate from it.

All of us are part of this evolutionary movement in deciding intelligent or ignorant responses. — alleybear

Evolution is a story that is read backwards. You don't know exactly what will happen in the future. An organism can try to predict the future but whether a decision is "intelligent" or "ignorant" can not be told in advance. For example, is creating AI an "intelligent" or "ignorant" decision?

In this case "intelligent" or "ignorant" are labels describing the effect of a decision, not a value judgement; intelligent=contribute to survival, and ignorant=contribute to perishing; evolutionary movement is always in the now.
To use AI for example, decisions about AI are being made in the now. Some of those decisions may help homo sapiens survive, and some of those decisions may be dangerous to survival. In this example, in each now, there are uncountable decisions being made all over the earth by homo sapiens on how to interact with this new environmental element. The evolutionary movement here is the accumulation of all of these decisions, both "intelligent" and "ignorant" over time, and the changes between homo sapiens and everything else in their environment as they incorporate the new environmental element of AI into their existence. This incorporation could be beneficial, detrimental, or be "not a big deal" to homo sapiens existence.
All of us are part of this evolutionary movement of incorporating AI into our existence, as we make our own decisions on how to interact or not interact, or are unknowingly interacting with AI.

What if an organism could change the environment? They could change the environment to allow themselves to survive. — Agree-to-Disagree

Living things are architects: sometimes profoundly altering the earth to meet their needs. This has been going practically since life first appeared. People who think climate change is a moral issue because it's evil to transform the world are just misinformed about the nature of life.

The moral issue is about having the power to help our descendants, but failing to act on their behalves.

The moral issue is about having the power to help our descendants, but failing to act on their behalves. — frank

Do I have a moral duty to help YOUR descendants?

Do I have a moral duty to help YOUR descendants? — Agree-to-Disagree

No. The moral issue I'm talking about has little to do with you in particular.

The moral issue I'm talking about has little to do with you in particular. — frank

Then who does the moral issue that you are talking about apply to?

The human race

The human race — frank

Morals are subjective. Not everybody shares your views.

The moral issue is about having the power to help our descendants, but failing to act on their behalves. — frank

Acting to help our descendants has costs for us. It also has possible benefits for us. How far should we go to help our descendants. Should we go and live in caves so that our descendants can have a better life? The issue seems to one of compromise, and there will be a spectrum of opinions.

I have said before that I think that most people are inherently selfish. That isn't compatible with helping our descendants.

Living things are architects: sometimes profoundly altering the earth to meet their needs. This has been going practically since life first appeared. People who think climate change is a moral issue because it's evil to transform the world are just misinformed about the nature of life. — frank

Beer drinkers exploit that yeast commit suicide by drowning in their excrements. ;)
Reminds me a bit of the commons.

I got ChatGPT 4o to draw a graph of Solar Energy Potential (kWh/m^2 per day) against latitude.



It appears that there is a very large difference in Solar Energy Potential between summer and winter for latitudes that are not close to the equator.

How will countries that depend on solar energy cope with this situation?

Another observation:

Large, regionally variable shifts in diatom and dinoflagellate biomass in the North Atlantic over six decades
^{— Crispin M Mutshinda, Zoe V Finkel, Andrew J Irwin · PLoS One · Jun 4, 2025}

A couple of percent fall in plankton a year in the North Atlantic.
Plankton is part of larger food chains and plays a role in capturing carbon dioxide.

This seems far, far, far more to do with cultural novelty than any indication of some natural proclivity.

It appears that there is a very large difference in Solar Energy Potential between summer and winter for latitudes that are not close to the equator.

How will countries that depend on solar energy cope with this situation? — Agree-to-Disagree

They should have a reliable backstop of nuclear energy always available to shore up production shortages from renewables.

If you were hoping that one day people will occupy Antarctica, probably not. It would take a 5-10 degree global shift upward for 10,000 years. Humans won't be able to accomplish that because the oceans will absorb the CO2 too quickly.

Apparently still going strong. Can be done in the right circumstances.

The world’s first solar-powered train in Australia (— Bridgestone Corporation · Jun 2019)
Discover World-First Solar Train in Byron Bay (— Elements of Byron · Apr 2023)
Byron Bay solar powered train (— Clean Energy Regulator, Australian Government · Sep 2024)

Sea-level projections from the 1990s were spot on, study says
^{— Phys.org · Aug 22, 2025}

The "accelerating" part is a downer. (Is that still a word?)

Evaluating IPCC Projections of Global Sea-Level Change From the Pre-Satellite Era
^{— Earth's Future · Aug 22, 2025}

Probabilistic reconstruction of sea-level changes and their causes since 1900
^{— Earth System Science Data · Jul 31, 2024}

How would more moving water in circulation manifest (in everyday life)? Low islands getting smaller seems a safe bet. Low fields becoming lakes? I'm guessing more flash floods in some places.

Look for information about what the world will be like in 2100. For instance, much of the Middle east will have become uninhabitable, with human life only possible near the coasts...

Here's a paper that directly links a particular project to the damage it will cause:

Quantifying the regional to global climate impacts of individual fossil fuel projects to inform decision-making

An image from that paper:


Excellent research. This project will kill over 400 Europeans.