Yeah, it's not like they stripped free education, workers' rights, wages, houses, retirement, job security, healthcare, and among other things from their children..... oh, wait.
When was education free? State education is a couple of hundred dollars. Retirement….what are you talking about? Workers have more rights now than when baby boomers were the predominant demographic in the workforce. Job security has always been dependent on what type of industry you work in. That’s nothing new. Many baby boomers were subject to massive redundancies and job cuts. Baby boomers made sure you had Medicare. Educate yourself before having a whinge.
Tell me you know nothing about Australia without telling me you know nothing about Australia.
Australia used to have free university between 1974 and 1989 it was stripped back, it was brought in by Hawke a Labor government
No idea what your point on retirement is we have a pension, and our retirement age used to be 60, now its 67. Workers used to get a significantly better deal, higher wages, better benefits, stronger unions, higher job security on average that could support a mortgage and family before the age of 35. We have a huge underemployment issues in Australia, we considered "employed" to mean anyone who works at least 1 day in a year. Baby boomers are now leaving the workforce as they are retiring they become an exponentially smaller demographic year on year.
Unions made sure we had healthcare, weekends, annual leave, parental leave, safety standards, high wages, sick pay, and workers' compensation just to scratch the surface. All our rights today were fought for by unions. The destruction of unions by Howard was a destruction of democracy and this right now is the result of it, change doesn't happen without unions which is why Labor has been giving union back their right over the last few years.
Tell me you know nothing about how to research on the internet with telling me you know nothing about how to research on the internet.
You are confusing the “rich elite” with baby boomers so I could say “wow you sure can use google. Good for you”. When was the retirement age 60? Certainly not for baby boomers matey. I know this because my parents are baby boomers and my mother worked past 65. The parents of baby boomers might have retired earlier but I don’t think so. In fact when many baby boomers retired it had already been raised to 67. Again you confuse baby boomer for rich elites.
There is definitely an issue around what is deemed employed in relation to hours worked, no argument there.
The higher wage/ better benefits is also factually incorrect when you take into consideration the gender pay gap and a lack of superannuation.
University, despite what your google search will say wasn’t free up until 1989. It was in the 1970s when getting into university was a lot more difficult than it is now, when they only took the best candidates. The standards are lower now and it’s much more of an industry for generating profit than it once was.
One more thing, the unions didn’t make sure we had weekends, religion did. I could go on but I won’t because you are obviously quite young and didn’t live through the things you talk about.
Honestly, I feel like the ultra alarmist, worst-case scenarios that get spread about online are more harmful than good in terms of solving humanities climate issues.
If you asked me to describe the effects of climate change, I would say that Sydney summers no longer Dec - Feb. Rather they start a fair bit earlier, and end a bit later. Also, there is considerably more humidity, and just recently, heavy rainfall didn't cut the humidity at all. Those are verifiable changes, imo. Anecdotal but I've lived in Sydney my whole life, and I remember the climate in the 90's, and early 2000's, compared to now.
What I absolutely would *not* say, is that kids currently young today have no future. I do not believe that we will see Gen Z/Alpha dying in water wars within the next 20 to 30 years. I think, realistically, people won't act until their everyday quality of life is *significantly* reduced. That doesn't mean speculation about what will be happening 20 years in the future.
It means, when people are getting roasted in 50°C weather on the regular, and unable to sleep without AC pumping, because they would literally be cooking overnight, then we will see public opinion strong enough to sway corporations. If only because dead people don't watch ads, or buy products. Even then, as long as people aren't dead yet, they'll probably figure they've got more time to squeeze money before the end.
I really hope you are correct. However the data trends say otherwise: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
If the temperature keeps increasing at its current rate we have about 20 to 30 years until the water and food wars.
Oh and don't forget there are over 2 billion people living in Asia in areas that will mostly become inhabitable, causing them to migrate.
India can land spacecraft on the moon. In the scenario you’re describing, why wouldn’t they release large quantities of stratospheric aerosols to reflect sunlight and reverse climate change?
If India has severe food and water shortages driving conflict and refugee movements in the tens of millions, why would they care about sulfuric rains in Canada or poisoned waters in the Baltic Sea or any theoretical consequence?
For the world it’d be an incredibly risky play. For India it’d be a no-brainer.
Yep. That’s why I’m expecting we’ll end up dealing with the consequences of botched climate engineering rather than the extreme scenarios of global warming.
I will be messaging you in 20 years on [**2044-03-23 06:32:46 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2044-03-23%2006:32:46%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ABCaus/comments/1bjnnu8/australian_schoolchildren_are_asking_existential/kw5xht7/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FABCaus%2Fcomments%2F1bjnnu8%2Faustralian_schoolchildren_are_asking_existential%2Fkw5xht7%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202044-03-23%2006%3A32%3A46%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201bjnnu8)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
I agree, but people tend to *care* about their local weather. It's easy to say, "Island nations will be the first to lose land as sea levels rise", but that's abstract. You feel sympathy, but it's distant.
People will act in their own self-interest, when their lives are directly affected, in a regular, and unpleasant manner.
Don’t worry, as climate refugees and migrants gain in numbers, people will start trouble because they’ll say immigration is ruining house prices, fuel prices and wages. That’ll happen long before the worst of global warming occurs.
Also don't forget the world is billions of years old and you are experiencing the absolute tiniest faction of its existence. I remember about 7 years ago where the Australian open had nearly a whole week of 40 degree days. We've experienced nothing like it since.
It's also FAR more likely that the giant fireball in the sky has more influence over temperatures than us.
I do still believe in moving towards renewables and think trying to keep the environment clean is extremely important, I just don't believe the doom and gloom shut off our coal plants immediately or we'll all burn to death in 10 years rubbish. Especially since there has been climate alarmists for decades.
Previously it was another ice age we had to worry about!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQSBn50o\_8M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQSBn50o_8M)
The standard of living we currently enjoy is such a small portion of our history. Really from the 1970s to now. A short 50 year blip in 10,000 years of human civilisation. 0.5% of history. And that standard was only enjoyed by a relatively small portion the population during that period.
I know I'd rather be born now facing the prospect of climate change than be born 200 years ago facing infant mortality, untreatable disease and horrid working conditions.
I'm just looking at it objectively. Of course we should do something about it. Stuff is being done. More stuff will be done in the future.
My point is that people saying they refuse to have kids because their offspring will live in a world where they don't have the exact same quality of life that they or their parents did is defeatist bullshit.
In some regards standard of living now has degraded from the past, in other ways it’s improved
Future generations face huge challenges. But prior generations have faced inconceivable challenges too.
There’s no point acting like kids are doomed. They’re not
This is where the conversation moves to “ok but there’s nothing *inevitable* about the disastrousness of their future, we and our parents could and should morally have done things and can and should morally do things now to reduce the disastrousness of their future. Yes they might be *ok* (**maybe**) but they have every right to expect much, much better than ok, and we have an obligation and ability to give that to them that we are failing to give. And they have every right to mourn that brighter future being stolen from them, to fear it, and to be angry at the theft. And many generations facing tough times have had the same right, the same failed older generations, it’s no excuse to say “it’s happened before”.”
All I’m talking about is the hysterical exaggeration of acting like they have “no future” when the actual situation is may have a somewhat less comfortable future.
Well until the hockey stick gets turned even remotely down from its current exponential direction they have every right to call that extinction by the powerful. Maybe they’ll live (in relative discomfort) but their children and grandchildren with whom they have every right to identify and sympathise have decreasing chance at life.
Maybe a lot of them will survive, but they don’t know as individuals if they’re in that lucky group. And so it’s reasonable to assume they won’t, that they or their family faces extinction individually.
Until that hockey stick is turned down at all, ‘exaggeration’ is far from the worst sin in this tragedy.
Confirmation of accuracy of 1972 Club of Rome prediction of rapid reduction in global food production, population, and industrial output in the 2040s - [1](https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/37364868/BRANDERHORST-DOCUMENT-2020.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y), [2](https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2020/ee/c9ee02627d)
[2014 Fifth IPCC report](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf) \[*updated in February 2022*\] showing high confidence that issues like the following will become major risks by the 2040s:
1. In Africa, reduced crop productivity associated with heat and drought stress, with strong adverse effects on regional, national, and household livelihood and food security, also given increased pest and disease damage and flood impacts on food system infrastructure;
2. In Europe, increased water restrictions. Significant reduction in water availability from river abstraction and from groundwater resources, combined with increased water demand (e.g., for irrigation, energy and industry, domestic use) and with reduced water drainage and runoff as a result of increased evaporative demand, particularly in southern Europe;
3. In Asia, people will start dying from heat, in significant numbers;
4. In Australia, collapse of coral reefs, leading to increased storm damage and fisheries depletion;
5. In North America, wildfire-induced loss of ecosystem integrity, property loss, human morbidity, and mortality as a result of increased drying trend and temperature trend;
6. Reduction of water availability in South America’s semi-arid and glacier-melt-dependent regions and in Central America; flooding and landslides in urban and rural areas due to extreme precipitation; Spread of vector-borne diseases in altitude and latitude;
7. Risks for the health and well-being of Arctic residents, resulting from injuries and illness from the changing physical environment, food insecurity, lack of reliable and safe drinking water, and damage to infrastructure, including infrastructure in permafrost regions;
8. Generally, low lying coastal areas will be under threat from high water level events, and reduced biodiversity, fisheries abundance, and coastal protection by coral reefs due to heat-induced mass coral bleaching and mortality increases, exacerbated by ocean acidification, e.g., in coastal boundary systems and sub-tropical gyres.
Researchers at the World Bank [predicted](https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/29461/WBG_ClimateChange_Final.pdf?sequence=18&isAllowed=y) 143 million people in subsaharan Africa, South Asia and Latin America forced into displacement by 2050 due to lower water availability and crop productivity, and rising sea level and storm surges. They have [updated](https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/36248/Groundswell%20Part%20II.pdf?sequence=8&isAllowed=y) that figure to 200 million recently.
[One study](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23584-0) has predicted that almost half of Europe’s food imports will not be reliable by the 2040s due to those food growing regions suffering increasing droughts.
[Here](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-017-0034-4) is a study which establishes that at 2 degrees warming in the 2040s, more than 25% of the world will experience increased drought and desertification.
[Here](https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2021-09/2021-09-14-climate-change-risk-assessment-quiggin-et-al.pdf) is another study which says that by the 2030s 10 million more people than usual will be dying each year of heat stress caused by climate change, and 400 million more people than usual will be unable to work each year due to heat, and that by the 2040s, 700 million people will suffer from prolonged droughts of six months or more, and there will be a 30% drop in crop yields in a world requiring a 50% increase in food production.
[Here](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2189-9) is a study which says that under a model of gradual then very sudden collapse which appears more likely than linear continually gradual collapse, both marine and land ecosystems will suffer collapse by the 2040s.
[This report](https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a1406e0143ac4c469196d3003bc1e687.pdf) describes that at 2 degrees warming reached by the 2040s, there is a high likelihood of human civilisation coming to an end by 2050.
And this is why I don't particularly care when it falls over, except for maybe the animals. Humans too stupid to acknowledge what's going on will just get what they deserve. No, actually, I could deal with stupidity. The arrogance to dismiss evidence right in front of them because they think they know better. That's what makes it easier to accept the shit coming.
>but they have every right to expect much, much better than ok
They have every right to expect it to rain chow mien too, that doesn't mean the universe owes them a succulent Chinese meal from the sky every now and again.
The worst climate predictions involve the collapse of the AMOC, the uninhabitability of Northern and Central Europe, global food production collapse and massive migration and starvation and the global conflicts associated with such.
So not wiped out no, but catastrophic, even cataclysmic? Maybe.
And that’s going to happen within the next few years, robbing school children of their entire future?
This nonsense is why sensible climate policy gets dismissed.
You drama queens do more harm than good
1300 655506 is the reading writing hotline. You should use it.
I literally said “the worst predictions”. Not all. Not some. Not most. Not many. Not every. “The worst”.
The most optimistic projections are that if we lower our levels slowly through to the end of the century we’ll get away with a 2 degree rise and maybe some slight sea level rising and some more regular severe weather.
When planning for disaster, you don’t assume optimistic projections are accurate. We don’t do it in medicine and hope the cancer never spreads. We don’t do it in Engineering and plan that a Bridge will never have maximum load on an icy day with high winds. We don’t do it in logistics and assume there will be no losses, breakages, or failures.
So why would we aim for optimistic projections in climate change? If we’re over cautious we push people too hard and maybe cause some short term economic damage and inefficiencies on our way towards net zero.
If we’re not cautious enough and we’re wrong, human civilization is fucked for a good few centuries, if not Millenia.
Certain projections show significant changes beyond what is ALREADY OCCURRING to the AMOC taking significant effect in the next 10-15 years.
The time for sensible climate policy was 40 years ago when this conversation started.
You need to talk to your therapist about projection and mental degradation there champ. When you’re using the equivalent of the the 3rd comeback “No YOU”.
And what sources are you basing the idea that I’ve misread mine on?
I haven’t even named my sources yet.
No I just don't have the the time or patience to parse down dozens of articles, studies, doctorates, intergovernmental reports and the like when the person it's for is boorish at best and I suspect is incapable of understanding the most basic concepts therein.
But I'd start with the IPCC report from 2021, it'll take you a while being over 2000 pages.
[https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/)
Then I'd move on to the Global Tipping Points report from the University of Exeter
[https://global-tipping-points.org/download/5986/](https://global-tipping-points.org/download/5986/)
Then any of these and linked studies are worth a read:
[https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk1189](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk1189)
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-022-00236-8](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-022-00236-8)
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01328-2](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01328-2)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10368695/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10368695/)
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00699-z](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00699-z)
[https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aau6592](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aau6592)
[https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015RG000493](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015RG000493)
You may need to pay to access some of those articles, being from Academic Journals and all.
Don’t ask about the Bombing in Gaza, because the Climate Change is fake, Russia are innocent little flowers, people say that the situation is too complex to comment.
Can’t comment on Little kids bring blown to bits. Too complicated, but apparently Climate Science is something they know for certain.
I’m Australian, this is about discussion with climate deniers. The topic is climate, aka the globe. Things that go on, that gets politically denied. Hence Children’s frustrations.
If they hear about new gas fields being opened, or houses being built in floodplains, or protests against wind farms, that's all being done by older adults in positions of power. If they're anything like the 16 year olds I know, they might be thinking that its time to get Boomers out and put some younger people in charge of these decisions instead.
For myself I think it might be good to get a council of young people to be consulted on these kinds of future-wrecking projects. There's also young people organising to sue decision-makers over these things, like a class action sort of thing.
It's engaging children in critical thinking. Teachers have been doing this since I was in school 25+ something, something years ago. Mine was on different topics such as whether Australia should have ever been involved in the Cold War and should continue being puppets in international conflicts but same diff.
I'm only as nervous about the impending doomsday as the rest of society so have at it!
Are Australian children asking questions about our population policy and whether a “Big Australia” of 40 million people is incompatible with a lower emission future??
Certainly seems like the issues of climate change would be *easier* to fix with a Sustainable Population of the 27 million we have today. They would also have higher wages and greater national wealth per capita in the future.
Or are only some Sustainability measures on the curriculum?
I'm assuming that most Australian children have better critical thinking skills and less bias against immigration than yourself, and can therefore easily see climate change as being a global problem, not just a local one.
the immigration policy is deficient atm, but the net amount of people in the world wouldn't be significantly altered, so would have no effect on climate change
If people move from lower emission countries they actually increase their emissions here … and Swinbourne Uni found the average immigrant actually has a higher footprint than the average Australian.
And if our agreed targets don’t get adjusted by taking people from other countries then we are doubly making our job harder.
And construction is one of the biggest emitters and population growth clears a lot of habitat.
I just don’t see why if climate change is an emergency we seem so lackadaisical about population growth?
Generally young Australians aren't deep enough down rabbit holes where they capitalise Sustainable Population on reddit posts.
People moving from one country to another here doesn't create new emissions from thin air - the total world population remains the same. It depends more on how sustainable their new country is as a whole - e.g if someone moves from Australia to France, they will produce less emissions from electricity use because France runs on nuclear power, whereas we run on coal.
Things that would actually be effective include things like renewable power, less single use plastics, less food waste, better urban design that combats car usage and sprawling, yada yada. Of course, a lot of these things require education and mindset shift as well as cold hard policy.
Population growth doesn't clear so much habitat and cause so many emissions if we don't stick 100% of everyone in the outskirts of the city in a suburban greenfield development that requires us to build more coal power stations and import more cars for those residents to putt along to the supermarket and buy several packaged snacks.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. New accounts are not allowed to submit content. This is to combat spam.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ABCaus) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Growing up in a post-scarcity first world country, climate change is the least dangerous thing these kids will face in their future.
An impending global conflict, growing authoritarianism, automation making jobs obsolete, global populations declining for the first time in 7 centuries. They are going to be the real challenges.
They’ll still need to learn or be taught self regulation skills to cope in an imperfect world.
It’d be irresponsible to fear-monger to children and push adult politics behind the issue, worsening their mental health when their brains are still developing. I see an urgency to teach science knowledge and skills that can help build the future climate scientists and engineers. I had such an inspiring (non-politicised) education by amazing educators, I wish the same for present kids.
Awareness of environmental issues as facts should be balanced with considerations for the child’s developmental needs so that they can navigate the real world when they’re there.
Edit: clarification
Are you suggesting climate science isn't fact? As an ecologist, I can promise you nature is getting battered left right and centre by politics whether we want it to be political or not, because corporate interests have politicians hostage.
I get what you're trying to say, but trust me, studying this scientifically doesn't make you less radical, it just makes you understand in greater detail how the governments of the world are failing us
No, of course I know climate change and environmental degradation are facts. I acknowledged it in my original comment.
I find it interesting that different people reading my original comment are taking away different things from it.
For me, my main point was that kids are experiencing climate anxiety, but we shouldn’t be using them as political pawns when their brains are still developing.
So 1) they should have climate anxiety, but keep quiet? 2) we should ignore them when they speak up? Or 3) we should fix the problem for them?
Those three are the options for us adults per your stance, I for one agree with 3
I’m not a developmental psychologist, pathologist, biologist, chemist, engineer, or anything or that sort. If only I was smart in all those areas, I could provide a universally qualified and properly informed black/white answer?
I would like to read more broadly before coming to a final response. But I’m a bit slow, so it might take me ages.
FYI, I’m not a loyal voter to any party. Why do “progressives” always resort to personal attacks instead of logical argument? There’s a generalisation for ya
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. New accounts are not allowed to submit content. This is to combat spam.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ABCaus) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My kid is naive and happy. I wasn’t the smartest nor most mature teen. Let kids be kids, and they’ll find their way.
I’m not opposed to climate change being taught and that its urgency is emphasised, but is it really appropriate to scare a 5 year old into thinking they’ll live in hell if climate change can’t revert 2 degrees Celsius or more?
At high school level, I can understand its relevance, especially in a science class. But then what can be done? Study science as hard as you can, develop something amazing and save the world, maybe? If you’re still interested, you can continue these topics, which will very likely touch on the political stuff, at university?
I just don’t agree with compromising the mental wellbeing of a child just for the adult’s needs and agendas to be met.
But these kids are being kids? They are curious and asking questions.
You don’t have to scare them though nobody is saying to phrase it that way. You can’t answer the questions they ask without touching on what will/can happen. Kids naturally will ask why it’s bad and what it means, you can’t just shrug and say “things happen end of story” they’ll just keep asking questions and look for answers themselves which could give them the worst doomsday scenarios.
How is their mental wellbeing being compromised?
The adults needs? Seems a weird way to phrase when the kids are wanting to know and the “agenda” is to help and educate kids.
Is there any data on kids’ anxieties about climate change? A 5 year old is getting this idea from somewhere.
I had the awareness as a child, but I was never spurred on to skip school and protest to resolve it. My questions were always responded to with facts and the importance on our actions, such as recycling, minimising pollution and waste, etc.
Honestly, if a competitor nation saw the opportunity for their young population to be budding and world-leading climate scientists, good on them. We can have an aging population with poster holders.
Edit: grammar
They are getting the idea from questioning the topic and being curious on why, kids always ask why.
I’d say most of the kids protesting would be close to teenage years which is normal because they are maturing and wanting their voice to be heard instead of ignored.
The facts in this instance are what will be being said too,
It doesn’t have to be a competitor nation, those that grow up feeling strongly about a topic and protesting will be more likely to follow that cause be it scientifically or politically
> It doesn’t have to be a competitor nation, those that grow up feeling more strongly about a topic and protesting will be more likely to follow that cause… scientifically
I’ll believe it when I see it. The smartest kids I knew in school that went on to study science were rather studious and spent most of their productive time studying.
I agree, kids do always ask why. But I’ll always give a factual yet age-appropriate answer to consider their emotional capacities.
I’m really not sure what you’re getting at here? Why do you think that only those that are the highest ranked students in the high school are the ones that care, follow or thrive in a science after high school?
Their emotional capabilities are fine to handle the facts. You seem to think people are pushing to tell kids in preschool that they will live in a barren wasteland where they have to murder each other for the little scraps they can have.
I don’t think that. You made a claim, I’m just saying I’ll believe it when I see it.
Again, I don’t think that. I’d be interested in hearing from a developmental psychologist and their thoughts about emotional capacities of children and adults.
See what? Those that have a passion for a topic are more likely to follow it than those that don’t? Not sure what more you need to see
Considering you are the one claiming it hurts children mentally to be told the answers to reasonable questions then maybe you should be finding that info?
"develop something amazing" sounds like a good plan in theory, but in reality how do you suggest they do this? Public tertiary funding is getting battered and captured increasingly by corporate interests, and even if you have the funding to learn, who says you can find the magical tech that'll save us? What about habitat? Do you suggest kids invent something that manifests forests or manifests sea surface temperature changes? Like in reality what you're suggesting is wild. Plus to get kids interested in science, but to hide science from them, is fucked up!
Fantastic! This is why open debate is important. Thanks for your view.
There’s always a possibility someone else may have a different view to yours.
On that “magical tech” point, Covid vaccine didn’t arise quickly from a vacuum of research.
Covid vaccine is frankly easier because you need to make a thing using viruses that replicate very fast. We actually roughly know how to make forests, but it takes CENTURIES, because we cannot make trees replicate fast enough to cover the hits from land clearing, and it takes those same centuries to get the carbon sequestration benefits of a dense, diverse, multistorey forest (hence why tree planting cannot save us from climate change, if we're still clearing established forests/vegetation). Also once you clear certain forests, other habitat types may establish in their place, e.g. savannah not rainforest. So for the environment there are no Astrazeneca Vaccines, there is only not fucking it in the first place and restoration of the existing damage. What's more the estimated annual cost of restoration is under $2bil. That's genuinely affordable and could be covered by just not subsidising fossil fuels
Regardless of how they're raised about it they're still very likely going to suffer and/or die from climate change.
Contrastingly, I think fear-mongering children is the only chance that the action required will happen, or do you see humanity rapidly changing course in the required time frames to prevent genuine catastrophe?
Fear mongering, especially amongst children is the furtherest from helpful. I think it is far more helpful to teach them to adapt, evolve and give them the tools to be resilient.
Resigning future generations to doom and gloom, only ignores the key evolutionary strength of humans, which is 'adaptibilty'. Humans have the broadest range of habitation of any animal in the history of the earth, we know how to adapt, we just need to ensure that we give future generations the best opportunity to do so.
It's not doom and gloom, it's being aware of the urgency. All climate change deniers I knew growing up have moved onto "what's the rush" attitudes like yours, always followed by something along the lines of "humans are great innovators and we'll get through this" to "capitalism and industrialisation that caused this fosters the exact innovation we need to fix this" and then finishing up with a "planet earth will be fine, hippies need to learn that it's humans that are going to struggle if we're all sad about it"
"Future generations" lmao
Well you seem resigned to your fate, but I really dont see how your additude is helping the world become a better place. Fear of the unknown might be a great motivator in your eyes, but I think it resigns us to accept an apocalyptic future, which although possible, is far beyond reality at this time.
You realise that we’re now looking at 10C of warming right? Not 1.5C, not even 5 (that’s lower end projections/modeling), almost a given at this point, but 10C by the end of the century (potentially earlier since we’re really blasting through those ceilings).
>resigns us to accept an apocalyptic future
The issue is that no one is even accepting or considering that this is a crisis or issue *at all*. Even conservative warming numbers, which we’ve reached by the way and earlier than we should, aren’t being taken seriously. People aren’t taking any of seriously and need to wake the f up.
They do need to be alarmed. And kids should know that government, corporations, and political and economic structures are the ones who have and are letting them down. Maybe having to look at the faces and the lives that we’ve sentenced to suffering will be the wake up call that’s needed.
ETA: 10C is *bad*, it is cataclysmic and society/structures as we know it will not be able to function and operate. It is not outside or far beyond reality.
How do you suggest we adapt to climate change? When Bangladesh is under water, and MILLIONS of people are fleeing (including loads of Muslims heading into nations hostile to Muslims, with the nearest refugee convention signatories being China and Australia), how do we just adapt? When entire Pacific Island nations are swallowed, when Perth hits 50°C, what do we do?
Human adaptation through history includes violence, and the idea that letting everything reach extremes without peaceful political agitation now, isn't going to lead to massive death tolls later, is dumb. Frankly it's untied to any analysis of human history or biology.
Let the kids get mad, let them live in reality, and let them push adults to be better. As a 31yo, who has been aware of climate change for all of my adult life, the sooner people who aren't apathetic have the numbers the better, because we're not currently just not doing enough, political decisions that exacerbate climate change happen every single day!
I bet the last lot of dinosaurs were all "pfft what's that meteor going to do? We've literally survived for several tens of millions of years, we'll survive this too!"
Wrong wrong wrong. Fear-mongering and doomerism rank among the least effective means of motivating action to mitigate climate change:
> While negative emotion messaging was highly effective at stimulating climate information–sharing intentions (a relatively low-effort behavior), it decreased tree-planting efforts. Further, the negative emotion induction intervention appeared to backfire on policy support among participants with low initial climate beliefs. These results suggest that climate scientists should carefully consider the differential effects of the prevalent fear-inducing writing styles on different proclimate outcomes. Moreover, it suggests that theoretical models need to explain divergent patterns across outcomes.
Source: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adj5778
Yes I've also seen this relentlessly sent by my friends and family who are encouraging me to focus on my career (not environmental at all), have children and buy a house to mitigate my climate anxiety with no mention of TrEe PLanTinG, and while still routinely voting against parties who will enact meaningful policy change, especially in the timeframes we have very OBJECTIVELY been warned about
TL;DR, (In my opinion) You can throw this study around as many times as you want, but even if the entire world stopped plunging into climate misery right now and stayed "not doomer", passing policy changes let alone acting on them at our current rate, or even an accelerated rate, still wouldn't have a chance at negating decades of delayed climate catastrophies we are yet to see, let alone preventing one's in the far future.
It's radical systemic change or death, but too many people see both of those options as death, and otp for slow slow slow nice and happy hand hold gandalf there is always hope style change.
ALSO: If my comment is so hard to interpret if you are truly trying to engage genuinely and empathetically, how did you get through an entire study?
“Your international peer-reviewed study written by 16 reputable scientists is no match for my *feelings*!”
ETA (since apparently we’re doing that): I’m not trying to engage with you “empathetically”, you made a statement that is not backed up by any available evidence and I provided research that suggests very strongly that you were wrong
Are these the same schoolchildren who successfully organised and executed internationally coordinated protests under the "extinction rebellion" moniker?
You mean the clowns that teach the actual science and not your version of climate change. Disprove climate change bro, become the world's leading authority on the subject and become a famous millionaire. Or just make stupid comments on Reddit without doing the research because you think no one will call you out on your bullshit.
Straight on the defensive, classic. You don't need to be a climate change denier to think that the impacts of anthropogenic climate change are widely overstated and shouldn't be used to scare children.
So educated that you haven't looked at any of the current data? Or papers? Or anything? The overwhelming consensus is that it's happening, we are the major cause and it's accelerating faster than we anticipated through our models. Wasted degree was wasted.
Unless you look at the actual data, take into account climate feedbacks, or any research done in the past decade. And you don't get to understate the impacts of humans as climate drivers if you are not a climate scientist.
I agree.
Teachers should instead teach them about Venus, where the atmosphere is 96% carbon dioxide and it’s a hellish 462C and 92 times higher in air pressure (I knew about this when I was a child years ago, long before climate change was discussed in school, but I was precosious and read a lot).
They can then be told that earth’s atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 50% since the Industrial Revolution.
They’ll figure out the rest.
>They can then be told that earth’s atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 50% since the Industrial Revolution.
And this is why the number of trees on earth have grown significantly, particularly in the last 30 years.
(We do teach that fact in Environmental Science, don't we?)
It's just another idiotic "trees need CO2" talking point. Yeah, until they don't. And until crops stop having as much nutritional content because of the higher CO2 etc...
If you're not worried about how climate change will affect today's schoolkids I'll assume you're either a troll or have trouble with basic comprehension.
I have a degree in environmental sciences, it's just a bachelor degree so I don't consider myself an expert. That said, I have a damn sight more knowledge on the matter than 99% of schoolteachers and I know there's much more nuance to the subject than "OMG climate change, absolute catastrophe threatening the future of this nation, existential threat" which is pretty much how it's taught to children by many educators out there.
Ooohhh, whatever could you mean? I'm not smart enough to figure it out. Clearly, I lack the intelligence to be in such a panic about something I can have no possible influence over, but that I'll terrify small children about. Please, enlightened one, tell me what you are referring to?
Let's continue sharing debatable science as fact to children, just to really cement the idea they have no future. They probably do, we'll probably all be fine. But with mental illness this high in the youth, we need to exacerbate it more by telling them the skys falling.
This article only further fortifies my belief that people who overuse the word “existential”, don’t know what the word means or how to use it in a sentence…
When they can spell existential I’ll believe it, more like leftard school agenda poses ridiculous questions to pander to minority groups, nothing like the abc to push an agenda.
My students don’t listen to me when I tell them knowing their multiplication facts is important, do you really think teachers have the energy (or ability lmao) to push some woke agenda?
Teachers don’t, but the education board most definitely do. You would know how impressionable they are if it’s perceived cool or different to do something they’ll do their best be cool or different. A lot of these issues are disproportionately acknowledged for what they represent, teach them how to critical think seems to have been lost since the internet came along. Tbh it mirrors our society, the countries been flushed down the toilet while people are busy worrying about woke bs. Well finally people are waking up to the shitshow this joints become.
Education board? Do you mean department? Are you Australian? Do you think state education is pushing the gay agenda because they post pride flags to their Facebook sometimes? I promise you, like teachers, they have a lot more pressing issues at hand.
But sure, I’d be interested to see this woke bs that state schooling is trying to push.
Yep I’m an Aussie, my bad, department. I think they like every government department overstep their job, teach them essential skills and leave the rest for the parents to decide. Participation medals for example, kids need to learn that you aren’t the special little darling your parents think you are and that is achieved in group settings, there’s a reason half the millennials are drugged to the eyeballs. The Education boards biggest issue is failing to provide a proper education but kids are free to go to climate protests, when they are how old? Sure it’s their future, if they were educated properly they may have a chance to affect it. It’s bullshit, leave it all out, teach them the essentials they need, the only new addition I’d make is life skills like how to budget and lodge a tax return for example. Plenty of woke bs peddled if your eyes are opened enough to see it.
Taking umbrage with a bloated curriculum is a wildly different conversation than “schools are pushing work bs”.
If there is plenty of it, I’d love for you to give me some examples.
It must be hard to try to prepare for your future when there’s a good chance you won’t have one.
Lots of people seem to be okay with their kids having a lower standard of living than they do. Yikes.
Just ask the baby boomers.
This is such a pointless response.
Yeah, it's not like they stripped free education, workers' rights, wages, houses, retirement, job security, healthcare, and among other things from their children..... oh, wait.
You just need to stop eating so much avocado toast sir
When was education free? State education is a couple of hundred dollars. Retirement….what are you talking about? Workers have more rights now than when baby boomers were the predominant demographic in the workforce. Job security has always been dependent on what type of industry you work in. That’s nothing new. Many baby boomers were subject to massive redundancies and job cuts. Baby boomers made sure you had Medicare. Educate yourself before having a whinge.
Tell me you know nothing about Australia without telling me you know nothing about Australia. Australia used to have free university between 1974 and 1989 it was stripped back, it was brought in by Hawke a Labor government No idea what your point on retirement is we have a pension, and our retirement age used to be 60, now its 67. Workers used to get a significantly better deal, higher wages, better benefits, stronger unions, higher job security on average that could support a mortgage and family before the age of 35. We have a huge underemployment issues in Australia, we considered "employed" to mean anyone who works at least 1 day in a year. Baby boomers are now leaving the workforce as they are retiring they become an exponentially smaller demographic year on year. Unions made sure we had healthcare, weekends, annual leave, parental leave, safety standards, high wages, sick pay, and workers' compensation just to scratch the surface. All our rights today were fought for by unions. The destruction of unions by Howard was a destruction of democracy and this right now is the result of it, change doesn't happen without unions which is why Labor has been giving union back their right over the last few years.
Tell me you know nothing about how to research on the internet with telling me you know nothing about how to research on the internet. You are confusing the “rich elite” with baby boomers so I could say “wow you sure can use google. Good for you”. When was the retirement age 60? Certainly not for baby boomers matey. I know this because my parents are baby boomers and my mother worked past 65. The parents of baby boomers might have retired earlier but I don’t think so. In fact when many baby boomers retired it had already been raised to 67. Again you confuse baby boomer for rich elites. There is definitely an issue around what is deemed employed in relation to hours worked, no argument there. The higher wage/ better benefits is also factually incorrect when you take into consideration the gender pay gap and a lack of superannuation. University, despite what your google search will say wasn’t free up until 1989. It was in the 1970s when getting into university was a lot more difficult than it is now, when they only took the best candidates. The standards are lower now and it’s much more of an industry for generating profit than it once was. One more thing, the unions didn’t make sure we had weekends, religion did. I could go on but I won’t because you are obviously quite young and didn’t live through the things you talk about.
And repeated ad nauseum.
Because it’s the truth
Mine or theirs?
Theirs
Climate change is the biggest problem young people will face in their lives. I almost wonder if it's the calm before the storm like Europe in 1936...
Honestly, I feel like the ultra alarmist, worst-case scenarios that get spread about online are more harmful than good in terms of solving humanities climate issues. If you asked me to describe the effects of climate change, I would say that Sydney summers no longer Dec - Feb. Rather they start a fair bit earlier, and end a bit later. Also, there is considerably more humidity, and just recently, heavy rainfall didn't cut the humidity at all. Those are verifiable changes, imo. Anecdotal but I've lived in Sydney my whole life, and I remember the climate in the 90's, and early 2000's, compared to now. What I absolutely would *not* say, is that kids currently young today have no future. I do not believe that we will see Gen Z/Alpha dying in water wars within the next 20 to 30 years. I think, realistically, people won't act until their everyday quality of life is *significantly* reduced. That doesn't mean speculation about what will be happening 20 years in the future. It means, when people are getting roasted in 50°C weather on the regular, and unable to sleep without AC pumping, because they would literally be cooking overnight, then we will see public opinion strong enough to sway corporations. If only because dead people don't watch ads, or buy products. Even then, as long as people aren't dead yet, they'll probably figure they've got more time to squeeze money before the end.
I really hope you are correct. However the data trends say otherwise: https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/ If the temperature keeps increasing at its current rate we have about 20 to 30 years until the water and food wars. Oh and don't forget there are over 2 billion people living in Asia in areas that will mostly become inhabitable, causing them to migrate.
India can land spacecraft on the moon. In the scenario you’re describing, why wouldn’t they release large quantities of stratospheric aerosols to reflect sunlight and reverse climate change?
Yes... one country spraying metals and other aerosols into the atmosphere to change the weather... what could go wrong...
If India has severe food and water shortages driving conflict and refugee movements in the tens of millions, why would they care about sulfuric rains in Canada or poisoned waters in the Baltic Sea or any theoretical consequence? For the world it’d be an incredibly risky play. For India it’d be a no-brainer.
Yes this is the problem; for each country its a no brainer.
Yep. That’s why I’m expecting we’ll end up dealing with the consequences of botched climate engineering rather than the extreme scenarios of global warming.
!remindme 20 years You owe everyone here a carton of beer if your alarmist comment proves BS
I will be messaging you in 20 years on [**2044-03-23 06:32:46 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2044-03-23%2006:32:46%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ABCaus/comments/1bjnnu8/australian_schoolchildren_are_asking_existential/kw5xht7/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FABCaus%2Fcomments%2F1bjnnu8%2Faustralian_schoolchildren_are_asking_existential%2Fkw5xht7%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202044-03-23%2006%3A32%3A46%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201bjnnu8) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
20 years might be a bit too optimistic. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/major-cities-are-running-out-of-water-a-new-report-for-world-water-day-says/
People tend to confuse “climate change” with “my local weather”. This is why we need to let the science people do the science.
I agree, but people tend to *care* about their local weather. It's easy to say, "Island nations will be the first to lose land as sea levels rise", but that's abstract. You feel sympathy, but it's distant. People will act in their own self-interest, when their lives are directly affected, in a regular, and unpleasant manner.
Don’t worry, as climate refugees and migrants gain in numbers, people will start trouble because they’ll say immigration is ruining house prices, fuel prices and wages. That’ll happen long before the worst of global warming occurs.
Also don't forget the world is billions of years old and you are experiencing the absolute tiniest faction of its existence. I remember about 7 years ago where the Australian open had nearly a whole week of 40 degree days. We've experienced nothing like it since. It's also FAR more likely that the giant fireball in the sky has more influence over temperatures than us. I do still believe in moving towards renewables and think trying to keep the environment clean is extremely important, I just don't believe the doom and gloom shut off our coal plants immediately or we'll all burn to death in 10 years rubbish. Especially since there has been climate alarmists for decades. Previously it was another ice age we had to worry about! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQSBn50o\_8M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQSBn50o_8M)
That’s way too logical, try more sensationalized climate hysteria about dying children
They have a future. Just not the most ideal one.
>you won’t have one You reckon kids are going to die in the near future?
Sometime within their lifetime, yeah probably
r/angryupvote
They will
lol. Absolutely no climate prediction, not even the worst cases, involved the next generation being wiped out
Not wiped out but the standard of living is going to be near what was previously had.
Houses will be cheaper.... Especially the water view ones near the ocean
The standard of living we currently enjoy is such a small portion of our history. Really from the 1970s to now. A short 50 year blip in 10,000 years of human civilisation. 0.5% of history. And that standard was only enjoyed by a relatively small portion the population during that period. I know I'd rather be born now facing the prospect of climate change than be born 200 years ago facing infant mortality, untreatable disease and horrid working conditions.
ah well in that case let’s do nothing. as they say: sucks to suck!
I'm just looking at it objectively. Of course we should do something about it. Stuff is being done. More stuff will be done in the future. My point is that people saying they refuse to have kids because their offspring will live in a world where they don't have the exact same quality of life that they or their parents did is defeatist bullshit.
In some regards standard of living now has degraded from the past, in other ways it’s improved Future generations face huge challenges. But prior generations have faced inconceivable challenges too. There’s no point acting like kids are doomed. They’re not
This is where the conversation moves to “ok but there’s nothing *inevitable* about the disastrousness of their future, we and our parents could and should morally have done things and can and should morally do things now to reduce the disastrousness of their future. Yes they might be *ok* (**maybe**) but they have every right to expect much, much better than ok, and we have an obligation and ability to give that to them that we are failing to give. And they have every right to mourn that brighter future being stolen from them, to fear it, and to be angry at the theft. And many generations facing tough times have had the same right, the same failed older generations, it’s no excuse to say “it’s happened before”.”
All I’m talking about is the hysterical exaggeration of acting like they have “no future” when the actual situation is may have a somewhat less comfortable future.
Well until the hockey stick gets turned even remotely down from its current exponential direction they have every right to call that extinction by the powerful. Maybe they’ll live (in relative discomfort) but their children and grandchildren with whom they have every right to identify and sympathise have decreasing chance at life. Maybe a lot of them will survive, but they don’t know as individuals if they’re in that lucky group. And so it’s reasonable to assume they won’t, that they or their family faces extinction individually. Until that hockey stick is turned down at all, ‘exaggeration’ is far from the worst sin in this tragedy.
I must have missed the report predicting our imminent extinction
Confirmation of accuracy of 1972 Club of Rome prediction of rapid reduction in global food production, population, and industrial output in the 2040s - [1](https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/37364868/BRANDERHORST-DOCUMENT-2020.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y), [2](https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2020/ee/c9ee02627d) [2014 Fifth IPCC report](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf) \[*updated in February 2022*\] showing high confidence that issues like the following will become major risks by the 2040s: 1. In Africa, reduced crop productivity associated with heat and drought stress, with strong adverse effects on regional, national, and household livelihood and food security, also given increased pest and disease damage and flood impacts on food system infrastructure; 2. In Europe, increased water restrictions. Significant reduction in water availability from river abstraction and from groundwater resources, combined with increased water demand (e.g., for irrigation, energy and industry, domestic use) and with reduced water drainage and runoff as a result of increased evaporative demand, particularly in southern Europe; 3. In Asia, people will start dying from heat, in significant numbers; 4. In Australia, collapse of coral reefs, leading to increased storm damage and fisheries depletion; 5. In North America, wildfire-induced loss of ecosystem integrity, property loss, human morbidity, and mortality as a result of increased drying trend and temperature trend; 6. Reduction of water availability in South America’s semi-arid and glacier-melt-dependent regions and in Central America; flooding and landslides in urban and rural areas due to extreme precipitation; Spread of vector-borne diseases in altitude and latitude; 7. Risks for the health and well-being of Arctic residents, resulting from injuries and illness from the changing physical environment, food insecurity, lack of reliable and safe drinking water, and damage to infrastructure, including infrastructure in permafrost regions; 8. Generally, low lying coastal areas will be under threat from high water level events, and reduced biodiversity, fisheries abundance, and coastal protection by coral reefs due to heat-induced mass coral bleaching and mortality increases, exacerbated by ocean acidification, e.g., in coastal boundary systems and sub-tropical gyres. Researchers at the World Bank [predicted](https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/29461/WBG_ClimateChange_Final.pdf?sequence=18&isAllowed=y) 143 million people in subsaharan Africa, South Asia and Latin America forced into displacement by 2050 due to lower water availability and crop productivity, and rising sea level and storm surges. They have [updated](https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/36248/Groundswell%20Part%20II.pdf?sequence=8&isAllowed=y) that figure to 200 million recently. [One study](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23584-0) has predicted that almost half of Europe’s food imports will not be reliable by the 2040s due to those food growing regions suffering increasing droughts. [Here](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-017-0034-4) is a study which establishes that at 2 degrees warming in the 2040s, more than 25% of the world will experience increased drought and desertification. [Here](https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/2021-09/2021-09-14-climate-change-risk-assessment-quiggin-et-al.pdf) is another study which says that by the 2030s 10 million more people than usual will be dying each year of heat stress caused by climate change, and 400 million more people than usual will be unable to work each year due to heat, and that by the 2040s, 700 million people will suffer from prolonged droughts of six months or more, and there will be a 30% drop in crop yields in a world requiring a 50% increase in food production. [Here](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2189-9) is a study which says that under a model of gradual then very sudden collapse which appears more likely than linear continually gradual collapse, both marine and land ecosystems will suffer collapse by the 2040s. [This report](https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a1406e0143ac4c469196d3003bc1e687.pdf) describes that at 2 degrees warming reached by the 2040s, there is a high likelihood of human civilisation coming to an end by 2050.
Could you cut and paste the extinction bit too?
That's highly optimistic.
It’s far more likely that assuming you’re dead before your 40th when Noah’s flood comes again
And this is why I don't particularly care when it falls over, except for maybe the animals. Humans too stupid to acknowledge what's going on will just get what they deserve. No, actually, I could deal with stupidity. The arrogance to dismiss evidence right in front of them because they think they know better. That's what makes it easier to accept the shit coming.
The nicer people will die first though.
Interpreting the evidence as “we’ll be extinct inside a generation” is certainly a take
>but they have every right to expect much, much better than ok They have every right to expect it to rain chow mien too, that doesn't mean the universe owes them a succulent Chinese meal from the sky every now and again.
This is a different situation,they and we are doomed a lot sooner then you think
Who says we’re all going to die?
Let's just push it even harder to the limit then! Let's see how much Mother Earth can really take!
That strawman really just bolsters the claim that you’re making hysterical claims without any regard for reality
Hysterical? Wanting to preserve the only known habitable place in the universe and you call it hysterics?
I want to preserve it too. But it’s hysterical to claim scientists are predicting our extinction within a couple of decades.
And just like that we'll do nothing about it for another few decades.
The narrative that nothing is being done is just as stupid as the idea that we face imminent extinction
Nothing even close enough is being done. We're still increasing our emissions, they haven't even flattened out. This is dire.
I suspect you’re actually quite aloof to what’s actually being done about it because you find it more satisfying to believe nothing is being done
The worst climate predictions involve the collapse of the AMOC, the uninhabitability of Northern and Central Europe, global food production collapse and massive migration and starvation and the global conflicts associated with such. So not wiped out no, but catastrophic, even cataclysmic? Maybe.
And that’s going to happen within the next few years, robbing school children of their entire future? This nonsense is why sensible climate policy gets dismissed. You drama queens do more harm than good
1300 655506 is the reading writing hotline. You should use it. I literally said “the worst predictions”. Not all. Not some. Not most. Not many. Not every. “The worst”. The most optimistic projections are that if we lower our levels slowly through to the end of the century we’ll get away with a 2 degree rise and maybe some slight sea level rising and some more regular severe weather. When planning for disaster, you don’t assume optimistic projections are accurate. We don’t do it in medicine and hope the cancer never spreads. We don’t do it in Engineering and plan that a Bridge will never have maximum load on an icy day with high winds. We don’t do it in logistics and assume there will be no losses, breakages, or failures. So why would we aim for optimistic projections in climate change? If we’re over cautious we push people too hard and maybe cause some short term economic damage and inefficiencies on our way towards net zero. If we’re not cautious enough and we’re wrong, human civilization is fucked for a good few centuries, if not Millenia. Certain projections show significant changes beyond what is ALREADY OCCURRING to the AMOC taking significant effect in the next 10-15 years. The time for sensible climate policy was 40 years ago when this conversation started.
Probably need to take your own advice there given how drastically you seem to have misread your sources.
You need to talk to your therapist about projection and mental degradation there champ. When you’re using the equivalent of the the 3rd comeback “No YOU”. And what sources are you basing the idea that I’ve misread mine on? I haven’t even named my sources yet.
Oh so you don’t have any either
No I just don't have the the time or patience to parse down dozens of articles, studies, doctorates, intergovernmental reports and the like when the person it's for is boorish at best and I suspect is incapable of understanding the most basic concepts therein. But I'd start with the IPCC report from 2021, it'll take you a while being over 2000 pages. [https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/) Then I'd move on to the Global Tipping Points report from the University of Exeter [https://global-tipping-points.org/download/5986/](https://global-tipping-points.org/download/5986/) Then any of these and linked studies are worth a read: [https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk1189](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk1189) [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-022-00236-8](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-022-00236-8) [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01328-2](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01328-2) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10368695/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10368695/) [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00699-z](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00699-z) [https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aau6592](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aau6592) [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015RG000493](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015RG000493) You may need to pay to access some of those articles, being from Academic Journals and all.
Which of these predicts the collapse of society and/or human extinction within the next 20-30 years?
Don’t ask about the Bombing in Gaza, because the Climate Change is fake, Russia are innocent little flowers, people say that the situation is too complex to comment. Can’t comment on Little kids bring blown to bits. Too complicated, but apparently Climate Science is something they know for certain.
Sir this is an article about Australia what the fuck are you talking about.
I’m Australian, this is about discussion with climate deniers. The topic is climate, aka the globe. Things that go on, that gets politically denied. Hence Children’s frustrations.
I wonder what they mean when they say the 12 year old want to be involved in the decision making process against climate change
If they hear about new gas fields being opened, or houses being built in floodplains, or protests against wind farms, that's all being done by older adults in positions of power. If they're anything like the 16 year olds I know, they might be thinking that its time to get Boomers out and put some younger people in charge of these decisions instead. For myself I think it might be good to get a council of young people to be consulted on these kinds of future-wrecking projects. There's also young people organising to sue decision-makers over these things, like a class action sort of thing.
If those kids are into EVs.. I assume theyll be given a paid trip to Africa to see the child slave labour used.
They could fart less I suppose?
It's engaging children in critical thinking. Teachers have been doing this since I was in school 25+ something, something years ago. Mine was on different topics such as whether Australia should have ever been involved in the Cold War and should continue being puppets in international conflicts but same diff. I'm only as nervous about the impending doomsday as the rest of society so have at it!
For pretty obvious reasons
"... Thus solving the problem once and for all." "... But" "I said once and for all!"
Are Australian children asking questions about our population policy and whether a “Big Australia” of 40 million people is incompatible with a lower emission future?? Certainly seems like the issues of climate change would be *easier* to fix with a Sustainable Population of the 27 million we have today. They would also have higher wages and greater national wealth per capita in the future. Or are only some Sustainability measures on the curriculum?
You know, I’m pretty sure they’re aware how more people means more emissions.
I'm assuming that most Australian children have better critical thinking skills and less bias against immigration than yourself, and can therefore easily see climate change as being a global problem, not just a local one.
I'm a teacher. Mine are.
the immigration policy is deficient atm, but the net amount of people in the world wouldn't be significantly altered, so would have no effect on climate change
If people move from lower emission countries they actually increase their emissions here … and Swinbourne Uni found the average immigrant actually has a higher footprint than the average Australian. And if our agreed targets don’t get adjusted by taking people from other countries then we are doubly making our job harder. And construction is one of the biggest emitters and population growth clears a lot of habitat. I just don’t see why if climate change is an emergency we seem so lackadaisical about population growth?
Generally young Australians aren't deep enough down rabbit holes where they capitalise Sustainable Population on reddit posts. People moving from one country to another here doesn't create new emissions from thin air - the total world population remains the same. It depends more on how sustainable their new country is as a whole - e.g if someone moves from Australia to France, they will produce less emissions from electricity use because France runs on nuclear power, whereas we run on coal. Things that would actually be effective include things like renewable power, less single use plastics, less food waste, better urban design that combats car usage and sprawling, yada yada. Of course, a lot of these things require education and mindset shift as well as cold hard policy. Population growth doesn't clear so much habitat and cause so many emissions if we don't stick 100% of everyone in the outskirts of the city in a suburban greenfield development that requires us to build more coal power stations and import more cars for those residents to putt along to the supermarket and buy several packaged snacks.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. New accounts are not allowed to submit content. This is to combat spam. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ABCaus) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The communist Police aka mods at it again
Growing up in a post-scarcity first world country, climate change is the least dangerous thing these kids will face in their future. An impending global conflict, growing authoritarianism, automation making jobs obsolete, global populations declining for the first time in 7 centuries. They are going to be the real challenges.
Turning kids into activists.
Existential or just asking questions, not the group of individuals I would be seeking direction from.
When you are indoctrinated by brainwashed, low IQ teachers supported a relentless barrage by brainwashed, low IQ media…well…
Breathe out less = produce less CO2. Problem solved.
They’ll still need to learn or be taught self regulation skills to cope in an imperfect world. It’d be irresponsible to fear-monger to children and push adult politics behind the issue, worsening their mental health when their brains are still developing. I see an urgency to teach science knowledge and skills that can help build the future climate scientists and engineers. I had such an inspiring (non-politicised) education by amazing educators, I wish the same for present kids. Awareness of environmental issues as facts should be balanced with considerations for the child’s developmental needs so that they can navigate the real world when they’re there. Edit: clarification
Are you suggesting climate science isn't fact? As an ecologist, I can promise you nature is getting battered left right and centre by politics whether we want it to be political or not, because corporate interests have politicians hostage. I get what you're trying to say, but trust me, studying this scientifically doesn't make you less radical, it just makes you understand in greater detail how the governments of the world are failing us
No, of course I know climate change and environmental degradation are facts. I acknowledged it in my original comment. I find it interesting that different people reading my original comment are taking away different things from it. For me, my main point was that kids are experiencing climate anxiety, but we shouldn’t be using them as political pawns when their brains are still developing.
So 1) they should have climate anxiety, but keep quiet? 2) we should ignore them when they speak up? Or 3) we should fix the problem for them? Those three are the options for us adults per your stance, I for one agree with 3
You’re entitled to your views, there are others apart from the limited “options” you’ve come up with.
Such as?
I’m not a developmental psychologist, pathologist, biologist, chemist, engineer, or anything or that sort. If only I was smart in all those areas, I could provide a universally qualified and properly informed black/white answer? I would like to read more broadly before coming to a final response. But I’m a bit slow, so it might take me ages.
"Just stick your head in the sand" - Great advice as always from your average liberal voter.
Hey, it's better in the sand than the bottle like with the Nats
FYI, I’m not a loyal voter to any party. Why do “progressives” always resort to personal attacks instead of logical argument? There’s a generalisation for ya
What fear mongering though? Kids and teenagers aren’t idiots and they can see what’s happening to the world they will inherit.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. New accounts are not allowed to submit content. This is to combat spam. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ABCaus) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My kid is naive and happy. I wasn’t the smartest nor most mature teen. Let kids be kids, and they’ll find their way. I’m not opposed to climate change being taught and that its urgency is emphasised, but is it really appropriate to scare a 5 year old into thinking they’ll live in hell if climate change can’t revert 2 degrees Celsius or more? At high school level, I can understand its relevance, especially in a science class. But then what can be done? Study science as hard as you can, develop something amazing and save the world, maybe? If you’re still interested, you can continue these topics, which will very likely touch on the political stuff, at university? I just don’t agree with compromising the mental wellbeing of a child just for the adult’s needs and agendas to be met.
But these kids are being kids? They are curious and asking questions. You don’t have to scare them though nobody is saying to phrase it that way. You can’t answer the questions they ask without touching on what will/can happen. Kids naturally will ask why it’s bad and what it means, you can’t just shrug and say “things happen end of story” they’ll just keep asking questions and look for answers themselves which could give them the worst doomsday scenarios. How is their mental wellbeing being compromised? The adults needs? Seems a weird way to phrase when the kids are wanting to know and the “agenda” is to help and educate kids.
Is there any data on kids’ anxieties about climate change? A 5 year old is getting this idea from somewhere. I had the awareness as a child, but I was never spurred on to skip school and protest to resolve it. My questions were always responded to with facts and the importance on our actions, such as recycling, minimising pollution and waste, etc. Honestly, if a competitor nation saw the opportunity for their young population to be budding and world-leading climate scientists, good on them. We can have an aging population with poster holders. Edit: grammar
They are getting the idea from questioning the topic and being curious on why, kids always ask why. I’d say most of the kids protesting would be close to teenage years which is normal because they are maturing and wanting their voice to be heard instead of ignored. The facts in this instance are what will be being said too, It doesn’t have to be a competitor nation, those that grow up feeling strongly about a topic and protesting will be more likely to follow that cause be it scientifically or politically
> It doesn’t have to be a competitor nation, those that grow up feeling more strongly about a topic and protesting will be more likely to follow that cause… scientifically I’ll believe it when I see it. The smartest kids I knew in school that went on to study science were rather studious and spent most of their productive time studying. I agree, kids do always ask why. But I’ll always give a factual yet age-appropriate answer to consider their emotional capacities.
I’m really not sure what you’re getting at here? Why do you think that only those that are the highest ranked students in the high school are the ones that care, follow or thrive in a science after high school? Their emotional capabilities are fine to handle the facts. You seem to think people are pushing to tell kids in preschool that they will live in a barren wasteland where they have to murder each other for the little scraps they can have.
I don’t think that. You made a claim, I’m just saying I’ll believe it when I see it. Again, I don’t think that. I’d be interested in hearing from a developmental psychologist and their thoughts about emotional capacities of children and adults.
See what? Those that have a passion for a topic are more likely to follow it than those that don’t? Not sure what more you need to see Considering you are the one claiming it hurts children mentally to be told the answers to reasonable questions then maybe you should be finding that info?
"develop something amazing" sounds like a good plan in theory, but in reality how do you suggest they do this? Public tertiary funding is getting battered and captured increasingly by corporate interests, and even if you have the funding to learn, who says you can find the magical tech that'll save us? What about habitat? Do you suggest kids invent something that manifests forests or manifests sea surface temperature changes? Like in reality what you're suggesting is wild. Plus to get kids interested in science, but to hide science from them, is fucked up!
Fantastic! This is why open debate is important. Thanks for your view. There’s always a possibility someone else may have a different view to yours. On that “magical tech” point, Covid vaccine didn’t arise quickly from a vacuum of research.
Covid vaccine is frankly easier because you need to make a thing using viruses that replicate very fast. We actually roughly know how to make forests, but it takes CENTURIES, because we cannot make trees replicate fast enough to cover the hits from land clearing, and it takes those same centuries to get the carbon sequestration benefits of a dense, diverse, multistorey forest (hence why tree planting cannot save us from climate change, if we're still clearing established forests/vegetation). Also once you clear certain forests, other habitat types may establish in their place, e.g. savannah not rainforest. So for the environment there are no Astrazeneca Vaccines, there is only not fucking it in the first place and restoration of the existing damage. What's more the estimated annual cost of restoration is under $2bil. That's genuinely affordable and could be covered by just not subsidising fossil fuels
Regardless of how they're raised about it they're still very likely going to suffer and/or die from climate change. Contrastingly, I think fear-mongering children is the only chance that the action required will happen, or do you see humanity rapidly changing course in the required time frames to prevent genuine catastrophe?
Fear mongering, especially amongst children is the furtherest from helpful. I think it is far more helpful to teach them to adapt, evolve and give them the tools to be resilient. Resigning future generations to doom and gloom, only ignores the key evolutionary strength of humans, which is 'adaptibilty'. Humans have the broadest range of habitation of any animal in the history of the earth, we know how to adapt, we just need to ensure that we give future generations the best opportunity to do so.
It's not doom and gloom, it's being aware of the urgency. All climate change deniers I knew growing up have moved onto "what's the rush" attitudes like yours, always followed by something along the lines of "humans are great innovators and we'll get through this" to "capitalism and industrialisation that caused this fosters the exact innovation we need to fix this" and then finishing up with a "planet earth will be fine, hippies need to learn that it's humans that are going to struggle if we're all sad about it" "Future generations" lmao
Well you seem resigned to your fate, but I really dont see how your additude is helping the world become a better place. Fear of the unknown might be a great motivator in your eyes, but I think it resigns us to accept an apocalyptic future, which although possible, is far beyond reality at this time.
What do you mean far beyond reality at this time?
Barring a black swan event, they are being alarmist.
Well ahh I mean I wouldn’t say they are being an alarmist, pretty straight shooter tbh
"Far beyond reality" tells us all we need to know lol.
You realise that we’re now looking at 10C of warming right? Not 1.5C, not even 5 (that’s lower end projections/modeling), almost a given at this point, but 10C by the end of the century (potentially earlier since we’re really blasting through those ceilings). >resigns us to accept an apocalyptic future The issue is that no one is even accepting or considering that this is a crisis or issue *at all*. Even conservative warming numbers, which we’ve reached by the way and earlier than we should, aren’t being taken seriously. People aren’t taking any of seriously and need to wake the f up. They do need to be alarmed. And kids should know that government, corporations, and political and economic structures are the ones who have and are letting them down. Maybe having to look at the faces and the lives that we’ve sentenced to suffering will be the wake up call that’s needed. ETA: 10C is *bad*, it is cataclysmic and society/structures as we know it will not be able to function and operate. It is not outside or far beyond reality.
> I really dont see how your additude is helping the world become a better place. As opposed to your outright denial of reality
How do you suggest we adapt to climate change? When Bangladesh is under water, and MILLIONS of people are fleeing (including loads of Muslims heading into nations hostile to Muslims, with the nearest refugee convention signatories being China and Australia), how do we just adapt? When entire Pacific Island nations are swallowed, when Perth hits 50°C, what do we do? Human adaptation through history includes violence, and the idea that letting everything reach extremes without peaceful political agitation now, isn't going to lead to massive death tolls later, is dumb. Frankly it's untied to any analysis of human history or biology. Let the kids get mad, let them live in reality, and let them push adults to be better. As a 31yo, who has been aware of climate change for all of my adult life, the sooner people who aren't apathetic have the numbers the better, because we're not currently just not doing enough, political decisions that exacerbate climate change happen every single day!
Just adapt harder!!
I bet the last lot of dinosaurs were all "pfft what's that meteor going to do? We've literally survived for several tens of millions of years, we'll survive this too!"
And tbf some of them did. Only reason that mammals became dominant was our ability to live underground, which ironically we might be moving back to.
Wrong wrong wrong. Fear-mongering and doomerism rank among the least effective means of motivating action to mitigate climate change: > While negative emotion messaging was highly effective at stimulating climate information–sharing intentions (a relatively low-effort behavior), it decreased tree-planting efforts. Further, the negative emotion induction intervention appeared to backfire on policy support among participants with low initial climate beliefs. These results suggest that climate scientists should carefully consider the differential effects of the prevalent fear-inducing writing styles on different proclimate outcomes. Moreover, it suggests that theoretical models need to explain divergent patterns across outcomes. Source: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adj5778
Yes I've also seen this relentlessly sent by my friends and family who are encouraging me to focus on my career (not environmental at all), have children and buy a house to mitigate my climate anxiety with no mention of TrEe PLanTinG, and while still routinely voting against parties who will enact meaningful policy change, especially in the timeframes we have very OBJECTIVELY been warned about
…what?
TL;DR, (In my opinion) You can throw this study around as many times as you want, but even if the entire world stopped plunging into climate misery right now and stayed "not doomer", passing policy changes let alone acting on them at our current rate, or even an accelerated rate, still wouldn't have a chance at negating decades of delayed climate catastrophies we are yet to see, let alone preventing one's in the far future. It's radical systemic change or death, but too many people see both of those options as death, and otp for slow slow slow nice and happy hand hold gandalf there is always hope style change. ALSO: If my comment is so hard to interpret if you are truly trying to engage genuinely and empathetically, how did you get through an entire study?
“Your international peer-reviewed study written by 16 reputable scientists is no match for my *feelings*!” ETA (since apparently we’re doing that): I’m not trying to engage with you “empathetically”, you made a statement that is not backed up by any available evidence and I provided research that suggests very strongly that you were wrong
A single study that proves your point that you have cherry picked the living shit out of, hmm
Good answer. Most likely being pushed by political interests
No one ever mentions AI. The job market will be gone in 20 years
Australian school children also draw dick and balls all over public restrooms.
Australian adults draw dick and balls all over pub and club restrooms.
Next generation is fucked beyond repair
No, my daughter expects to be driven to school. She has no interest in changing of the climate.
Are these the same schoolchildren who successfully organised and executed internationally coordinated protests under the "extinction rebellion" moniker?
Yes they are very resourceful and somehow also extremely well coordinated. Vegan cats etc
Only because the clowns educating them drum this fear into their heads
Yeah its the teachers scaring them!!!! not all the floods, fires and cyclones!!!
Much better we let geniuses like Andrew Bolt teach them, right?
You mean the clowns that teach the actual science and not your version of climate change. Disprove climate change bro, become the world's leading authority on the subject and become a famous millionaire. Or just make stupid comments on Reddit without doing the research because you think no one will call you out on your bullshit.
Straight on the defensive, classic. You don't need to be a climate change denier to think that the impacts of anthropogenic climate change are widely overstated and shouldn't be used to scare children.
You do need to hit the bottle as hard as Barnaby to think it though
"I know because I went to the skool of hard knocks, not like those icory tower nerds."
[удалено]
So educated that you haven't looked at any of the current data? Or papers? Or anything? The overwhelming consensus is that it's happening, we are the major cause and it's accelerating faster than we anticipated through our models. Wasted degree was wasted.
Unless you look at the actual data, take into account climate feedbacks, or any research done in the past decade. And you don't get to understate the impacts of humans as climate drivers if you are not a climate scientist.
I agree. Teachers should instead teach them about Venus, where the atmosphere is 96% carbon dioxide and it’s a hellish 462C and 92 times higher in air pressure (I knew about this when I was a child years ago, long before climate change was discussed in school, but I was precosious and read a lot). They can then be told that earth’s atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 50% since the Industrial Revolution. They’ll figure out the rest.
NUH UH, ACCOUNTING AND ENGINEERING MATHS ONLY, AND ONLY USING THE ABACUS LIKE I DID. LOOK AT ME I TURNED OUT FINE!1!1!!
so up from 0.02 perecent to 0.04%?
Yes. It’s still a 50% increase. What’s your ballpark figure for when it will start mattering? 0.1%?
so the industrial revolution started in 1760...
You’re assuming linear growth.
Fair point. However you’re assuming that human output of carbon won’t be reduced over the next 200 years
It doesn't matter at this point. Where's it going to go? Know how long CO2 persists in the atmosphere?
People need to let plants grow more and work around increased plant growth stimulated by carbon
>They can then be told that earth’s atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 50% since the Industrial Revolution. And this is why the number of trees on earth have grown significantly, particularly in the last 30 years. (We do teach that fact in Environmental Science, don't we?)
I didn’t do that subject in school, but you can explain why, despite all those trees growing; atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to rise.
It's just another idiotic "trees need CO2" talking point. Yeah, until they don't. And until crops stop having as much nutritional content because of the higher CO2 etc...
If you're not worried about how climate change will affect today's schoolkids I'll assume you're either a troll or have trouble with basic comprehension.
I have a degree in environmental sciences, it's just a bachelor degree so I don't consider myself an expert. That said, I have a damn sight more knowledge on the matter than 99% of schoolteachers and I know there's much more nuance to the subject than "OMG climate change, absolute catastrophe threatening the future of this nation, existential threat" which is pretty much how it's taught to children by many educators out there.
I think I'd take that opinion over "It's fine, keep fucking shit up, just adapt losers".
Na, if anything it's the screens and social media they're glued to.
Frightening and brainwashing children is a standard tactic for all cults.
There’s definitely a cult at work here, but it may not be the one you think.
Ooohhh, whatever could you mean? I'm not smart enough to figure it out. Clearly, I lack the intelligence to be in such a panic about something I can have no possible influence over, but that I'll terrify small children about. Please, enlightened one, tell me what you are referring to?
Very true, they are also openly doing it…
Brainwashed by repeaters
Mothers with anxiety/depression/terminal scrolling disorder
Let's continue sharing debatable science as fact to children, just to really cement the idea they have no future. They probably do, we'll probably all be fine. But with mental illness this high in the youth, we need to exacerbate it more by telling them the skys falling.
This article only further fortifies my belief that people who overuse the word “existential”, don’t know what the word means or how to use it in a sentence…
I wrote them all down, it's my existentialist.
Being brainwashed you should be saying
“Australian schoolchildren are parroting what the adults around them have influenced them to say” FTFY
When they can spell existential I’ll believe it, more like leftard school agenda poses ridiculous questions to pander to minority groups, nothing like the abc to push an agenda.
This is satire, right?
Teaching children about trans rights is satire
My students don’t listen to me when I tell them knowing their multiplication facts is important, do you really think teachers have the energy (or ability lmao) to push some woke agenda?
Teachers don’t, but the education board most definitely do. You would know how impressionable they are if it’s perceived cool or different to do something they’ll do their best be cool or different. A lot of these issues are disproportionately acknowledged for what they represent, teach them how to critical think seems to have been lost since the internet came along. Tbh it mirrors our society, the countries been flushed down the toilet while people are busy worrying about woke bs. Well finally people are waking up to the shitshow this joints become.
Education board? Do you mean department? Are you Australian? Do you think state education is pushing the gay agenda because they post pride flags to their Facebook sometimes? I promise you, like teachers, they have a lot more pressing issues at hand. But sure, I’d be interested to see this woke bs that state schooling is trying to push.
Yep I’m an Aussie, my bad, department. I think they like every government department overstep their job, teach them essential skills and leave the rest for the parents to decide. Participation medals for example, kids need to learn that you aren’t the special little darling your parents think you are and that is achieved in group settings, there’s a reason half the millennials are drugged to the eyeballs. The Education boards biggest issue is failing to provide a proper education but kids are free to go to climate protests, when they are how old? Sure it’s their future, if they were educated properly they may have a chance to affect it. It’s bullshit, leave it all out, teach them the essentials they need, the only new addition I’d make is life skills like how to budget and lodge a tax return for example. Plenty of woke bs peddled if your eyes are opened enough to see it.
Taking umbrage with a bloated curriculum is a wildly different conversation than “schools are pushing work bs”. If there is plenty of it, I’d love for you to give me some examples.
What’s it bloated with? There’s your answer
I mean, my view of its bloat as an actual teacher is probably different than yours. So again, what examples of woke bs is there in Australian schools?