Ocasio-Cortez: People Maybe Shouldn’t Reproduce Due To Climate Change
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) suggested on Sunday night that people should consider not having children due to climate change because there is a "scientific consensus" that life will be hard for kids.
"Our planet is going to hit disaster if we don't turn this ship around and so it's basically like, there's a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult," Ocasio-Cortez said while chopping up food in her kitchen during an Instagram live video. "And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question, you know, 'Is it okay to still have children?'"
Ocasio-Cortez then took a shot at Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) over an incident that happened in Feinstein's office on Friday when a far-left fringe group tried to pressure Feinstein into supporting the Green New Deal.
"You know what’s interesting about this group?" Feinstein told the group on Friday, in response to the group storming into her office. "I’ve been doing this for 30 years. I know what I’m doing."
"You come in here, and you say it has to be my way or the highway. I don’t respond to that," Feinstein continued. "I’ve gotten elected, I just ran. I was elected by almost a million-vote plurality. And I know what I’m doing. So you know, maybe people should listen a little bit."
Ocasio-Cortez said Feinstein's response was "like not good enough" because the legislation that the Democrats support is "frankly going to kill us."
"This idea that 'I've been working on this for x-amount of years,' um, it's like not good enough," Ocasio-Cortez said. "Like, we need a universal sense of urgency, and people are like trying to introduce watered-down proposals that are frankly going to kill us. A lack of urgency is going to kill us."
"The issue has gotten worse," Ocasio-Cortez continued. "So I don't think that working on an issue for 30 years alone is what qualifies as, as what someone qualified to solve an issue."
"That said, there are a lot of people that have been doing this work for decades that have proposed ambitious solutions for years and have not been listened to," Ocasio-Cortez added. "So it's not just, 'I've been doing this for 30 years,' so we need to listen to them because frankly people have been failing at the same things for 30 or 40 years. What we need to do is say, 'What solutions have not been tried yet? And what ambitious scale have we not shot at yet.' And let's do it."
Ocasio-Cortez has often used alarmist language when discussing climate change, repeatedly comparing fighting climate change to fighting Nazi Germany. Ocasio-Cortez has gone as far as to claim that the world is going to end in 12 years if her far-left policies are not implemented.
"I think the part of it that is generational is that millennials and people, in Gen Z, and all these folks that come after us are looking up and we’re like, the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change," Ocasio-Cortez said during a Martin Luther King forum in New York City in January. "And your biggest issue, your biggest issue is how are we going to pay for it? — and like this is the war, this is our World War II."
Tags
Who is online
513 visitors
Democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) suggested on Sunday night that people should consider not having children due to climate change because there is a "scientific consensus" that life will be hard for kids.
"Our planet is going to hit disaster if we don't turn this ship around and so it's basically like, there's a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult," Ocasio-Cortez said while chopping up food in her kitchen during an Instagram live video. "And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question, you know, 'Is it okay to still have children?'"
Ocasio-Cortez has often used alarmist language when discussing climate change, repeatedly comparing fighting climate change to fighting Nazi Germany. Ocasio-Cortez has gone as far as to claim that the world is going to end in 12 years if her far-left policies are not implemented.
Whose darling is this person???? Is she now the environmental expert for the "new" Democratic Socialist Party???
I'm posting my reply at the risk of moderator(s) and others again telling me that AOC "lives rent free" in my head even though anything I've ever posted about her is true:
It's certain that Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, and Cory Booker love her. Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein ... not so much.
AOC wants the US and world to believe that she's an expert in economics, international relations, and environmental issues. As she said, she's the BOSS!
Blonde but same vapid eyes.
OMG ... my bad! I didn't hover over it and didn't see it was a video! WTH language/dialect was that chick talking? AOC dialect? Ha ha ha!!
Well, this person's parents gave birth to her and she sure is a waste of breath...
How about a waste of semen?
I certainly hope she doesn't breed.
It seems that the white folk are taking her advice.
I'm not sure what the controversy is here. She didn't actually say "I think people shouldn't have kids because of climate change". She merely said she thinks some people are taking climate change into consideration when deciding to have children.
If only her own parents could have listened!
We would all be better off...
Why is this any different than Republicans claiming that people who cannot afford children shouldn't have children? You see, for Republicans, it's all about the money. Nothing else matters.
Ocasio-Cortez is raising a relevant question. There were fewer than 1 billion people on the planet at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Now the human population is climbing towards 9 billion. How many more people can the planet support without dramatic changes in the environment? Humans can't keep crapping on their own plate and think everything is going to be fine.
Climate change is a self correcting problem. Harsher conditions will naturally thin the herd. But it is the developed economies that will experience the most herd thinning. Stone age people are already adapted to living in harsh environments without relying on technology. It's the technologically dependent economies that will have the most difficulty adapting. After all, people start dropping dead if the air conditioning doesn't work.
Cavemen didn't cause climate change. Nature is going to force humans back to the stone age. Just keep in mind that the parts of the human population that are already living a stone age lifestyle will have less difficulty adapting.
A certain portion of conservatives have one motivation above all else (even money & religion) - oppose anything anyone more liberal than Goebbles. Usually with the same techniques Goebble's employed.
[Deleted]
Which Republican member of Congress said that?
You see, for Republicans, it's all about the money
What the hell does that mean? Republicans don't want the human race to go extinct, therefore it's all about the money?
I recently finished a book called One Second After, and the follow up One Year After. They were a real eye opener to just how dependent upon technology humans in the developed world are. It starts with a very unconventional terrorist attack, whereby an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) device is exploded over the US, knocking out 100% of devices that rely on sensitive electronics. That means all modern cars, all cell phones, all means of travel, all electric and communications lines, and everything else we take for granted in living how we live.
An EMP is simply a nuke programmed to explode at an altitude that will project a widespread electromagnetic pulse towards earth, leaving everyone and everything that doesn’t use electronics perfectly intact, but destroys electronics. Though the book is obviously fiction, the EMP phenomenon is real, and the devastation outlined in those chapters is absolutely terrifying. The real damage comes from how humans are so ill equipped to live like their ancestors. One Second After is a book that everyone should read. It just might make people tangentially think about the struggles that will come with climate change.
For those who don't know - an EMP produces a large instantaneous pulse of an electrical field. It induces large currents in the circuitry which are not canceled out unless it's protected against by a sufficiently sized transient voltage suppressor on the circuit to direct the current back to ground. Even then a lot of powered circuitry would be overpowered and fried. If the current is not redirected, it burns traces, shorts gates and generally causes havoc and would include devices with trace power like LED TVs and laptops. We've seen several large cities live through a week of no power.
While the EMP is indeed destructive the area of effect & the destructive nature is often overstated. An EMP won't take out parts and devices that aren't powered at the time of the blast. I'm optimistic we'd make it through - although any fallout would kill and sicken thousands depending on wind and weather patterns. That would be much, much more devastating than living a couple of weeks without a cell phone.
Still clinging to battery operated transistor radios, just in case......if the garage is still intact, lol.
Doesn't have to be a nuke. An EMP device using conventional explosives is quite possible.
A solar flare would have the same effect. And a strong solar flare could take out electronics that aren't powered since the damage is caused by charged particles rather than a magnetic pulse. Besides the technological battleground will be in space; taking out communications satellites could be the next Pearl Harbor.
But without the beer fridge, what's the point?
It is correct that a single nuclear detonation above the US would not have a nation-wide impact as the book suggests, but mo’ drama mo’ book sales. Still, it is a real phenomena on a smaller scale, and would still have a devastating regional effect, which would be serious enough to create a global economic impact. Plus, it has been theorized that if this country did somehow suffer a nation-wide loss of electrical infrastructure, it could ultimately end up killing 9 out of 10 Americans via numerous scenarios.
Here’s a short but thorough video on the subject for those who are interested:
I saw one of those in person in the mid-80's. It was very cool. At the time it was the largest recorded non-nuclear explosion test.
At this point it's only mathematically possible as it's never actually happened. It's been predicted but never materialized. Were it to happen it could take out a whole hemisphere at one time. EDIT - I'm wrong. I actually looked it up and there was a power outage in Quebec in 1989 and a huge recorded solar flare in 1859 that would be really bad were it to happen today. Sorry for my ignorance.
I'm not as up on this subject as I would like to be, but it seems to me to be to much space junk up there unless it's all about terrestrial based weapons pointed at those satellites. At some point all that crap left up there will have to be addressed. Breaking up large satellites into smaller pieces (most, but not all, of the debris will fall to earth) adding to it will not do anyone any favors.
The biggest working bomb would be hard pressed to disrupt a sizable city. If, as Nerm posted, a large ionized solar flare/storm actually hit the US we would be in deep shit. As I'm actually looking it up there was power disruption in Quebec in March of 1989 and there was a massive solar flare in 1859 that would be quite bad were it to happen today.
Wow. No. An EMP requires a relativistic charged particle burst.
Relativistic charged particle burst? 🤔
Is that the red pill or the blue pill?
Well folks. There we have it.
The world will end in 12 years.
Finally.... All the apprehension and anxiety of not knowing when were really starting to eat at me.
Well, if the world will end in 12 years (lol), we don't gave to do anything! Yay.
What an idiot..
I don't know which one should get the Chicken Little award, AOC
or the teacher that confronted Feinstein with her own pleas of "Do it for the children".
Wow, just wow.
The same group, Sunrise Movement, also stormed Mitch McConnell's office on Monday. Capitol Police arrested over 40 of them.
Yes, sort of, at least according to the Daily Caller, lol. ABC News descried it as a swarm of activists.
ABC News also reported that they staged sit-ins at the offices of Pelosi, Hoyer and McGovern.
They appear to be equal opportunity protesters
Perhaps you'll consider doing a better search, because I found several left wing sources that fully, not "sort of", supported what I said.
Yeppers. And it's only going to cost $93 TRILLION over 10 years to implement this boondoggle. It breaks down to around $650K per US household. I'm sure AOC, our new Economics and International Studies expert, has also figured out how to get China, India, and African countries on board with her plan so they'll also pay their "fair share" to save the world.
Well $650k conveniently works out to be just about what a junior AOC staffer would make over the 12 years between now and the end of the world.
Looks like she's done more planning than we might have imagined.
I’ve been thinking for a while now that AOC was a conservative operative. Everyday she gives me more evidence to support it. What a genius strategy to exploit the fissures that developed during the 2016 primary. Whom ever is behind this......well done!
She reminds me of several people who I have known, worked with, or worked for me, that were diagnosed with Bipolar disorder.
If she is, they're not paying her enough.
Children. If you can afford them, have them.
If you can't afford them, the 'fetus worshippers' will pick up the tab, right?
Besides, AOC is more correct than you think.
Yes she is unfortunately.
The more new socialist that listen to her and quit breading is for the best.
Absolutely, we don't need the extra carbs !
Exactly. Fried foods are the real danger...
We agree unless you're being sarcastic.
You commented on a typo, yeah for you.
So what do you think about the ding bat Cortez and her childish ideas that appeals to the extreme left?
Well, with the policy divisions within the party, the antisemitism and the ignorance, I wonder what the Las Vegas bookmakers are putting as the odds for a Democratic win in 2020.
Zero point zero.
Her concept is second only to Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal". Now that I think of it, "A Modest Proposal" would be a reason to ban abortions - could be a solution to world hunger.
Ocasio-Cortez: People Maybe Shouldn’t Reproduce Due To Climate Change
No, but they may want to curtail it a wee bit due to overpopulation, food and potable water shortages are a problem in certain regions now, only will get worse and then folks will know what discomfort really feels like.
Apparently Liberal Types think "Dumber than Dirt" is the way to go this election cycle.... Cory, Kamala, Liz, Bernie, etc…..thinks AOC and her …..Thoughts?..... are great !
Says MUCH about their constituents who voted for her too….. don't it ?
Blondes must be ecstatic with this one. She single handedly just made Blonde Jokes irrelevant !
She is one of the few politicians to address overpopulation, but I still think she is crazy
[deleted]
[comment spamming]
Conservatives have zero good new ideas so they just hate on those who do.
Plainly, a 29 year old first term congresswoman is enough to unnerve them...
All the efforts to defame her made AOC so famous her monogram is known.
I don't go that far.
Anne Richards was an intelligent person, as was Lloyd Bentsen. Barack Obama is an intelligent person, as is Bill Clinton.
AOC is a moron who just happens to be embarrassing the Democratic Party at the moment. But it's not that long ago Republicans were wishing Christing O'Donnell would do anything else except speak.
OK. But all of that group seem able to work out that working multiple jobs does not sway the unemployment numbers. None of them have declared "you just pay for it...duhhh". None of them have declared themselves "the boss". None have asked "you know....is it OK to have children?" And, most notably, none have suggested: "like...the world is going to end in 12 years".
Harris, Warren and Booker are raving leftists, because it helps them get re-elected. They are not morons.
They were already thinking that but more because kids are expensive and wage growth has been virtually non-existent for a little bit. Hence why people, well educated people, are waiting later and later to have kids.