me_irl

I know this is a common counter argument, but some times really are more truly closer to the end of the world than others

During WW2 this was more true than in the past, after nuclear weapons became invented it was more true than in the past, after the US and USSR stockpiled enough nukes to destroy civilization a dozen times over, while being at each other's throats, it was more true than in the past, once climate change became a real crisis that's not being solved it was more true than in the past

And finally, we now have a confluence of all of these factors, with fascism coming back into the world where we might see another World War-like scenario. Even when the dust settles on what the US and far-right are doing, what's going to be done about climate change? The issue will be put even more on the back-burner than it already has, and it's going to wreck our crops and fuel further instability in the world

Before the stockpiling of nuclear weapons, there never was a plausible way to end civilization globally. But they very much enable the possibility of doing so now. If all stockpiled nukes were fired, it would be more than enough to affect the global climate to the point of global crop failures, and the human population would possibly be reduced to less than a million. Not to mention all other life on earth and the havoc it would cause on ecological stability. Certainly enough to cause yet another mass extinction on top of the already in progress holocene mass extinction

Generations aren’t monolithic.

Why? Just why do people comment like this?