546
Over 60 percent of Gen Z have an anxiety disorder
(thehill.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
546 points (93.1% liked)
News
23311 readers
3656 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Because it is a slow moving event that will unfold over the next century.
It cannot be both so incredibly anxiety causing and also lacking in any urgency at the population level simultaneously.
I think at least 60% of people would beg to differ.
Also, where do your data from? We're seeing the impacts right now and although we still have a chance of minimising the impact we're still emitting GHG at dangerous rates.
As a climate activist, my data comes largely from the NOAA/EPA as well as independent think-tanks.
The poster you're responding to is correct.
Pretty sure as a literal climate lobbyist, I know more about this than you
I did not say I am in a think tank. I said we use some think tank knowledge (generally for highly localized policy advocation), while relying on world standards for climate studies
If you have an issue with the world's chosen standards, perhaps write to the UN or your country's UN ambassador.
I'm not the one trying to start arguments about climate science
I have not said anything about climate science but I have said something about your method of showing qualifications.
almost 2.5k comments in 3 months though... that's a pretty solid sign that you really like arguing online and likely like to put your "opponents" into some random box of assumptions like you are with me, so you have fun out here o7
Actually it's a solid sign that I work from home and have lots of downtime between meetings, and when I'm sitting in airports traveling for work
You have fun too.
Lol, lmao even.
You can join too! Almost certainly a local chapter in your area and they provide you everything you need.
Free to join and you are welcome to dictate your level of participation
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
Astroturf harder for me daddy.
You don't know what astroturfing is
Pretending to be a climate activist on the internet while down playing the consequences and severity of climate change? Smells like astroturfing to me. If you're not doing it for a pay cheque then I worry for your mental health.
I'm not downplaying consequences, but being accurate about timelines.
Most serious impacts of climate change that is already in-process won't be felt til 2100+. We'll hit 2C by 2030 and 3C by 2050/2070, but that's nowhere near catastrophic - that comes if we continue to not do things because the changes are slow.
Not understanding the timeline is what feeds into climate denialism. It's like their #1 talking point
Next time you're confused just ask for clarity.
We're already feeling serious impacts, right now, in 2023. This statement just makes you seem incompetent. I hope for your sake you're just a bad actor.
You're either dramatically overestimating the current situation or vastly underestimating how serious things will actually get
Slow moving event? It seems you've already gotten used to quarterly news reports of wild fires, floods, cyclones, storms, drought and mass animal graves be it terrestrial or aquatic life forms. Humans are losing their homes and lives to these events routinely. There's already a term coined for such climate refugees, making all the countries nervous about the future.
Even to generously concede your statement... you're referring to the course of their lifetime, that century. By the end of which, apocalypse.
Not really, the apocalypse scenario was averted by the banning of CFCs, which were a much worse greenhouse gas that were on track to cause a 4+ degree rise instead of the 2 we're on track for now.
Also, it was an apocalypse scenario because the damage it was doing to the natural atmosphere was liable to pair that temperature rise with everyone getting every kind of skin cancer imaginable from unfiltered solar radiation.
Watch "The Human Future" by Melodysheep, it gives a real perspective moment on just how hard life would be to dislodge even in a major die out scenario.
An event which wipes out 99% of all humans alive now would still leave the earth populated by 80 million people, which is a larger number than the total global population was for a massive stretch of our history.
Glad to hear that you wouldn't describe a 99% die off of the human population as apocalyptic, let alone all the life not able to adapt to rapid change. Whilst the remaining 1% sits in the wreckage of a blighted environment now incredibly hostile to life. Let's hope the remaining 80 million are fairly centrally located and don't just starve, freeze or kill each other in the wasteland, to round out that non-apocalypse.
Don't forget to have kids, Gen Z, we need more fodder for the impending mass death event.
Tell me you drove your literature teacher into day drinking without telling me you drove your literature teacher into day drinking.
Get off the internet and learn some reading comprehension skills angsty.
Beautiful.
I just think they lack any real issues. I grew up poor and constantly insecure. I had real issues, and it has given be perspective. I'm grateful for every day I have food and shelter. I don't have a lot of bandwidth to care about stuff which might affect people 100 years from now.
Of course I'm glad that they grew up with such privileged lives. I just wish they'd care a little more about poor people today.
You mean like the threat of the end of democracy? Or the housing crisis? Or the student debt crisis? Inflation (which is largely just greed)? Increasing wealth disparity? Frozen wage increases? Loss of pensions? Threats to social security? Medical costs increasing and insurance paying out less and less?
Have empathy, and look around. Just because you are OK now doesn't mean everyone is.
I mean, plenty of Gen Z end up on the streets too, just like any generation, because housing availability and income is just getting worse for poor people. Anxiety issues are fairly associated with poverty.
Most the young people I know (California, USA, I'm a young millennial) are precarious, and most feel precarious. They are also watching baby boomers (sometimes their parents and grandparents) end up on the streets in high numbers, but also don't have the extra income to put into retirement or get a healthy savings to secure a future for themselves, much less help their ailing family members. Their health issue incidence is high, and the availability of care for those health issues is low and very expensive. People living off of Gig apps and part time jobs (because jobs with benefits are unavailable without a college education, and sometimes even with). If they live separate from their family most of their income goes to rent.
And climate change isn't something that affects people 100 years from now, it affects us right now in certain zones. The number of homes destroyed/damaged in various disasters each year where I live has gone way up, and a lot of the people who are displaced end up on the streets or in ever growing slums/camps. There's a general sense that the future will be worse than the present, which makes present struggles feel worse. People turn to drug use, sometimes to self medicate for physical and emotional issues. People don't want to have kids, because they don't see a future for those children, and don't have the resources to provide for them.
I agree there needs to be more solidarity, especially with the most impoverished. Part of the struggle is worsened by atomization and individualism, and propaganda deriding the impoverished.