[kingdomcome50]

> I'm doing fine.

Precisely! My point is that my (or your) grandparents/parents could have held the same sentiments you are holding now. And they would have been wrong.

> I'm thinking about 100-200 years down the line

Your children will not be alive in 100-200 years so your point is also moot.

Unfortunately, I believe you believe what you are saying will come to pass and it will be "society collapsing". I don't. No point in arguing about it any further. Message me in 100-200 years to say "I told you so".

[klyrs]

> Your children will not be alive in 100-200 years so your point is also moot.

Wow, you really love attacking strawmen don't you? No wonder you're such an optimist.

[kingdomcome50]

> you really love attacking strawmen

Are we having the same discussion?

> I did make a deliberate choice to not reproduce specifically because I didn't want to bring a child into an environment that's on the brink of collapse

I suppose I assumed you didn't think "the brink of collapse" would last 100-200 years, rather, that you fear your children would have to (in their lifetime) deal with the fallout from such a "collapse". And that such an event will be so traumatic that it would be better they weren't ever alive to experience it.

I take your pivot towards attacking me as a compliment, and a sure-fire sign you believe your position has weakened. Though I don't care either way. You are free to make whatever decisions you want for whatever reasons you want. I can respect that.

The impetus for my original comment was an "in good faith" attempt to get you to consider (or reconsider) a decision I believed to have been made in ignorance (or at the very least with a healthy dose of hysteria). I have no inclination to change your mind. That's for you to do.