Nah it’s just SFA with extra steps.

Some of us value humanity itself, marvel at our technological achievements and hope that one day our species will stop it’s petty infighting and venture out to the stars.

Don’t tell me I have no stake in the future, I am way more concerned with it that any of my childbearing friends or family.

Equating nuclear apocalypse to the climate emergency is so strange. One requires a whole chain of command to decide that their friends, family and everything they’ve ever believed should be destroyed, the other is the default scenario.

Details really do matter. War, nuclear war and political turmoil are all very different scenarios. Climate change will likely have more severe consequences for humanity than every war ever fought.

To counter the “doomer” (scientific) point of view you’d have to point to some feasible solutions like banning CFCs to fix the hole in the ozone. We have one, stop or severley reduce all greenhouse gas emissions, and it’s not being acted upon.

Instead we’ve decided to keep pumping an ever increasing amount into the atmosphere each day and as a result are currently on course for 8-10°C of warming. For context the largest extinction event in Earth’s history which resulted in so much death it stained the geological records happened during a temperature rise of about 8°C.