I never said that I want to just wait. We should leverage all possibilities in parallel to reduce the carbon footprint:

• Increase green energy: solar power, wind turbines, tidal power etc.
• Reduce energy consumption
• Find ways to increase prices of products and services that are bad for the environment (not only CO2, but also methane, PTFE etc.)
• Fine companies which violate environmental laws or thresholds with significantly higher amounts than today
• Increase tolls in imported products and ban imports of products that do not meet sustainability criteria […]

All these measures are important steps to take to reduce the average footprint. But still on top of all these things the total number of humans is a signicifant multipler for the total footprint.

A human can only use less ressources only no human will take no ressources.

Once again: I do not promote state-forced birth control, I do not condemn parents, children etc. I'm simply saying that if people voluntarily decide to reproduce at a lower scale, that that has a positive impact on the planet and in the end helps the future generations.

If we simply just stopped using fossil fuels today without a smooth transition to green energies, all supply chains will shatter immediately, people will freeze to death, you'll have a world-wide famine and neighbors fighting for the last remaining ressources.

Furthermore, the only way to force such an immediate exit from fossils would be to establish a violent dictatorship as there's no democratic majority for it.

As much as I'd like the transition to happen as soon as possible, it's pretty obvious that the solution can't be as simple as 'just forbid using fossils'.

I think the majority of people would prefer to use green energy but - as said in my previous - I do not think that the same majority is willing to accept significant cut backs on their lifestyle. As long as they can continue to live as they're used to they're all in on the green deal. But when they are asked to use less individual transportation in favor of public transport, lower their heating by a few degrees and wear a sweater instead or buy regional food over stuff that is imported from overseas, then unfortunately a lot of people react in a rejective or even aggressive way. Green politicians in Germany for instance are confronted with a lot of hate for all attempts to initiate some change.

So to me it seems like phasing out fossils in a democratic manner is only possible over a longer period of time, unfortunately probably several decades.

I do agree that these companies are at fault. But wouldn't even the emissions of the most evil companies in the world go down with a smaller humanity? If you look at the top 5 in the ranking, it's all fossil fuel companies. Do you think if we had 25% less humans, the remaining 75% would still burn 100% of fossils?

And I am not not fingerpointing at anyone. I neither condemn parents nor children. Just saying that less people have less impact than more people.

I have no clue why you're now bringing up eugenics. Like WTF! Where the hell did I write anything even remotely related to that? Or anything against queer folks?

And just because the richest people are by far the worst polluters doesn't invalidate my argument at all. If the overall number of humans changes over time, that also impacts the number of the super rich. If we have 10 billion humans instead of 8, there will be more rich people, more middle class and more people suffering from poverty.

On top of that more people mean more natural ressources have to be consumed for heating, agriculture, transportation etc.

We definitely should change society in a way that the super polluters are held accountable for their damage but that doesn't mean that this is the only relevant figure and the only thing that helps.

A slowly shrinking humanity has definitely a better ecological impact than a growing one. And as long as that happens without external force, that's a positive thing for me.

I read through the article and still can't see how my post is related to facism. If we assume a number of X humans with an average environmental footprint of Y that leads to an overall footprint for humanity of X * Y.

If we want to bring that number down, this can by achieved by lowering either of the factors. If you want to cut pollution by let's say 50% with a constant polulation, it goes along with harsher cut backs for the individuals' lifestyle. Looking at the current discourse, such cut backs are highly controverse and measures in that direction are rarely accepted ('they want to take out meat', 'they want to take our cars' etc.).

If the number of humans decreased by 25% due to a naturally lowered birth rate, it means that the individual pollution must be lowered only by 33% instead of 50% to achieve the same result. I would argue that less individual impact will lead to a higher acceptance for a environment-friendly humanity.

If I wrote 'kill the poor' or something like that I'd get your point but I just said that fewer people will have a positive impact on nature. Which is not facism but a simple fact.

By the way. Your liked Wikipedia article also warns about the term 'ecofacism' being misused by the far right to discredit any form of pro-environment statements. So, please think twice before if you really want to use that term and call random people fascists.

Detractors on the political right tend to use the term "ecofascism" as a hyperbolic general pejorative against all environmental activists, including more mainstream groups such as Greenpeace, prominent activists such as Greta Thunberg, and government agencies tasked with protecting environmental resources.

What exactly is facism about naturally (non-enforced) lowering birth rates?

While lower birth rates may lead to economic issues on a medium term (too many old people VS. too few young people), it's probably one of the most efficient measures to combat climate change. Less people comsuming ressources means less pollution and hopefully also less competition and conflicts for said ressources.

Even though I'll be probably one of the many old people one day that the society may not be able to support adequately, I think that it's positive news for humanity.

From my perspective, the best way to deal with a shrinking population would be a shift away from capitalism in its current form. Infinite growth, bigger, faster etc. is not a realistic and definitely not a sustainable target.

We should focus on the basic needs to make food, housing, care etc. affordable for everyone with as few working hours as possible, so that less people are able to do the job.

From my perspective mails are federated. If I want to explain federation as a concept to someone I always use mail as an example because everyone can write to everyone independent of the provider, you can selfhost it easily, you could move from one company to another (if you use your own domain), protocols are all FOSS.

So at least it's an open and distributed system. What would be missing for it to count as federated?

Not for you today. Try again another day with proper shoes!

Boost always shows the instance regardless of there being a display name or if it's your local or a foreign instance.

As per the statement all remaining instanced will go down over time, though not sure how long that will take.

Unpopular opinion: I hate Elon Musk and basically never thought I'd consider buying a tesla. But to be fair, I did quite some research and a couple of test drives with various cars and overall the model 3 is the best deal for my requirements. Especicially, it seems to be the most energy efficient car in that size and cost range. You can drive a model 3 with around 15 kWh / 100 km even in winter on the highway where competitors range around 18-22.

Regarding the two buttons for the turn signals: yes I'd probably prefer the old-fashioned approach with a lever but the two buttons are definitely not as bad as claimed in all the articles. I got used to it pretty quickly during the test drive and also in roundabouts it is practicable even thought not the most ideal approach.

I've always missed a rating/feedback/comment feature in F-Droid. A lemmy-based solution would be pretty cool.

in(ti)mate

From my experience it's definitely not as bad as described there. Yes, there are some issues here and there but still a 3D printer is an awesome tool to have at hand. I often designed / printed spare parts and fixing something on a Sunday afternoon spontaneously. Without much planning and lead times, without a third party printing service. Feels pretty awesome.

I would say in 8 out of 10 times I can just plug the printer and start using it without issues. In 1 out of 10, I have to do some small tweaks (e.g. bed leveling for 5 minutes) and in maybe 1 out of 10 I have to invest a bit more time for leveling or unclogging the nozzle. But even all that is less than 30 minutes.

Fixing the printer is nothing that I enjoy but using it is so handy that it definitely makes up for the small hassle here and there.

When I checked online printing services the last time, they were really expensive. For my very first project (4 custom card organizers) it would have cost me more than a hundred bucks. My printer + the initial accessoires were around than 200 bucks and I've printed so many functional parts since then that it easily amortized itself within the first year.

I own an Ender 3 V2 that I use around 10 times a year. It is one of the less sophisticated printers and still it does not require that much maintenance. You have to remove the dust, level the bed and sometimes clean or exchange the nozzle. More sophisticated printers can also do some stuff automatically (e.g. the bed leveling part).

However, the initial assembly and fine tuning took some time (approx. 1-2 hours), so I wouldn't recommend to dis- and reassemble it all the time. If you don't have that much space, maybe check for a small printer.

When I did my research 2 years ago the Prusa Mini was quite popular for small printer. But if you want to print big parts a lot, it might be a bit annoying as you always have to cut them into smaller chunks, print separate and finally glue them together.

Also elderly people want to take pictures from time to time. Or use WhatsApp to join family group chats etc. Furthermore, a big & bright touch screen is definitely easier to read and handle than the old dumb phones where the same key may have a dozen of features depending on the context.

Who is responsible to provide that fast food job? Does she have to apply for it herself? What if no one wants to hire her because of the bad media reputation?