In Boost for Lemmy you can see lists of everything you posted, commented, upvoted or downvoted in your profile.

In German it’s even funnier if you translate haunted with “besessen” as it means “occupied by bad souls” and “being sit on” at the same time.

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.

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

It also works with Amazon FireTV (Stick) or any other Android TV box / stick, just in case you have already one lying around. ;)

If you are on Android check out AntennaPod (available in F-Droid). It’s legal and integrates with Apple Podcasts.

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.

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?

Put a cardboard box on top of it, pronlem solved.

On mobile you could also have a look at NewPipe. It does not have automated downloads but it shows you a simple list of all the videos from your subscriptions without any algorithm-based recommendations. It shows no ads and is fully open source.

Also supports plenty of services other than YouTube.

By the way: on Android Wireguard VPN shouldn’t need a dedicated app but should run natively via the OS settings. There you can also flag it as permanent, so Android will connect (re)automatically if you restart the device or lose connection.

Can you reach the server’s IP in general from other PCs in your network? Or is the issue restricted to the nextcloud service?

From my perspective deep fakes will lead to a short but massive peak of harassment until everyone is aware of the technology and its capabilities. Once the technology reaches the mainstream and everyone is able to generate such content with ease, people will just stop caring. If these videos are everywhere, it’s easy to play it off as a fake. It might even help victims of actual revenge porn. Virtual nudity will become less of a deal, probably even in real life.

From my perspective the bigger issue of deep fakes is news. We already have a huge issue with lies on social media and even TV and newspapers today and once we can no longer trust what we see it will be incredibly hard to build up trust for any sources.

Fake videos of politicians being spread to harm their credibility, fake videos of war crimes to justify an attack. Or vice versa if there’s an authentic video of a crime the offenders will just deny the authenticity. But in contrast to Trump’s “fake news” claims today, it will be more or less impossible for normal people to fake check anything.