Skip Navigation

Posts
8
Comments
10
Joined
1 yr. ago

  • I lived without a cell phone for about 3 years (2022-2025), and once in a while there was a small hurdle but overall it was surprisingly easy. 2FA can be done via text/email, I never ran into an instance where I needed an app. Every ticket I bought could be printed at home, so it takes a little more forethought but not a deal breaker. Never ran into any parking stations that couldn't be paid via a kiosk/card, but YMMV.

    These days I own a phone per request of one of my business clients, but it stays turned off at home unless I'm on a job. Once in a while I'll break it out to use the GPS but most places I drive to I can find by memory. There are many "middle" ground solutions out there too (like Graphene OS), but as a general rule, I would make a habit of leaving your phone at home when you can, and definitely when engaging in anything spicy.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • Thank you for this thoughtful and nuanced take on the subject. It's sad that constructive discussion around population is often shut down due to the link between eugenics and population control. It's often assumed that anyone advocating for lowered population is in support of similarly dystopian/authoritarian policies, when increasing access to birth control and education has the same effect while increasing personal agency.

    I would also note that the theory of evolution has been used to justify all kinds of absurd ideologies, yet we don't have a problem accepting its basic tenets.

    If we accept the fact that humanity is in a state of ecological overshoot, and that overshoot is a function of population x consumption, then it's entirely reasonable to want to address both sides of the equation.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • According to this study, an income of $38,000/year puts you in the top 10% of carbon emitters. This study puts it at €42,980, or about $50K USD. That's a little higher than the median income in N. America, Europe, and Australia.

    That said, carbon emissions are just one way humans impact the environment; other facets are far less variable (we all produce about the same amount of human waste per day, for example).

  • Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the "don't build data centers here, build them there" conclusion of the report. I see no reason why we should be allowing these monstrosities to be built in the first place, they're a total waste of essential resources.

  • Technology @lemmy.world

    Cornell Study Maps the Environmental Cost of AI

    insideclimatenews.org /news/10112025/ai-growth-environmental-damage-study/
  • Poorer nation’s peak population estimates are declining every year, as life gets better and child mortality falls population growth lowers everywhere

    Yes, that's a good thing.

    (another racist shit that’s spreading that poor nations are reproducing too much, btw).

    Race doesn't enter into it. If we accept that we crossed into overshoot over 50 years ago, then any birth rate above replacement is ultimately unsustainable.

    Energy consumption is more or less useless measure with the rapid rise of renewables, although there are also efforts there to lower that everywhere.

    Energy consumption is the measure. It's a direct reflection of the degree to which our lifestyles impact our environment. People seem to have this idea that the only real issue with industrial civilization is that it runs primarily on a fuel that destabilizes our atmosphere, and that if we could simply transition away from this fuel (to solar/wind/nuclear/fusion) we'd be on our way to utopia.

    But let's consider what we direct all that energy towards: first, we use it to harvest massive amounts of natural resources, degrading and destroying the environment in the process. (Mining, logging, farming, fishing, etc.) We then transform those natural resources into towns and cities, which pave over and fragment the natural environment in which they're built. We transform them into consumer goods (cars, electronics, plastics, clothing, etc.), the vast majority of which end up as waste in less than a decade. We transform them into all manner of industrial chemicals, many of which end up becoming individual ecological disasters of their own.

    Transitioning to a "clean" form of energy does nothing to address what we do with it. Living sustainably requires drastically downscaling our total ecological footprint.

  • We are not over capacity at all

    We're in a state of ecological overshoot, defined as a population consuming more resources than its environment can replenish. At its simplest, overshoot is a function of individual consumption x total population.

    The Global Footprint Network calculates that we crossed this line in 1971, when both our global population (3.8B) and individual energy consumption (15.8kWh) were far lower than they are today (8.2B and 21.7kWh, respectively). Consider also that population is both a cause and effect of energy consumption.

    the wealthiest 10% causes over 50% of the pollution.

    You're referring to CO2 emissions here (and it's actually closer to 60%), but there are many other symptoms of overshoot. Habitat loss, species extinctions, overharvesting of resources, and other forms of pollution (industrial, particulate, trash) are huge problems in less wealthy nations. In South America, for example, we've seen a 95% loss of wildlife species over the past 50 years. The planetary boundaries framework is helpful for looking at overshoot more holistically, instead of focusing solely on emissions (although that's important too).

    In wealthy nations, populations are declining but consumption is unsustainable. In poorer nations, individual consumption is low but population growth is unsustainable. Only by reducing both do we have a hope of living equitably on this planet.

  • True, but consider that a huge amount of retail investors' portfolios are tied to the S&P 500/NASDAQ. Think retirement savings, IRAs, 401(k)s, pensions, etc. Then consider that the entire market is effectively propped up by AI right now (see: The entire stock market is being carried by these four AI stocks). If the market gets a 60% correction, it's going to be the middle class losing their shirts all over again.

  • Fuck Cars @lemmy.world

    Tesla's Roadmap to Nowhere

  • Biodiversity @mander.xyz

    ‘Landmines have become protectors’: how wildlife is thriving in a demilitarized zone

    www.theguardian.com /environment/2025/aug/21/north-south-korea-war-demilitarised-zone-dmz-ecology-endangered-wildlife-aoe
  • Biodiversity @mander.xyz

    Why are wind turbines killing millions of bats?

  • The Network State @lemmy.world

    Peter Thiel's Antichrist Antics Continue

    www.thenerdreich.com /peter-thiel-antichrist-antics-continue/
  • Seems like you'd just lift up the mattress like they did for this picture.

  • Biodiversity @mander.xyz

    How America’s prairie was nearly destroyed — and why it should be restored

    yaleclimateconnections.org /2025/07/how-americas-prairie-was-nearly-destroyed-and-why-it-should-be-restored/
  • Biodiversity @mander.xyz

    How a £1.5bn ‘wildlife-boosting’ bypass became an environmental disaster

    www.theguardian.com /environment/2025/jul/05/cambridgeshire-a14-road-wildlife-environmental-disaster
  • politics @lemmy.world

    An "unimaginable sum:" Trump's Big Beautiful Bill would appropriate $200 billion to ICE

    www.cato.org /blog/deportations-add-almost-1-trillion-costs-gops-big-beautiful-bill