Notices by Michela (michela@mastodon.club), page 12

@thurloat I ran Ubuntu for years, until I couldn't handle the mess anymore. I switched to Fedora KDE spin and never looked back.

I run CentOS (and some Fedora) on servers (I've pretty much always run mostly Red Hat based servers).

The system is amazingly solid and refined. I only had one minor problem with it on my laptop in the last three years.

Upgrades are incredibly smooth on Fedora -- not one broken system so far!

@Laurelai Whoa! No one said we should enact authoritarian population control. 😮

Educating people, and providing free and readily available birth control -- things everyone has a right to -- would very likely reduce over-population.

The point still stands -- all individuals have an environmental impact on the world. Population growth is increasing the over-all environmental impact of humanity. ;)

@Laurelai Sure, though there's a lot more to our impact on the environment than power generation -- water consumption, destruction of plant and animal habitat, destruction of carbon-capturing bogs and trees, air travel, ground and sea transport, raising, harvesting, and transporting food (especially meat), manufacturing of goods, polution, and more.

@jeremiah @art Jeremiah, you supposedly read the article you posted. It and Art have already answered your questions.

I think that if you still don't understand at this point, it is because you refuse to.

@Laurelai oops. That last bit should say, "presently poor."

@Laurelai So in order to reduce the over-all human impact on the Earth, we must stop multiplying so much, thereby reducing the population over time. This in addition to regulating the consumption per person through laws -- and yes taxes and such.

I should emphasise that much more is needed to save life on Earth. Everyone must change their habits substantially, and businesses must be tightly regulated (which is more impactful than the changing of individual behaviour)

@Laurelai Wow. Okay. Fair enough.

The thing is that the middle class, according to that data, also conaume a lot.

As society lifts a greater proportion of people out of poverty -- which is, in my opinion, our obligation -- carbon consumption and environmental damage would increase. Basically, the environmental impact of the wealthy would decrease, while the impact of the prewently poor would increase.

@jeremiah @art To be clear, I was saying that I agree with Art.

@art @jeremiah Exactly. I agree 100%.

It's not just white men complaining about not getting laid. It's enormously worse than that.

No way am I going to check it out for myself. I've seen more than enough already.

@Laurelai Each of us humans do have a massive environmental footprint. Surely, there is a limit to how many such footprints can be sustained on Earth.

@jeremiah @art That's not at all what this article said.

I don't know you, though I still find it hard to believe you aren't smart enough to know what the article you cited is actually saying.

@Canageek heh. Looks more like Firefox.

@deadsuperhero

Otherwise, we might wake up to a world where such conversation and participation is no longer allowed -- a terrifying place, no doubt (at least to me).

@deadsuperhero Totally agree. It is our duty as citizens to inform ourselves about the goings on in the world, especially in the places we live.

Such informing of oneself -- along with intelligent conversation and exchange of ideas -- is fundamental prerequisite for the formation of opinions on issues of the day, and for meaningful participation in a properly functioning society.