My favorite feature of IPv6 is that there are so many addresses available. Every single IPv4 address right now could have its own entire IPv4 range of addresses in IPv6. It’s mind-boggling huge.

About 73 for me most of the way. An hour of bumper to bumper, or commuting on a bus would probably make it worse.

The rabbit in my yard had a pretty big tick on it. I just don’t walk where the tall plants are.

Valid point, but I guess after working in a greenhouse for a season I learned to appreciate having time to sit still in AC. My old Crown Vic wasn’t such a bad place to be (cost an arm and leg in gas and oil, so that was a definite downside).

I used to have about an hour long commute, and I kinda enjoyed it. I had shit to do at work, and shit to do at home, so being in the car for a while really let me calm down and center myself most of the time.

I had a container garden on my 5th floor apartment porch. I can’t say that space was cheap, but as long as you have some sunny outdoor space, you can grow stuff.

Some caterpillars infested my parsley and I decided the world needs butterflies more than I needed herbs, so I fed my garden to them and at the end was buying bunches of organic parsley to feed to them. Raisng caterpillars to butterflies was a real emotional and fulfilling experience, and the two that didn’t make it will always be in my heart.

No, it is explained in the rest of my post. You can’t just simply assert your first statement without evidence. Did you miss the whole section on you being a nazi because you (probably) drive a car and wear clothes? Your argument that I’m an eco-fascist is built on the exact same framework. If you want to call me an Eco-Fascist, then you need to point to statement where I explicitly say that I am an eco-fascist, or I explicitly call for eco-fascism. Note that Eco-fascism is the use of authoritarianism, violence, and force to explicitly wipe out ethnic groups and using vague justifications about the environment to support it.

Since you seem confused by my actual position, let me try to clearly state it for you, and you can try to attack that.

The earth is finite, therefore the resources on earth are finite. People need those resources to live, therefore the maximum population of people on the planet is finite. Please note here that I am not arguing that we have reached that limit, or are even near that limit.

Humans are by far the biggest driver of climate change, and the more people there are on the planet, the faster this will occur, and regions of the planet will become inhospitable more quickly.

There is no benefit to increasing the total number of people on the planet at this point.

Providing everyone with the means to self limit their reproduction is a gain for humanity and life as we know it. Note that this is not a call for euthanasia, sterilization, or government incentives to go childless, nor is it a call to specifically target certain regions or demographics. I think we should provide global access to contraceptives to both sexes, along with education about reproduction, laws guaranteeing an individual’s right to reproductive autonomy, social safety nets to care for the elderly without relying on their children, and education on the damage the human population is doing to biodiversity and life on Earth.

None of that is ecofascism, at no point do I call for authoritarian, violent, or racist policies to be used, all 3 of which are core tenants of eco-fascism.

Most supporters of fascism aren’t going to think “I’m doing this for the white race”.

Point out where I’m advocating for one race to be eliminated or preserved over another one. Direct quotes please, otherwise any intent of racial bias exists entirely in your own mind and misunderstanding. Drop this line of attack, it’s not valid and you can’t make it stick.

When you say things like “caring capacity of the planet”. Like, that’s actually a realistic threat.

Not sure if typo, but the term is “carrying capacity”, this may affect your understanding of my comment if you think I actually meant “caring capacity”. Carrying capacity is the maximum number of a species that can exist in an environment/area. It’s hilarious to see you write about carrying capacity being false (assuming you read the correct term) in one paragraph, and then immediately turn around and state this…

Dude, the planet is going to become inhospital in most places for human life within the next century or two.

…Which pretty explicitly recognizes that the space on this planet that humans can live on is finite, and will get even smaller if we don’t change our current climate trends. This logical inconsistency seems pretty on point for you though. I really suggest that you examine your opinions, especially when they are right next to each other, and then come to a singluar point that you can argue instead of just throwing shit at the wall and hoping that I don’t call you out on it.

Eco-fascist stand their as a solution to the “hard truths” of climate change. Masking themselves as scientific and reasonable. They are not offering solutions for humanity. They are offering solutions for who they view as human and “leser than”. But they’re not gonna say that. They’re gonna say the same thing you are saying.

You’re saying here that I’m advocating for eco-fascist tools and tactics, and therefore I must be an eco-fascist. Let me reduce this argument further, “if you use the same tools as a group, you must be part of the group”. Well, famously, the Nazis wore clothes and drove cars, if you do either of those then congratulations; by your logic, you are a Nazi. So tell me, why are you advocating for the extermination of Jews? Or is it that your logic is flawed and your conclusions about my alignment with eco-fascism is void of any actual evidence?

Dude, the planet is going to become inhospital in most places for human life within the next century or two.

Let’s examine this point a little more… I’m not stupid, and I’m willing to believe you’re not stupid. You’re insinuating that equitorial regions, like Central America, Africa and India are going to be the regions primarily affected by global warming… These are areas where the people are predominantly targeted by racial profiling by hate groups. So what you are saying, is that it’s an Eco-Fascist position to advocate for global ability for individuals to control reproduction, but the alternative is that the people in these areas die first and most frequently during a global climate crisis. It’s seems pretty fucking racist to me to fight against global population efforts while acknowledging that people of those demographics are going to be the most vulnerable to the inevitable crisis caused by global (not regional) population growth. If that was too much, let my summarize, the full consequences of your position as I understand it; it’s racist to give people globally the tools to electively control their reproduction, and you’re alright with marginalized groups dying because of the consequences of rapid population growth in wealthier (whiter, I might dare to add) areas? And you think I’m the one here who is unwittingly racist? Really?

Not really much of a conversation TBH. Just try to avoid associating peope with Nazis or Eco-Fascists before you try to understand what they are saying. I did see your split off thread, and I’m glad there was a more measured and serious tone in there…

You could have just left it at your first paragraph and left out your incomplete opinions about how the only solution is population control through eugenics. I thought it was a funny interaction, boiled it down to its core concepts, threw in a dash of all caps no spaces and it blew up.

I can’t tell which is worse; your reading comprehension or the irony of you saying I’m the one jumping to conclusions

Oh shit I’m sorry, this wasn’t you?

Population control is not a solution. There is no way in which that doesn’t involve Nazi level eugenics shit given our current world powers.

OH WAIT.

The real rich thing is you saying “I don’t want to jump to conclusions” and then the next two sentences are “You must be talking about population control and Nazi eugenics shit”.

Don’t fuck with me. I’ve got receipts.

Calling me an eco-fascist is the ad-hominem. It’s missing the point that there is no benefit to having more people on the planet, there is no harm in providing people the means to control their reproduction (if they choose to do so). Eventually we will reach the carrying capacity of the planet which will require literally euthanizing or sterilizing people so that humanity can survive, so we will have to limit reproduction, and I’m in favor of encouraging people to do that electively right now. There is no sense in getting to that cricitical point earlier.

I did a quick search on what eco-fascists preach, and they seek to limit human population through violence or force ( which I’m not advocating for), along racial lines ( which I’m not advocating for), rejecting modernity ( I work in tech, definitely not something I’m for). I’m not an eco-fascist, and calling me one is an ad-hominemn to distract from the point that slowing or stopping human population growth through voluntary means is a gain for humanity as a whole.

I’m not using the same taking points as eco-fascists, and even if I was, I wouldn’t be concerned and here is why… Regular fascists platformed on making the trains run on time, but it would be ridiculous to label anyone pro-rail infrastructure as a fascist. Similarity in tools, is not similarity in execution and goals.

But I don’t know why I bother even mentioning that because you don’t sound like the person to have an intelligent conversation with anyway given the conclusion you jumped to from my comment.

That was the tongue-in-cheek point of my comment about you jumping to conclusions about the previous comment. They said that they don’t think more people on the planet is beneficial, and you went straight to calling people them an eco-nazi without bothering to understand what they meant.

Woosh.

Are we doing ad-hominemns? You’d make a great idylic idiot, who doesn’t understand population growth, or what the definition of fascism is.

I’m not calling for hard limits on population. I’m calling for people to have the choice, tools, and knowledge to control their reproduction. Any further inferences about sterlization, euthanasia, child limits, etc… is all purely a comprehension issue on your end.

Why shouldn’t people be allowed to have many children?

This is a strawman argument, but I’ll bite anyway.

Two reasons, logarithmic growth, and finite resources.

Saying humanity is the virus is the part I don’t agree with because most of the destruction is caused by a very small portion of humanity.

It’s not all the virus particles that kill you, just the ones that knock out your essential organs.

The biggest climate impact the typical person can have, is to have fewer children. Hands down, that means fewer cars, less farming, less production, not only for that child, but any children they may have and so on.

Having many children as a form of insurance isn’t required in nearly as many places, that’s old-school semi-racist thinking. Providing a better chance for children to survive, and having a society that takes care of its elders eliminates this “need” entirely.

We have enough resources on this planet to make sure all 8 billion (and more) of us can live comfortably

It’s a cute idea, but getting those resources distributed evenly takes even more resources. I’ve read the article and it smells like bullshit to me because it uses GDP per capital to equate quality (or excess) of life. The availability of food, fresh water and shelter is not necessarily linked to GDP.

The problem in this world aren’t poor families with 5 children, it’s the wealthy elite trying to maximize their profits above everything. THEY are the virus.

Totally agree, but let’s not forget, those wealthy elites are the same species. Even if most of the virus isn’t killing the host, it’s still the same virus as the infection that is.

Personally, I can’t think of a reason why we should have more people on the planet. This isn’t an argument for actively reducing the the number of people, but instead providing the tools, education, and laws to allow people to manage their family sizes to cap or at least reduce population growth.

FYI, we are the virus. Humanity is multiple extinction events happening at the same time. If we are going to survive, then we need to be the kind of virus to integrates into our host’s DNA, and not the kind that destroys all the cells and delicate structures that allow our host to exist in the first place.

In their defense, the house was built 50 years ago. Ripping up the drive and disposing of the concrete releases more CO2, SUVs are practically the only vehicles offered on the market anymore (and you got tired of almost getting killed by dodge-ram drivers while driving your tiny hybrid hatchback), hah, you think we get vacations, and when the stuff you need only comes in a disposable form, what choice do you really have?

The problem is that companies are only responsible for producing their product… And that is only half the lifecycle.

Start taxing/charging companies for the complete lifecycle of their products. If the ocean is full of plastic bags, then the cost of cleanup for those bags should be baked into the price.

We should provide education on safe sex, and access to reproductive healthcare as basic human rights.

THATSFUCKINGNAZISSHIT!

Yes, he knows he cheats at golf. Other players have observed it and commented on it numerous times in the past.

Here the thing… Golf is a sport you play against yourself. Nothing another player does can impact your score. It’s a game of precision, consistency, and dedication. At the end of the day, nobody really gives a fuck about what your score was except you. You play to improve yourself. Cheating at golf is cheating at self improvement. Pun intended, Trump cheating at golf is par for the course, and it neatly sums up everything wrong with his personality.

3.5mm jack, Compass, Barometer, Gyro

These things are still in most modern phones.–