|
Has anyone taken inventory of what this earth can support, like "Yeah we only got 5 years of steel left....we should do something about it?" and like made a plan? Cause I want an O'Neil Cylinder to house farming for the earth and be a base of ops through the solar system while we mine asteroids and establish colonies...and like...we need stuff to build it with. lol imagine a world without abundance and how people would freak out they can't have stuff
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:There isn't a revolution that fixed everything in one fell swoop because there is no perfect system and never will be. However, we can do a hell of a lot better than capitalism and actually distribute goods based on need rather than the profit motives of a vanishingly small minority of lazy bastards. Absolutely. That said Massive structural change isn't always good. That doesn't make condescending others for wanting to do more than rearrange the deckchairs okay. We have to actually TRY to make things better, and the current system is literally being run and redesigned to make that hard. Gatts posted:Has anyone taken inventory of what this earth can support, like "Yeah we only got 5 years of steel left....we should do something about it?" and like made a plan? Cause I want an O'Neil Cylinder to house farming for the earth and be a base of ops through the solar system while we mine asteroids and establish colonies...and like...we need stuff to build it with. The first thing they do is shoot the messenger because its easy to whip a mob against the guy saying it. Barrel Cactaur fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Nov 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
KillHour posted:And finding that system will take time and will involve many small marginal improvements and maybe a few medium ones. I'm skeptical that a broken, rotten system like capitalism or American "democracy" can be reformed. I'd prefer to replace the rotting system rather than allowing it to fester, but since that's probably not going to happen tomorrow marginal improvements it'll probably have to be. e: barrel cactaur posted:Absolutely. That said Massive structural change isn't always good. That doesn't make condescending others for wanting to do more than rearrange the deckchairs okay. We have to actually TRY to make things better, and the current system is literally being run and redesigned to make that hard. Oh, agreed. No condescension is meant on my end; reform as a short term bandage that will keep people fed and housed is worth the effort. F_Shit_Fitzgerald fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Nov 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 22:08
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:The New Deal and Great Society didn't really move the needle turnout-wise the last times The New Deal gave the Dems control of both houses of Congress between 1932-1980, only losing control for two two-year terms. They held the House until 1995. Turnout went from 52.6% in 1932 to 62.5% in 1940. I don't see how one could possibly argue that these programs didn't move the needle. e: Crosby B. Alfred posted:We do have something similar, it's the infrastructure bill and BBB. Most folks here have already acknowledged that together, both of those bills are still woefully inadequate in dealing with the crises we're facing. The New Deal, while flawed and unevenly implemented, still did a lot to get the U.S. out of the Great Depression. I don't think it's a fair comparison. Majorian fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Nov 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 22:11
|
|
|
KillHour posted:And finding that system will take time and will involve many small marginal improvements and maybe a few medium ones. Yes, let's all waste our lives because "it will take time" (aka generations) and that's all we should hope for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 22:12
|
|
|
The New Deal also included a lot of transformational programs (for the time), whereas a lot of the proposed transformational things some Dems wanted to do with BBB have been taken out of the bill or watered down significantly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 22:18
|
|
|
The Sean posted:Yes, let's all waste our lives because "it will take time" (aka generations) and that's all we should hope for. What do you mean by "waste our lives" ? I find fighting for change to be pretty fulfilling, even in the face of all the terrible ills of the world that exist today and are coming down the line. I don't feel like I'm wasting my life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 22:18
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Wait, the ending of slavery via a long and bloody civil war and the end of monarchy during the first world war counts as a "marginal" changes to you? What would you count as a "significant" change then? Yes, those are marginal changes. The entirety of civilization didn't change overnight. Slavery was "outlawed" but a caste system of black and white persists to this day with effectively different laws and economies for the two halves. It was a good change but it obviously wasn't nearly enough for you to be talking about trying it again. You're rolling the chaos dice and paying the cost in incredible amounts of blood and hoping we end up in a better place after, which is mighty optimistic of you. I'm not siding with moderate liberals here I'm just pointing out that 1: There aren't enough violent revolutionaries to try to overthrow the government 2: Even if there were, they probably wouldn't win 3: Even if they did, there's no telling who would seize power in the vacuum and 4: Even if the squad were crowned god empresses and Bernie's face was on the flag, it wouldn't actually lead to a utopia and I think you know that And the final nail in the coffin: If you had a chance in hell of any of the above, you wouldn't have to do it because you would, by definition, have enough people to change the system electorally. Most people in the US are pretty content with the system we have. Most people like going to brunch on Sundays and not mainlining the news every day. And the minority that do mainline the news are split between ultra leftists and Nazis. The point of electoral governments is that it's a release valve - if enough people get pissed off at the government they can just toss them out without using guns. It's pretty good at that, actually. Parties get switched up pretty frequently. Violently overthrowing that isn't going to put you in a better situation because 40% of the country will still be on Trump's side on the other side of it all. readingatwork posted:E: There is no straight line to that. Maybe it never happens. We can all rally for it and push for policies that support it, but if the majority of the country doesn't want to redistribute wealth and would rather pray at the alter of supply side Jesus, it's not going to happen - violent revolution or no. F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:I'm skeptical that a broken, rotten system like capitalism or American "democracy" can be reformed. I'd prefer to replace the rotting system rather than allowing it to fester, but since that's probably not going to happen tomorrow marginal improvements it'll probably have to be. I'd prefer to not be killed in a bloody civil war. Call me selfish.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 22:19
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Just once I'd love to hear a liberal lament the 80,000 deaths our health "insurance" system causes each year as much as they are cry about the "end of democracy" on 1/6. It's always some whataboutism bullshit with you isn't it. Everytime anyone talks about anything bad a republican has done you have to chime in with "but the Dems" like people here don't know they do poo poo too. Majorian posted:The New Deal gave the Dems control of both houses of Congress between 1932-1980, only losing control for two two-year terms. They held the House until 1995. Turnout went from 52.6% in 1932 to 62.5% in 1940. I don't see how one could possibly argue that these programs didn't move the needle. You made this same argument a few weeks back and it massively ignored history, sure Dems had a majority but it was the anti new deal Dems who won the majority of the seats afterwards and they were allied with the anti new deal republicans.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 22:23
|
|
|
How are u posted:What's your metric for this? I'm genuinely curious. It's not something I've encountered in day to day life or at work, basically offline at all. I dunno, probably not a lot in absolute terms but definitely more than I heard growing up (which was basically none at all, even online). And yeah, most of it is just people venting on the internet and not seriously considering grabbing guns and overthrowing the government. I understand this. That said I still think the fact that overthrowing the government has become a popular meme of sorts is very telling about the direction things are heading in and where people are at right now. Everybody can sense the future is going to be worse than the way things are now but at the same time nobody feels the system as it exists offers any real tools to solve these problems. And it's an attitude I can see becoming something much more serious down the line if conditions continue to deteriorate and change within the system remains off the table.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 22:25
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The New Deal gave the Dems control of both houses of Congress between 1932-1980, only losing control for two two-year terms. They held the House until 1995. Turnout went from 52.6% in 1932 to 62.5% in 1940. I don't see how one could possibly argue that these programs didn't move the needle. Obama, George W. Bush, and Biden all had more eligible voters to compete with and a higher percentage of voters turnout. It seems like every President in the last 20 years, except for Trump, has been more successful by that metric.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 22:27
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The New Deal also included a lot of transformational programs (for the time), whereas a lot of the proposed transformational things some Dems wanted to do with BBB have been taken out of the bill or watered down significantly. Those transformational programs from the New Deal were also watered down by the Supreme Court and Congress, but the starting point was much higher. FDR had a huge majority to work with and a massive mandate to do pretty much whatever he wanted, and also a big set of brass balls. He would then use his "I can do whatever I want" mandate to put Japanese-Americans into concentration camps, so ymmv.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 22:27
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:I dunno, probably not a lot in absolute terms but definitely more than I heard growing up (which was basically none at all, even online). And yeah, most of it is just people venting on the internet and not seriously considering grabbing guns and overthrowing the government. I understand this. That said I still think the fact that overthrowing the government has become a popular meme of sorts is very telling about the direction things are heading in and where people are at right now. Everybody can sense the future is going to be worse than the way things are now but at the same time nobody feels the system as it exists offers any real tools to solve these problems. And it's an attitude I can see becoming something much more serious down the line if conditions continue to deteriorate and change within the system remains off the table. Reagan was 40 years ago. Bush was 20 years ago. American politics are in a period of rapid change and it's impossible to say what they will look like in another 20 or 40 years, much less 200 years. Politics are the long game - the tools for change always have been people dying and being replaced. Violent revolution just speeds up the process of people dying. If politics are poo poo in 20 years, it will be because Millennials have poo poo politics, not because the Boomers are controlling us from the grave through their pesky Supreme Court appointments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 22:31
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Most folks here have already acknowledged that together, both of those bills are still woefully inadequate in dealing with the crises we're facing. The New Deal, while flawed and unevenly implemented, still did a lot to get the U.S. out of the Great Depression. I don't think it's a fair comparison. I don't disagree but again that wasn't what the OP was arguing either. The subject was getting voters to the polls with impactful legislation, this two bills are the biggest thing since we've had since the New Deal and it's falling flat because moderate Democrats are cutting it down unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 22:39
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The New Deal gave the Dems control of both houses of Congress between 1932-1980, only losing control for two two-year terms. They held the House until 1995. Turnout went from 52.6% in 1932 to 62.5% in 1940. I don't see how one could possibly argue that these programs didn't move the needle. In addition to what others have said, you cherrypick 1940 (in which turnout was 58.8%) because it's the one election in that era with even marginally higher turnout. As many or less people turned out in 1932, 1936, 1944, and 1948 than turned out in 1928 for Hoover v. Smith, an election won by Hoover in a landslide on a platform of support for Prohibition, anti-Catholicism, and number go up forever: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/voter-turnout-in-presidential-elections Every election 1908-1916 and 1952-1968 matched or beat 1940 for turnout. Sir John Falstaff fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Nov 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 22:39
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:It's always some whataboutism bullshit with you isn't it. Everytime anyone talks about anything bad a republican has done you have to chime in with "but the Dems" like people here don't know they do poo poo too. Yes, because as long as both parties are total poo poo and yet libs fall back on lesser-racism as a reason to keep voting Dem, I will continue pointing it out, since VBNMW is at least as toxic to the idea of democracy as the bullshit liberals moan about such as 1/6.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 22:43
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:It's always some whataboutism bullshit with you isn't it. Everytime anyone talks about anything bad a republican has done you have to chime in with "but the Dems" like people here don't know they do poo poo too. Not sure "god why do you always harp on and on about the eighty thousand deaths per year" is quite the comeback you believe it to be
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Yes, those are marginal changes. The entirety of civilization didn't change overnight. Slavery was "outlawed" but a caste system of black and white persists to this day with effectively different laws and economies for the two halves. It was a good change but it obviously wasn't nearly enough for you to be talking about trying it again. You're rolling the chaos dice and paying the cost in incredible amounts of blood and hoping we end up in a better place after, which is mighty optimistic of you. I'm not siding with moderate liberals here I'm just pointing out that Revolution need not necessarily be bloody. I'm not content with sitting around and hoping that our broken electoral system will eventually deliver the change we need.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 22:50
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Revolution need not necessarily be bloody. I'm not content with sitting around and hoping that our broken electoral system will eventually deliver the change we need. Well yeah it's not going to just do it on its own. We have to put in the work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 22:53
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Has anyone taken inventory of what this earth can support, like "Yeah we only got 5 years of steel left....we should do something about it?" and like made a plan? Cause I want an O'Neil Cylinder to house farming for the earth and be a base of ops through the solar system while we mine asteroids and establish colonies...and like...we need stuff to build it with. Disclaimer: this is not my area of expertise and there might be new information I'm missing, good or bad. Afaik the issue with basically all the resources we care about isn't "will it run out", it's "how much will it cost". Copper, zinc, and lead are at some risk of (further) price shocks as reserves become lower quality and more annoying to access. Freshwater is theoretically infinitely obtainable from seawater but there are some obvious concerns about its supply vs demand over the next century. Phosphate is both recyclable-ish and probably not literally running out but still a potential cost concern. None of this is a "we are imminently doomed" or "we will be trapped on the planet within a century". It'll just make our existing challenges more challenging, which probably isn't good. Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Nov 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 22:59
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Yes, those are marginal changes. The entirety of civilization didn't change overnight. Slavery was "outlawed" but a caste system of black and white persists to this day with effectively different laws and economies for the two halves. It was a good change but it obviously wasn't nearly enough for you to be talking about trying it again. You're rolling the chaos dice and paying the cost in incredible amounts of blood and hoping we end up in a better place after, which is mighty optimistic of you. I'm not siding with moderate liberals here I'm just pointing out that Just to be clear most of your points are more or less correct and I agree that revolution is impossible at the moment and don't advocate people try to do insanely stupid poo poo like start some sort of half-assed armed resistance. What I DO advocate is: a) Being patient and waiting for opportunities for major systemic change to present themselves b) Educating the public so that when these opportunities arrive the energy they generate doesn't get channeled into right-wing/liberal bullshit c) Creating organizational bodies outside of electoral politics that can operate independently and advocate for change outside of traditional channels. Unions are probably the best mechanism for this right now but other options like mutual aid orgs can also be useful. d) Actively using those organizations to renegotiate terms with capital and actively impede the worst excesses of the state. e) Supporting good candidates but refusing to support trash politicians from either party. We should get in good people when we can but at the same time be realistic about what they can actually accomplish and understand that this won't be enough to create the deeper changes in society that we want. f) Working in the long term to create a coalition that CAN legitimately push back against the state perhaps even overthrow it someday (because I don't think they will let us legislate money and power away from the wealthy through peaceful means). This will be the work of generations though, and probably not something we will live to see. And no, none of this will be easy but it makes more sense to me than just throwing up your arms and hoping that your yearly D vote is enough to change things a few centuries from now. quote:There is no straight line to that. Maybe it never happens. We can all rally for it and push for policies that support it, but if the majority of the country doesn't want to redistribute wealth and would rather pray at the alter of supply side Jesus, it's not going to happen - violent revolution or no. Ah, cool, so you have literally no real plan for how to achieve a better world. Good to know. Very inspiring. That said while I do think you have a point in that public attitudes are a serious stumbling block here you fail to account for the fact that attitudes can change over time. Capitalism will continue to decline, taking people's material conditions with it. And as more and more people move from the middle class to the ranks of the poor they will become more and more open to the ideas of class conflict and radical systemic change. E: KillHour posted:Reagan was 40 years ago. Bush was 20 years ago. American politics are in a period of rapid change and it's impossible to say what they will look like in another 20 or 40 years, much less 200 years. Politics are the long game - the tools for change always have been people dying and being replaced. Violent revolution just speeds up the process of people dying. If politics are poo poo in 20 years, it will be because Millennials have poo poo politics, not because the Boomers are controlling us from the grave through their pesky Supreme Court appointments. No, politics will be poo poo for the same reasons they have always poo poo. Because we have a deeply dysfunctional system that requires large amounts of suffering to function and throws out all pretense of democratic control the nanosecond what the peasants want conflicts with the psychotic desires of the wealthy. readingatwork fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Nov 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 23:02
|
|
|
How are u posted:Well yeah it's not going to just do it on its own. We have to put in the work. Absolutely, but we should aim higher than to merely reform capitalism - it should be replaced.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 23:11
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Just to be clear most of your points are more or less correct and I agree that revolution is impossible at the moment and don't advocate people try to do insanely stupid poo poo like start some sort of half-assed armed resistance. What I DO advocate is: My plan is basically the stuff you outlined there. I participate, I donate, I protest. But I understand that if 80% of the country isn't up for socialism, we're not going to make it happen by wanting it badly enough. You do what you can to advocate and educate but we can't delude ourselves into thinking "Our political stances are the one true way if only the masses would come to their senses they'd realize we're right! We must make them see the error of their ways! Through force if necessary!" That's just fanatical garbage. If we do everything we can and still lose, it's because we were on the losing side all along - there is no objective moral truth here. Edit: And I disagree that the majority of Americans are on a slippery slope to being destitute. American perceptions towards the country's economy and the actual numbers are rarely if ever in alignment. KillHour fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Nov 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 23:13
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Absolutely, but we should aim higher than to merely reform capitalism - it should be replaced. I don’t know if you can replace it. Most of the criticisms of capitalism stop the moment people have enough money to participate in it and buy all the cool stuff it promises. But a mixed economy system with social democracy will eventually get undermined by years of pressure from the rich as ours has since the new deal started. It only took a generation or two to undo everything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 23:21
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Absolutely, but we should aim higher than to merely reform capitalism - it should be replaced. Replace it with what and through what method? Please get at least 60% of the country to agree with you on these two points and maybe you have a shot, keeping in mind that the 40% who disagree with you will be far more motivated to stop you than your supporters will be to help you. Saying what you think should happen is very different from actually, you know, doing it. Yes, we're probably not going to kill capitalism through voting in socialists, but that's only because we're probably not going to kill capitalism in this political climate in literally any other manner.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 23:26
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Replace it with what and through what method? Please get at least 60% of the country to agree with you on these two points and maybe you have a shot, keeping in mind that the 40% who disagree with you will be far more motivated to stop you than your supporters will be to help you. Saying what you think should happen is very different from actually, you know, doing it. Yes, we're probably not going to kill capitalism through voting in socialists, but that's only because we're probably not going to kill capitalism in this political climate in literally any other manner. I completely understand the practical argument you and kraftwerk are offering, but you’re not going to get 60% of the country to agree that water is wet and you’re never going to convince a capitalist system to please stop capitaling so much. Eventually you just have to take the initiative yourself; otherwise nothing ever changes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 23:35
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Yes, because as long as both parties are total poo poo and yet libs fall back on lesser-racism as a reason to keep voting Dem, I will continue pointing it out, since VBNMW is at least as toxic to the idea of democracy as the bullshit liberals moan about such as 1/6. Liberals voting a specific way is as bad or worse to the idea of democracy as a literal attempt to overturn a democratic election is... quite a take.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 23:35
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:You made this same argument a few weeks back and it massively ignored history, sure Dems had a majority but it was the anti new deal Dems who won the majority of the seats afterwards and they were allied with the anti new deal republicans. Where are you getting your info that it was "anti-New Deal Dems" who won the majority of seats afterward? If they were anti-New Deal and they aligned themselves with anti-New Deal Republicans, one would think they would have, I dunno, ended the New Deal programs. Sir John Falstaff posted:In addition to what others have said, you cherrypick 1940 (in which turnout was 58.8%) because it's the one election in that era with even marginally higher turnout. That's simply not true, and even the chart you cite says so. Turnout was higher in '40, which was higher than '36, which was higher than '32. True, turnout in '32 was lower than in '28, but that can be seen as a function of the Great Depression. When the economy's in the worst shape it's historically been and people don't see how things are going to get any better, turnout's going to suffer. Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Obama, George W. Bush, and Biden all had more eligible voters to compete with and a higher percentage of voters turnout. It seems like every President in the last 20 years, except for Trump, has been more successful by that metric. I think that's more of a function of internet organizing, more concerted GOTV drives by the major parties, etc. Either way, simply writing off 1/3 of the eligible voter population strikes me as political malpractice. It's "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!" mentality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 23:37
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Disclaimer: this is not my area of expertise and there might be new information I'm missing, good or bad. Yes, that is what people usually mean by "will it run out". Everybody knows prices increase for resources that are rare, which is kind of a potential problem with resources that are now cheap, but might become expensive in the future! Also, dreams of becoming a multi-planetary species are moronic and pure sci-fi. We can't even reach other planets in our solar system in a reasonable amount of time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 23:39
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:Also, dreams of becoming a multi-planetary species are moronic and pure sci-fi. We can't even reach other planets in our solar system in a reasonable amount of time. What's a reasonable amount of time to you? Months doesn't seem too bad to me. The world used to be a much larger place, people used to measure travel in months. If we can get our poo poo together with regards to climate change this century I see no reason why we won't go out and claim the rest of our solar system. It's our birthright, of course we will do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 23:43
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Disclaimer: this is not my area of expertise and there might be new information I'm missing, good or bad. Yeah. We cant exactly create or destroy matter, its just we have such abundant supplies of new materials for basically everything over the entire course of meaningful industry that we have never committed to a true recycling of resources in the economy, outside of materials that have always been very scarce and valuble like gold. Basically all of our waste is siting in heaps, or at the bottom of or in the ocean. Its just a matter of putting in the work needed to pry it back out, you know invest in recycling that isn't a huge scam dumping it in 3rd world countries. BTW also one of the reasons global shipping got unbalanced but not for a bad reason https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/national-sword/. Recycling has always played second fiddle to extraction because its margins are rock bottom. Its possible to synthesize fuel and basically all petrochemicals, after all its chemistry is well understood. Its just we have a supply big enough to hotbox the whole planet before it runs dry of basically anything else. No the drastic measures that happen first will likely be some crude, late, and half cocked attempts at Geo-enginering. Someone is going to try to cause artificial cooling and that will be rather unpleasant until they really nail down all the secondary and tertiary effects. Anything else will be minor and at the time simply seem inevitable, like banning possession of and defranking pennies, citing some copper shortage headliner at the time. Don't underestimate just how far people will stretch if they are able to see some imminent threat. Its just our entire economy has been sweeping it into the closet for generations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 23:44
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Liberals voting a specific way is as bad or worse to the idea of democracy as a literal attempt to overturn a democratic election is... quite a take. VBNMW--even when it's a senile, racist rapist--is more of a take, imo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 23:46
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:It's always some whataboutism bullshit with you isn't it. Everytime anyone talks about anything bad a republican has done you have to chime in with "but the Dems" like people here don't know they do poo poo too. Look, gonna be frank: Its okay to point out that the Dems are poo poo at what they are doing, I don't think its whataboutism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 23:47
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:I completely understand the practical argument you and kraftwerk are offering, but you’re not going to get 60% of the country to agree that water is wet and you’re never going to convince a capitalist system to please stop capitaling so much. Eventually you just have to take the initiative yourself; otherwise nothing ever changes. Take initiative how? What theoretical platform do you have to replace capitalism without the majority of the people and without existing political or financial power?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 23:48
|
|
|
How are u posted:What's a reasonable amount of time to you? Months doesn't seem too bad to me. The world used to be a much larger place, people used to measure travel in months. Manifest Destiny, would you say?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 23:50
|
|
|
How are u posted:What's a reasonable amount of time to you? Months doesn't seem too bad to me. The world used to be a much larger place, people used to measure travel in months. It is bad, traveling to Mars for 9 months is a huge challenge. And then you're on Mars, where we can't survive, either. We won't "go out and claim" even our solar system, which is the most tiny and irrelevant part of the universe (or even just our galaxy) because physics simply don't allow us to exist outside of Earth meaningfully and we can't travel any reasonable distances either. Just because it's our "birthright" (what the hell does that mean) and sci-fi authors love to write about it doesn't mean we have any ability to colonize anything. We can't even solve climate change on earth, being able to provide a livable environment on Mars is laughable. Barrel Cactaur posted:Its just a matter of putting in the work needed to pry it back out, you know invest in recycling that isn't a huge scam dumping it in 3rd world countries. It's not just a question of "putting in the work": Some things you simply can't recycle, technology isn't some limitless thing that can do anything the mind sets itself to, there are real limits to what is possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 23:50
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:It's not just a question of "putting in the work": Some things you simply can't recycle, technology isn't some limitless thing that can do anything the mind sets itself to, there are real limits to what is possible. Name some things that cannot be recycled.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 23:51
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:VBNMW--even when it's a senile, racist rapist--is more of a take, imo. You can argue it is a worse outcome, but the idea that voting is as much of a threat to "the idea of democracy" as trying to overturn a democratic election by force is a pretty hard case to make.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 23:52
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Take initiative how? What theoretical platform do you have to replace capitalism without the majority of the people and without existing political or financial power? A well-planned, well-organized general strike would be a big step in that direction. Of course, that's going to take years of planning and organizing, but I think it's a good thing to aim for in the medium term. One doesn't need a majority of the people to grind the international economy to a halt. How are u posted:What's a reasonable amount of time to you? Months doesn't seem too bad to me. The world used to be a much larger place, people used to measure travel in months. I don't think we're going to get our poo poo together with regard to climate change this century if we keep doing things your way and at your pace.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:It is bad, traveling to Mars for 9 months is a huge challenge. And then you're on Mars, where we can't survive, either. We won't "go out and claim" even our solar system, which is the most tiny and irrelevant part of the universe (or even just our galaxy) because physics simply don't allow us to exist outside of Earth meaningfully and we can't travel any reasonable distances either. Just because it's our "birthright" (what the hell does that mean) and sci-fi authors love to write about it doesn't mean we have any ability to colonize anything. You can solve climate change with enough political will. The mass mobilization required hasn’t happened yet. Suppose- and I say suppose you do solve it, you can position asteroids near earth for resource extraction. You don’t need to go somewhere. You can bring it to you. Eventually there will be enough orbital infrastructure to build other things directly in space which solves the gravity well issue. But all these things won’t get done till we fix climate change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 23:54
|
|