this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2024
85 points (95.7% liked)

Asklemmy

43956 readers
864 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] superkret@feddit.org 71 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

C) keep the planet we have habitable

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 23 points 3 weeks ago (11 children)

our planet could easily be wiped by a number of things. if we dont plan for a planetary catastrophe out of our control, our species is doomed.

[–] subignition@fedia.io 8 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

a planetary catastrophe out of our control

You're still describing climate change. Science fiction ideas are fun to think about but our own inability to live harmoniously with nature is going to kill us off before any of those problems become relevant.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml 27 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Terraforming other planets would be astronomically more challenging than fixing our own planet and we don't seem to be able to get our shit together to do that. Even if we are capable of terraforming other planets, it would take many centuries at minimum. O'Neal cylinders are far more likely to work once we start industrializing the moon.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de 25 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

If we can't manage to keep Earth's ecosystem thriving to support us, we certainly won't be able to create a new self-sustaining ecosystem elsewhere. And without that, there's no chance of any non-Earth settlement being able to sustain a healthy human society and culture long-term.

Without some serious (currently impossible) terraforming, Mars colonies are limited to deep caves or heavily shielded buildings, no outside to relax, nowhere else to go. Have a look at the list of crimes in Antarctica, a similar situation where people are stuck together, that's not a good environment for mental health, and it will be worse farther away. A Mars colony (edit: or space station) owned by a private company will be a corporate prison, the inhabitants are 100% dependent on that company - who would voluntarily put their lives into the hands of the whims of some narcissistic hoarder with no empathy or regard for workers?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net 20 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Bonkers question. Can't even figure out living on Earth sustainably and you want to talk about doing it without gravity, an atmosphere or an ionosphere?

[–] frauddogg@hexbear.net 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (13 children)

Not a bonkers question, it's actually totally predictable if you have an accurate read for both the White urge to despoil the frontier, and the depths of techbro narcissism. They just want to be the first to bust their load somewhere new, no matter what it takes, no matter whose resources they have to spend, no matter what they leave behind. Colonizer-assed cracker techbros always leave shit behind.

This is what the space-age (hwhite) colonizer's future looks like: every planet now has ring arrangements of dead satellites, empty fuel pods, blown-apart thrusters, and other assorted human-make space junk. Rings of garbage for all nine, dead vessels (crewed by now, long-dead, pressganged "conscripts" [because "conscript" causes less riots than "undesirable"]) hanging in high planetary orbits like macabre baby mobiles, and a still-smoldering coal where Earth used to be.

I have no fucking respect for it.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 17 points 3 weeks ago

Fix our own planet first

[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago

Launch Billionaires into deep space without supplies

[–] StrawberryPigtails@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes.

Seriously, we should be doing both as long term space habitats can serve as a way to reduce the cost of moving cargo around.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 13 points 3 weeks ago

Men will do anything other than go to therapy.

[–] xj9@hexbear.net 12 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I don't think capital can sustain projects of this magnitude. Space is too harsh of an environment for delulu. We can hardly grapple with the idea that our actions on earth have consequences because of our condition. I like space stuff and I even like to create designs of starships, but I don't think we're in a position to reach for the stars just yet. Even if I'm wrong, we can't allow space fascism get started either. There is probably life out there and if space capitalism finds them, they'll try to pull another indigenous genocide and invent new forms of xenophobia to justify it.

None of our problems are technological. We have massive people problems. Building a new billions of dollar machine or trillions of dollar space station isn't going to disrupt the imperial core. The Gray Techno Fash won't suddenly become humanists because space.

Space life can be fun to think about, but techno futurism is a liberal fetish and tends to result in liberal fantasies if you don't decolonize your mind.

https://readsettlers.org tbh

[–] mipadaitu@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

D) Move manufacturing and other dirty processes off planet and live here.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 11 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

If we can do B, A doesn't provide many benefits.

A 1km diameter, 30km cylinder would provide enough area to feed ~140k people. 95km^2 of space.

That is assuming no imported food etc, based on 7000m^2 per person which is almost 2 acres each.

140k people is a small city.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

We should be exploring both options, exploration can often lead to unexpected discoveries and technological advancement.

[–] witx@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Is this sub-populated mostly by Facebook people? Some of the answers really feel like it.

[–] airbussy@lemmy.one 10 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

All these answers are so killjoy and boring. Like yeah we should strive to make our own planet better, but why not also do this? Building habitats on other worlds doesn't prevent us from caring for this one.

Plus maybe trying to make a liveable environment in space can give us new insights in preserving the one at home. Like how solar panels have come from space exploration.

[–] BelieveRevolt@hexbear.net 18 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

Why would people want to focus more on things we can actually do right now and would improve our lives instead of completely unfeasible pipe dreams? I don't understand.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children)

All these answers are so killjoy and boring.

Yes, fantasizing about billionaires fixing everything by making good on their bullshit marketing pitches is very exciting to credulous people.

Building habitats on other worlds doesn't prevent us from caring for this one.

If you believe that there's some magic means to have zero emissions launches into space that are in any way self-sustained without further launches to keep throwing resources after spent resources from an increasingly polluted, depleted, and warming Earth, sure, you can huff that hopium deep and hard and ignore the worsening material reality all around you.

Plus maybe trying to make a liveable environment in space can give us new insights in preserving the one at home.

You've bought deeply into billionaire bullshit and their bogus promises, especially as privatized space travel in the west becomes increasingly vanity tourism and marketing stunts. The accomplishments that such companies' underpaid and overworked workers achieve are not for the common good, nor can they be because they are publicly subsidized private companies seeking to maximize profits and expand their own venture capital appeal, and nothing more.

[–] Omashkooz@hexbear.net 13 points 3 weeks ago

Space exploration isn't unique to capitalist systems.

[–] witx@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 3 weeks ago (26 children)

You seem to be letting your hatred for Musk confuse you about space exploration. NASA and other governmental agencies do very important work when it comes to space exploration

[–] BelieveRevolt@hexbear.net 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

We all know what NASA research is really for.

[–] Nakoichi@hexbear.net 8 points 3 weeks ago

My grandpa helped design and test the tech for ballistic missiles while working as a private contractor for a now defunct aerospace corporation under contract with NASA.

If he was still alive I would say he gets the wall too.

load more comments (25 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BreadOven@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Space colonies. That way they can be dropped to earth to start colony independence wars.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] frauddogg@hexbear.net 8 points 3 weeks ago (11 children)

Neither. We can't even unfuck Earth, where in that did we earn the privilege to pollute the cosmos?

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Gabadabs@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Why? Nice planet we've got here, we could focus on preventing it becoming inhabitable due to climate change instead.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Why not both?

I'm guessing B will happen first, just because we have so much more control of the environment, but we're still so far away from either one... Maybe I'll get to see the early stages sometime in my life.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm not sure that fitting Earthlike habitats in giant spaceships would make sense without limitless exponential growth. Wouldn't it be more feasible to put something on the surface of a planet?

No matter how advanced our technology gets, we are not going to get around the basic constraints on energy.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 7 points 3 weeks ago

Hopium huffers will smugly chant "asteroid mining!" as the answer to your questions, in much the same way that "monorail!" was chanted during that one Simpsons episode.

[–] vlad76@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 3 weeks ago

Porque no los dos?

[–] mosscap@slrpnk.net 7 points 3 weeks ago

How about we focus our efforts on unshittifying Earth first, eh?

[–] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

All of the above. But start with cleaning up this planet. Build better / more sustainable and more diverse communities and energy production. Build arcologies in the arctic, deserts, oceans. Those are good β€œpractice” for building the same off planet.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί