Isarad

Isarad wrote

Reply to by !deleted8445

As a leftist I don't think it's ecofascism. I just disagree.

Living in the pre-industrial world wasn't much better, see getting your face eaten by a leopard and driving animals extinct from over-hunting. And dying from an easily curable disease. And not being able to support the population the planet now holds.

And of course, that leads to the question, what happens to the billions people who couldn't be supported in a primitive society. Well, they either die, or they restart civilisation, so. You'd have to stop them to preserve the primitive society, the methods of doing so would have to be pretty fascist.

1

Isarad wrote

Reply to by !deleted8445

I'd mine an asteroid. So long as were mining it for everyone and not musk or hitler

1

Isarad wrote

Reply to work by An_Old_Big_Tree

I really don't get this line of thinking. Doing backbreaking work will never not be work, but some of it will always be necessary - cleaning toilets will never be a fun thing to do but it has to be done.

I obviously don't think we shouldn't try and alleviate struggle and pain as much as possible. But it's gonna be hard to live good lives without anyone ever doing work. And I mean work as in the shit no one wants to do.

1

Isarad wrote

Reply to by !deleted8445

Actual terrorism is bad. Killing the general populace with bombs and guns is bad. Undoubtedly.

1

Isarad wrote (edited )

Reply to by !deleted8445

"Don't you care about left unity?"

"No" - Chad ancoms

1

Isarad wrote

It's a very interesting paper, really puts the shitty way governments and capitalists treat space. But as someone with a passionate interest in space and extraterrestial discovery since childhood, it seems very unfounded in a few points.

The idea that we may never leave planet Earth's atmosphere, even in a post capitalist, post state society seems slightly pessimistic. After all, if the resources in asteroids which, forgive me for any assumptions, should be easy to ensure are as dead and lifeless as the bricks we make houses with, why should we not try and use the resources to improve the human condition without danger of further hurting life on Earth? Of course, I don't agree with the reckless dumping of debris on planetary bodies and in orbit, that's dangerous and exploitative. But I don't see much harm in trying to confirm the existence of life which has not originated on Earth. Not if it's carefully executed exploration. Hell, do it with robots alone. Along with this, I don't really understand the comparison with colonialism. Now sure, if there is native life, we shouldn't touch it. It's not ours to mess with. But if there is not, and all that's on the moon is dust and deutrium, why not let people use those resources and settle there - it's victimless colonialism, not some conquering of native land.

4