• 0 Posts
  • 81 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 9th, 2023

help-circle
  • Yeah no disagreement.

    My comment was more being practical. IE the real world we live in. If it was not for conflict ( first ww2 then cold war ). Rockets and space travel would never have seen the funding needed to develop. This goes on the pretty much everything - GPS, communications, weather n and on. All of it was funded mainly due to the military.

    Without that it is hard if not impossible to imagine the wealthy considering the investment in tech worthwhile. And at the end of it. Real world the desire for the rich to protect or grow their position is the cause of all the above throughout history.

    Honestly, I’m not saying this is a good thing, it’s fucking depressing.

    But without war. I doubt the world would have moved past feudalism. There just would not be the motivation to change.




  • Yep. That is more about getting weight into space. As we know water can provide protection.

    But the issue of moving water from earth to space then building a 2 layered craft strong enough to surrou d passengers with a foot or more of water. While doable theoretically. Is just a huge huge task.

    If mankind is seriose about such. Robotic collection of ice from space is more practice. Moving it towards earth using it to create hydrogen and oxygen slowly via solar. Then using that to move the water itself into earth near orbit. From there building a vessel able to rotate and protect occupants from radiation etc would be possible.

    But seriosly the amount of work involved. Mars really is not the best place to go. Once humanity has developed the ability to generate graverty. Confirmed mankind can live is centrifugal generated enviroments. And developed to robotics to move ice and asteroids into orbit.

    Honestly building O’Neil station like structures would be healthier then trying to live in 1/3 g of Mars anyway. Mars is worth learning about. But musks population plan is not really the best way to make humanity less at risk of planetary loss.




  • As likely as this is. (not that Oxfam is exactly the scientific research org I look to for evidence. I do not have any reason to doubt)

    But it seems to me the top 1% is an easy target. When the huge commercial shipping to reduce labour costs and cheap plastic packaging etc used to handle it are equal if not a much larger overall cause of deaths.

    Just a much harder oner to argue for the change of, even if public opinion can actually have more effect.

    The top 1% have ignored public opinion since the invention of money. Commercial cooperation may try, but hiding or greenwashing is normally the closest they get.







  • Ill add. My now passed grandfather raised me.

    He was a pacifist durimg the second world war. He and many were forced to mine resorces. As they refused to fight. As he was an engineer he was eventually reasigned to other work. Aircraft instrament manufacture at smiths.

    But at no point did he think the UK should just allow germany to take over.

    He just knew he was not able to fight himself. This was a commonf feeling among those conscripted during the second world war. And will always be a risk whe. A mation needs to defend itself from agressors.

    Not all of a nations people are best suited to fight.





  • Industry groups are furious.

    Likely the best sign it’s the right thing to do.

    Until the cost of using plastic matches the cost of removing it from our environment. No one is truly going to provide the support needed to bring the cost of safer replacements down to a point where industry will care.

    Just like all damage to the environment. Until world governments are willing to agree to make those profiting pay all current and future costs of clean-up. Capitalism will never accept its role n the task.

    Remove carrots and start some application of fucking big sticks.




  • Honestly. I assume if they vocally announced an policy. They worried the tories and media would successfully paint it as anti semitic.

    No matter how rubbish that may be. It would be hard to garrentee the media could not manage it. More so after corbyn.

    They likely considered no opinion to be less controversial and risky to the election then taking a side openly.

    Not sure id have agreed if asked at the time. But hard to argue now.