Asklemmy

43890 readers

773 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

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

Open-ended question
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.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Should we A) colonise other planets or B) build habitats in the middle of space, like O'Neill Cylinders and stuff? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

158 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Who do we need permission from? The rocks?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

You're so fixated on whether you can that you will never stop to question if you should. What, are you going to frack asteroids until they become space junk? Utterly violate another planet to its core for all its worth the way you've done the Earth, just to bail out like the deadbeat developer humanity has proven itself as? Disgusting, parasitic, over-consumptive, self-centered, practically narcissistic-assed question out of you.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

the levels of 白左 on some hexbears, really.... 100% moralising 0% thinking

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What's your definition of 'pollute'? I don't really get how the verb 'pollute' can apply to non-biological planets; to me the word means something like 'putting matter in places where is disrupts ecosystems'. I think the book about Gaia has a definition like this too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Yeah no; I don't do 'quibbling definitions with sophists'. If you don't know what 'pollute' means, you're not fit to discourse with me. 🖕🖕

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

Classic troll move of refusing to engage when someone points out you're making no sense.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I think this is the Gaia quote they're talking about –

The very concept of pollution is anthropocentric and it may even be irrelevant in the Gaian context. Many so-called pollutants are naturally present and it becomes exceedingly difficult to know at what level the appellation 'pollutant' may be justified. Carbon monoxide, for example, which is poisonous to us and to most large mammals, is a product of incomplete combustion, a toxic agent from exhaust gases of cars, coke or coal-burning stoves, and cigarettes; a pollutant put into otherwise clean fresh air by man, you might think. However, if the air is analysed we find that carbon monoxide gas is to be found everywhere. It comes from the oxidation of methane gas in the atmosphere itself and as much as 1,000 million tons of it are so produced each year. It is thus an indirect but natural vegetable product and is also found in the swim-bladders of many sea creatures. The syphonophores, for example, are loaded with this gas in concentrations which would speedily kill us off if present in our own atmosphere at similar levels.

Almost every pollutant, whether it be in the form of sulphur dioxide, dimethyl mercury, the halocarbons, mutagenic and carcinogenic substances, or radioactive material, has to some extent, large or small, a natural background. It may even be produced so abundantly in nature as to be poisonous or lethal from the start. To live in caves of uranium-bearing rock would be unhealthy for any living creature, but such caves are rare enough to present no real threat to the survival of a species. It seems that as a species we can already with stand the normal range of exposure to the numerous hazards of our environment. If for any reason one or more of these hazards should increase, both individual and species adaptation will set in.

What is your definition of pollution tho? How can there be pollution on a lifeless rocky planet?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Again, I don't do "quibbling definitions with sophists", and honestly this just reads as techno-woo made to justify leaving dead rovers and broken satellites in our wake. "Oh, it was already there in trace amounts so we can just leave our toys scattered around the playroom." If I had that kind of laissez-faire attitude towards say, Yellowstone, I'd be put out of the park and banned for life. The fuck happened to 'leave no trace'?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

Who or what is harmed by a piece of lifeless metal on a piece of lifeless rock?

You said you're against sophistry, then you said Mars=Yellowstone

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

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

What kind of weird Abrahamic mental model is going on here? We need to morally prove ourselves to Jehovah and he will decree we have "earned" the "privilege" to go to some rocks? Makes no sense.