Whose future? : solarpunk@slrpnk.net

Whose future? (thelemmy.club)

submitted 4 months ago by reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net to c/solarpunk@slrpnk.net

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 26 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] amikulo@slrpnk.net 26 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The Artemis 2 flyby of the moon was really cool. But the photos of the moon really reminded me how absurd it is that a dozen obscenely wealthy bastards are pushing us to live and work in a deadly airless ugly desert instead of preserving the miraculous little oasis in space that we already have.

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 4 months ago (5 children)

It's more than that. I see it as insurance for humanity if we started permanently settling the moon. Then not even an asteroid could wipe us out.

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] TheLadyAugust@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Actually, there's a pretty solid chance that a significant asteroid hitting Earth could create enough ejected material to cause serious issues for habitation facilities on the Moon.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Moon base is progress to becoming a multiplanetary species. Most people will die in the planet they are born on, but some may get to move to another.

But does it even matter of humanity survives a bit longer or not?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] thunderflies@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Nothing matters and everything is pointless, but humanity should strive to continue for as long as possible

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] aketawi@quokk.au 2 points 4 months ago

should

if everything is pointless, then why Should we? what point is there in perpetuating our existence, filled for the vast majority with nothing but lifelong suffering?

parent

[–] antrosapien@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago

Asteroid hitting seems quite less concerning when mad actively lingers over our head

parent

[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

That is only true once the colony is self sustaining, which is likely very far out of reach.

parent

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 4 months ago

if the permanent moon settlement was sustainable otherwise it dies just shy of us dying.

parent

[–] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

A moon base could not be truly self sustaining for a long, long time, if ever. Probably never, definitely not within say 500 years.

So if Earth goes, the moon base is definitely gone too. There is no saving humanity without saving Earth.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] blarghly@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Idk why people are downvoting you. The moon has literally nothing we could use to create a self-sustaining colony. Idk if I necessarily agree with your timelines (the future is, um, a bit unpredictable...). But in any forseeable timeline, a moon base watching earth get hit by an asteroid would be watching their own death on slow motion, as everything they need to survive is on earth.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 3 points 4 months ago

But in any forseeable timeline

500 years was just a number I threw out there as "clearly beyond any forseeable time". It could be 200 years, 1000 years, maybe never. Point is just that it's completely wrong to think that we just need to land on the moon or on Mars and then we're an "interplanetary species" and if Earth goes, we have a backup plan.

parent

[–] amikulo@slrpnk.net 3 points 4 months ago

I agree.

Another way that I like to describe this is that almost nothing could make the earth less hospitable than the moon or mars already are. Asteroid strike? Mars' thin atmosphere is even more vulnerable. Climate change? The moon swings between -170C and 119 C each month. Nuclear war? Try living under constant cosmic radiation in a pressurized habitat that could be completely destroyed by a few small conventional explosives instead of a nuclear bomb.

If we had the ability to make a self sustaining colony on mars we'd be able to restore earth's biosphere or make self sustaining arcologies or bunkers.

parent

[–] orbitz@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago

Seeing even just the moon (have managed to see a few other stellar objects) through a telescope is awesome. Haven't checked out the pics yet. Getting to see something far away really puts things in perspective. Billionaires only have power because we let society run this way (mean sort of anyways), they are nothing but a mote on tiny mote getting their power. We need to be better as humans and society.

I'll even say use binoculars you can see craters on the moon, more with a telescope though. That's another solid world but only related to us cause it's our moon. Check out Jupiter or Saturn sometime, it's so satisfying if you can find them, the rings on Saturn which may appear like one of those cheesy bouncy balls with something to stand on, but it's another freaking planet. And our system is a barely a mote in the galaxy let alone the universe. We are fighting each other for random crap when we need to look out there for improvement.

I get sad thinking about how much conflict we have as people over the tiniest issues. Also looking at stuff outside our planet is fucking awesome.

parent

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 23 points 4 months ago (1 child)

This is why I endorse Vermin Supreme, whose “give everyone a pony” policy will make those children very happy.

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Sidyctism2@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 4 months ago

Also, zombie-power is very green. You just dangle brains in front of them and as long as they dont rot away, its basically free energy

parent

[–] StarvingMartist@sh.itjust.works 16 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Top one. Walled off compound in the badlands WITH SEVERAL THUNDERDOMES?!? No contest. Children can't defend shit, I see multiple platformed levels of defence for firefights on the top one.

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net [S] 7 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

It’s supposed to be mars:) No defense needed, have a good life

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] WhyIHateTheInternet@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Oh, you actually believe them when they said we wouldn't need defense? Lol ok buddy.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 8 points 4 months ago

War will be so much easier for public perception when the distance is literally planets away!

parent

[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 4 points 4 months ago

No defense needed because everyone died after a series of unfortunate disasters struck in rapid succession and there was no hope of self-rescue or Earth-based rescue. Mars is an exercise in unhinged hubris that will end in mass death at least if it is attempted in the foreseeable future. The logistics are far beyond anything we have ever attempted nevermind succeeded at, and Martian nature makes Mother nature look like the kind gentle mothering figure she actually is in comparison. If you think she can be harsh with what she's going to do to us over climate change, just wait until we see how cruelly the rest of the universe is going to treat us.

parent

[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 11 points 4 months ago (1 child)

What is the top one?

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net [S] 12 points 4 months ago (1 child)

A mars colony tourist trap being built in Turkey (a rendering of it? unclear) https://www.aa.com.tr/en/culture/turkish-town-to-open-touristic-mars-colony/2024847

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] amikulo@slrpnk.net 1 point 4 months ago

I was wondering why there was parking on mars.

parent

[–] keepthepace@slrpnk.net 7 points 4 months ago

I'll be honest, I thought the top one was an 'eco village' in construction.

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 months ago

You made the top one look too good