Anonymous #2 3w

Capitalism continues to squander resources and will eventually destroy our planet. Colonization is the purest form of capitalism

6

Anonymous boariskarloff 3w

Our resource economy (besides timber) will be moved off-earth in a few centuries

1

Anonymous boariskarloff 3w

My whole purpose in life is to set the foundations of that transition

1

Anonymous #2 3w

so to expand colonization beyond the planet, that is your self-appointed purpose? actually no different from the european ancestors. decolonize your mind. we are faced with a climate catastrophe that will have cataclysmic consequences if human behavior is not altered, and you’re doubling down on the behaviors that got us here in the first place

1

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

This is the solution to that.

0

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

We can move heavy industry to a place where there is *no* environment to harm. In fact, moving heavy industry to mars would be helping it become more habitable

0

Anonymous #2 3w

humanity doesn’t have a few centuries to feed its near infinite demand of resources for the economic system. we either alter the economic system and human behavior, or we reap the consequences of mass extinction

5

Anonymous #2 3w

A) No, and B) We don’t want to live in space, dingus

5

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

Our mining industry destroys so much indigenously sacred and environmentally pristine land. If we can move our extractive industries to a place where there is no environment to harm, then we are saving the planet.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Tf are we gonna mine in space. You think is shit is Oxygen Not Included™

1

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

Human society is determined by one thing: our ability to use and manipulate resources. The Stone Age, The chalcolithic age, The Bronze Age, The Iron Age, the Age of Exploration (intended to be for spices, instead stealing Americas mineral wealth)

9

Anonymous #2 3w

Also look at you greenwashing space colonization; ‘we’ll destroy things in space instead of destroying native land at home’

9

Anonymous boariskarloff 3w

Heavy metals from protoplanetary cores

5

Anonymous boariskarloff 3w

My main goal is helium-3 for fusion energy. We can replace 300,000,000,000 tons of annual fossil fuel use with 25 tons of helium. It’s abundant on the moon from the solar wind

6

Anonymous #2 3w

You truly believe that within >500 years the technology to send giant mining ships to distant planetoids is going to be widespread and cost effective? 🫵🤣

7

Anonymous boariskarloff 3w

Expanding into space is the *only* way humanity will survive in perpetuity.

12

Anonymous #2 3w

By your logic, what happens when capitalism consumes all the possible resources to manipulate?

1

Anonymous boariskarloff 3w

I don’t quite see the problem though. If there’s life, yes we should leave it be. If it’s lifeless, and it can prevent life from being harmed on earth, then how is it not the morally superior option? Colonization only affects the life that’s colonized. Not the inanimate objects.

6

Anonymous #2 3w

this is a religious belief btw

1

Anonymous boariskarloff 3w

Ideally once we have a space economy it is socialized

2

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

Which is? The only way? I mean nah long term, earth will be destroyed by the sun eventually.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

‘ideally’ again, these are religious beliefs

1

Anonymous #2 3w

the biosphere will collapse because of capitalism long before the Sun engulfs the Earth

2

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

How do?

1

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

So*?

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Mark Fisher once said “It is easier to imagine starwars basically being real than the end of capitalism”

2

Anonymous boariskarloff 3w

But also, space is infinite. We’ll have infinite resources. There will be technical and temporal bottlenecks tho, as always

1

Anonymous #2 3w

You have Icarus’ disease

10

Anonymous boariskarloff 3w

This isn’t about capitalism or socialism or anything like that. Yes, I think socialism is necessary for us. But we still *need* resources. We will never not need new resources. Ever. You cannot have a functioning society without resources. Our current way of getting resources is highly destructive. This new way fixes those issues

1

Anonymous #2 3w

none of what you are saying is rooted in reality, and all of it overlooks the present conditions facing the planet. the present science suggests that humans should reduce production and consumption, not to continue to outpace the planet in pursuit of growth. how do you propose we colonize space if we do not have the means to secure reliable harvests? mining heavy metals in space does nothing to address our depleting water tables and land degradation

3

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

in fact, it exacerbates it because in order to get objects into space, we presently have to use rockets which emit tons upon tons of greenhouse gases

2

Anonymous boariskarloff 3w

Like yeah I get it may not “feel” good to be expanding, but it is what is necessary for humanity’s growth. It has always been this way. Until we have a functioning model for a society where we don’t consume resources, society will continue to consume them.

1

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

Yes I know man, that’s why I want to fix it by getting the harmful shit off earth. I cannot fathom a society where we don’t need to mine new things. We need to open up THIRTY lithium mines a YEAR by 2050 in order to meet climate goals.

1

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

Not on the scale of heavy industry though. If we’re shipping raw resources back, the rocket fuel isn’t used here

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Brother WHERE do you think the resources to build all this are gonna come from?

1

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

My guy, you understand that I and many other people have been studying this for decades? I mean it when I say: MY ENTIRE LIFES PURPOSE IS FOR THIS I promise you, if we could sit down in a setting where I can give you the same lectures I give to freshmen, you’d understand where I’m coming grom

1

Anonymous #2 3w

if people didn’t get a new iphone or car every other year, or better yet, didn’t need to because of mechanisms like planned obsolescence, then we would have plenty more resources to go around. we presently live in post-scarcity, yet all of the scarcity that exists is artificial. more than enough food to feed all, more than enough clothes to clothe all, and more than enough homes to house all. why produce more just for more to go without?

2

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

We agree on a lot of things. I promise you, we’d agree on this.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

My driver’s ed. teacher taught for decades and she got a DUI. So what?

1

Anonymous #2 3w

the issue with our current system is that we consume more than the Earth can naturally regenerate. the solution is to contain ourselves and live sustainably with what the Earth can provide us, not to expand like a cancer and spread ourselves consuming everything in our wake

4

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

Oh yes you’re right, we’d have more. But, we need to fix roads. We need to build houses. We need public transportation. We need infrastructure. We need energy. All of that is mined. All of that harms the environment. Moving the extractive parts off earth will be a net positive too.

2

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

I see what you’re saying. But that’s just not feasible without needing to cull the population, or implement script population control.

1

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

The only way to counteract our growth and stay isolated on earth is to have immense control over what people do, what people eat, and who/when people procreate.

0

Anonymous boariskarloff 3w

Your drivers ed teacher wasn’t interacting with industry and academic professionals on a daily basis

0

Anonymous #2 3w

You think hyper-space-capitalism isn’t going to do that? Imagine how resource scarce a whole space station is.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Neither are you though let’s be fr

1

Anonymous boariskarloff 3w

I think you’re misinterpreting what I’m saying. What I’m saying could apply in a communist society too

2

Anonymous boariskarloff 3w

I am though. I’m going to Australia in a few weeks for an international forum on this

3

Anonymous #2 3w

Anyone can have a forum. That doesn’t necessarily mean anything

1

Anonymous boariskarloff 3w

Like I’m hearing a lot of platitudes and ideals, but I’m not hearing actual well thought out plans. What I have is an extremely elaborate, centuries long vision. One that I’ll never see the end of. But myself and thousands of others who specialize in this agree that it is the necessary step for the planet and our species.

2

Anonymous #2 3w

human population growth could be curved by enabling women to be family planners, guaranteeing free and accessible contraception and abortion, and comprehensive sexual and parental education. no need for draconian laws or eco fascism you are correct though, in that humans will have to alter our diets. we consume entirely too much meat. over 90% of the biomass on the planet is humans and their livestock, while animal agriculture is the driving force behind deforestation and desertification

1

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

This stuff is all good, I want all of that too. But these are ideals in a highly post industrialized society. India is not going to feasibly get access to that. Nor is Nigeria, Ghana, etc. not for a while anyway. They’re what’s rapidly expanding our population globally. The US is a drop in the bucket in terms of global population

2

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

But we’ll have to have control over farmland too. Make sure that enough land is there to feed everyone. Livestock is more energy dense, so more fields means more land and more water used

1

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

But like I do think that needs to happen, or some way to scrub livestock methane release

1

Anonymous boariskarloff 3w

UNSW for space mining. You can deny it. But it’s legit.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

India, Nigeria, Ghana, etc. are not responsible for the bulk of the climate catastrophe. it’s the global north, nations like the US, UK, France, etc. and their militaries who are responsible for the climate crisis, populations which are ‘drops in the bucket’ yet dramatically out pollute the rest of the world. those nations will not ‘feasibly get access’ for the same reasons that there is a climate catastrophe in the first place: colonialism and capitalism. what is the imperial core’s excuse?

8

Anonymous #2 3w

You’re not seriously proposing asteroid mining to solve our problems right

3

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

In terms of CO2 release yeah, although India is a top contributor too

1

Anonymous #4 3w

Not anywhere in our lifetimes no

0

Anonymous #4 3w

But, Helium-3 to replace fossil fuels, yes. Very much yes

2

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

I hear you, I’m not against our climate goals. We need to fix them. But again, in order to hit our climate goals, we need new technology. Stuff that requires a lot of mining.

1

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

Again, my advisor is a global expert in this stuff. We need to triple our mineral extraction, on average, just to meet our climate goals.

2

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

I don’t think space exploration and settlement is necessarily wrong

5

Anonymous stoner22 3w

I believe (which admittedly this is a bit of a “religious” belief) that as the dominant species of all *known* life, it is our responsibility (Mantle of Responsibility 😇) to ensure that life survives in perpetuity. This means eventually, spreading life to new solar systems. That’s well beyond our lifetimes unfortunately, but we can begin setting the foundations for that future today

1

Anonymous stoner22 3w

i don’t disagree with exploration, though i think the idea of settlement should be abandoned until we reconcile our contradictory existence on the only planet that we know can sustain us. i don’t think that human settlement of other planets is necessarily wise given that we are wholly dependent upon our own biosphere for our survival. we are products of this planet, whose existence is owed to the conditions that came before us

2

Anonymous #2 3w

the idea that humans are the dominant species is a european one btw. you are the living embodiment of european colonialism and i don’t think you realize this. even nearing the white man’s burden with your ‘mantle of responsibility’ ideal. self-reflect!

3

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

We literally call the current geologic age the “Anthropocene” because of how much we have fucked up the planet

5

Anonymous #2 3w

the geologists disagree, but yeah

1

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

The only time one species has been more environmentally destructive was when Cyanobacteria caused the great oxygenation

1

Anonymous #2 3w

for the record, yes we live in the Anthropocene, the geologists are just still debating it

1

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

Not dominant as in “stronger more authority” Dominant as in have the the most capability for harm/good

1

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

Debating what about it? I haven’t heard any debates about it I’m intrigued now

1

Anonymous #2 3w

here’s a nature article on it, i’m sure you can find more about their arguments through other coverage of the panel https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00675-8

1

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

And for the record, I generally agree with your anticolonialism sentiment. At least here on earth, where life is affected. I’m fully aware of the centuries long impacts of colonialism in western society’s psyche and in the rest of the world’s way of life. But, what I’m working to achieve is far beyond politics, it’s far beyond our individual lives. It’s about redefining our resource use, and doing so in a way that has marginal environmental impact, comparatively speaking.

1

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

I trust you but the link is broken, can you give me the title

1

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

Just some food for thought: helium is used in modern blimps. When descending from orbit, it you have a structure with a manipulatable surface area full of helium, you can descend slowly without the need for reverse thrusters or burning up in atmosphere and crashing into the surface

1

Anonymous #2 3w

article title: “Geologists reject the Anthropocene as Earth’s new epoch — after 15 years of debate”

6

Anonymous #2 3w

Okay, genuine question. At the rate consumption of resources is going, how is there gonna be enough resources on the planet to get space travel to the point of off world mining before the planet goes face down in oblivion?

2

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

How do you force people to reduce consumption without expecting people to be ok with a reduced quality of life? Should people in the third world not be allowed to grow cuz they too want a western lifestyle?

-2

Anonymous #8 3w

degrowth occurs in the regions where economic development is dependent upon the underdevelopment of other regions. so degrowth in europe and the US will naturally result in ‘growth’ throughout the Global South. growth in quotations, because it really isn’t growth, these nations already produce an abundance of wealth, it’s just that the western capitalist powers ship said wealth out of the global south and into western markets

2

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 3w

We have like 200 years left of known resources (on average per commodity, cobalt is much less for example, iron is a lot more), and we’re still discovering more deeper and deeper down. We will run out before we have that capability if we don’t plan for it now, but if we already have the foundational research and systems in place then yeah, we will have enough to sustain us until then

1

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

Thanks for that, From what I can gather it’s mostly a matter of procedure it seems. Not enough homogeneity in telltale signs of human activity in sediment layers globally (basically no one catch all sign can be observed globally, although many individual affects can) It seems like it can’t yet be defined, but it will soon be able to be if we continue at our current rate

1

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

In what ways is our economic development, in 2025, dependent on the underdevelopment of other regions? Like concretely please elaborate. If the resources in these parts of the world weren’t “shipped out” then they would not be utilized and the growth you’re proposing just wouldn’t occur anywhere. What you’re describing is trade.

-1

Anonymous #8 3w

does imperialism and unequal exchange not exist to you? the US funding M23 rebels in the Congo to exploit Congolese cobalt reserves is just trade to you ? mind you, Africa as a continent has the largest capacity for renewable energy production, to which cobalt is a crucial mineral for battery development. instead of said cobalt being used for Tesla’s in the US, it would likely be used to develop critical power infrastructure in the DRC

0

Anonymous _orangutan 3w

Why do you insist on having takes with absolutely no nuance. The DRC is one of the most corrupt countries on the continent, even if the president didn’t have to deal with the Rwandans in the eastern part of the country he’d still be too busy pilfering the countries treasury and handing out money to his friends. Let’s not pretend like m23 and other rebels are the reason they aren’t developing

2

Anonymous #9 3w

much of the corruption is directly tied to the west and the refusal to allow African states to determine their own history. keep in mind, every single pan-African leader that challenges european hegemony in Africa is assassinated, and replaced with a comprador regime loyal to the west

0