Impound4017
@Impound4017@sh.itjust.works
- Comment on Just in time 2 weeks ago:
The idea that there are no resources we know of in space which are not more easily accessed on earth is just outright untrue, or at least is only true in a narrow sense. My example here would be Helium-3, the ideal fuel for fusion (a difficult choice due to high fusion temperatures, but it has the advantage of not kicking off neutron radiation in the process the way something like Deuterium-Tritium fusion would). Earth contains ~10-50,000 tonnes of feasibly accessible Helium-3, and if we were to move over to fusion power at a large scale at our current rate of power consumption, we would consume that amount of fuel in a matter of years, likely less than a decade. By contrast, the moon contains orders of magnitude more Helium-3 in its regolith, somewhere in the ballpark of 600,000-1,000,000 tonnes, a sufficient quantity to last over a century in the same usage conditions as outlined for Earth. Additionally, both of these sources pale in comparison to the amount available in Sol’s gas giants.
The caveat here is, of course, it’s unlikely we would switch to fusion entirely in the first place, and that accessing that helium-3 at scale is not easy, no matter where it comes from (though doing so at scale is likely easier on the Moon than it is on Earth). It also ignores ideas like degrowth, energy efficiency improvements, dealing with the drawbacks of alternative fusion fuels, etc. I think, however, that it remains illustrative of the larger point: there are compelling reasons to go to space, even from a raw materials perspective alone.
- Comment on Just in time 2 weeks ago:
I categorically disagree with the premise that ‘the drive to explore’ is from Star Trek, and to state that authoritatively and leave it at that is, in my opinion, incredibly reductive. We’ve been exploring, as mentioned, since before we were even Homo sapiens, and I think at this point we can relatively confidently call it part of human nature. Human prehistory and (relatively) modern history has several examples of those who effectively blindly threw themselves out into the ocean, in some cases likely on rafts at most, and discovered new places to live as a result. For example:
Homo Erectus made it all the way to the island of Java and then proceeded to cross the Lombok Strait, crossing the Wallace Line and spreading to the island of Flores ~1.2 million years ago, at which point they stayed there, adapted, and became Homo Floresiensis. This crossing likely wasn’t blind, as Mount Rinjani would be visible, but this a distance of ~35km of deep ocean strait water. Treacherous conditions to brave on the promise of a peak in the distance; nonetheless they did it, and likely only with simple rafts. Along those same lines, the migration of Homo Sapiens from Sunda to Sahul ~65,000 years ago is similarly noteworthy, as some of the relevant crossings required would have been, in all likelihood, blind. (Take this with a grain of salt, though. I had a hard time finding an accurate measure of the distance between various island crossings at this period of history. Under perfectly ideal conditions it is possible each step was visible from the last.)
Another example is the fact that humans settled the remote islands of Oceania. Polynesia is particularly noteworthy here for its remoteness, and we managed that ~3000 years ago. This would have involved anywhere from hundreds to thousands of kilometers of open ocean, navigated with no promise of land, much less any indication that there even might be land. For that matter, given the massive nature of the ocean and the tiny size of these islands, how many people ventured off into the ocean, never to return, before we finally hit on success? I would imagine the number is quite high, and from a raw survival perspective, it seems an incomprehensible journey to embark on, but we did it anyways, and I would argue that is indicative of our drive to explore. Why else would you embark on such a trip except to see what may lie hidden, just beyond the horizon? We’re a naturally curious bunch, it’s one of our primary strengths as a species, and I feel that this is just an extension of that inborn curiosity.
Circling back to Star Trek, though, trust me, I’m well aware of the cognitive dissonance of Americans as it relates to expansionism and manifest destiny. Indeed, I did a long-winded breakdown (I’m prone to bloviating tangents, can you tell?) a few weeks ago in a different comment of the way that the American genocide of indigenous peoples in the Americas is presented as a foregone conclusion; inevitable by fate and absolved by destiny. It’s an insidious idea, and one which infects a problematically large pool of our media; I won’t argue with you on that.
I also don’t know if it’s fully accurate to describe the society (at least of earth, not necessarily the whole Federation to my, admittedly limited, understanding of the lore) of Star Trek as communist, though it’s probably not inaccurate either. I think it would be more accurate to say that Star Trek depicts a post-scarcity society, and so the lack of certain economic pressures have led to an economic configuration that is hard to translate into modern terms, though I’ll admit that’s splitting hairs. I think it’s probably close enough, and I think it’s very fair to say that they are absolutely socialist. Funny enough (and to your point) I think the meme of “fully automated luxury gay space communism” is actually a pretty good descriptor of the economic configuration of Star Trek. Regardless, I think a lot of Americans miss that fact simply because words like “Socialism” and “Communism” have connotations and associations in America which are fundamentally inaccurate. Most Americans have, frankly, never moved past the red scare in their understanding of socialism more broadly, likely as a consequence of propaganda, so it’s not surprising that they missed the memo here.
- Comment on Just in time 2 weeks ago:
I disagree that life requires a narrow set of conditions to continue. What I believe is the case is that life requires specific conditions to begin, but once it exists, it is incredibly resilient. There are extremophiles which could reasonably survive in the vacuum of space, and from a more anthropocentric perspective, humans have proven ourselves to be remarkably resilient in the face of climatic tests. Sure, the most inhospitable of earth conditions is a paradise in comparison to something like Mars as it exists now, but we adapted to those when the height of technology was a flint knapped hand-axe. It’s safe to say that the technological aspect of humanity has come a long way, and our ability to survive in and adapt to the conditions of bodies other than earth improves steadily day by day as the wheel of technology turns ever-faster (to say nothing of outright space habitats, which we could absolutely reasonably build with our current understanding of physics). I don’t mean this as a glorification of human industry; rather, I mean to say that ingenuity, adaptability, and tenacity are fundamental characteristics of our species - it’s why we’re here today.
I will also note that there’s no guarantee that there aren’t habitable worlds in other solar systems, and no reason to assume that they couldn’t be found. Even within our solar system, there are planets which, with sufficient effort, could feasibly be colonized near to our current tech level (looking at you, Venus. I know Mars gets all the attention but you’re my one true love).
And, indeed, I wonder if you’ve proven the fundamental point yourself with your observation on organization and long term planning. After all, is it perhaps possible that the very reason we have never demonstrated that level of resource management in our modern, industrial world is itself capitalism? Such a duplicative, wasteful structure is fundamentally inefficient, and more to the point, is fundamentally at odds with the communalist nature of humanity. We are a species which, historically, shares, and just the mere fact that we have convinced ourselves that selfishness is in our nature does not make it true. Additionally, centuries of planning becomes a lot more reasonable when humans reach the point of living for centuries, which is a prospect that I think a lot of people ignore the (relatively speaking) imminent nature of.
All that is to say: we are a species of firsts, and typically when we are met with a survival challenge on a physiological level, we conquer that with technology. Clothing, fire, tools, and planning allowed us to conquer the arctic despite a body plan which is adapted for equatorial living, why should we assume we won’t also eventually rise to this technical challenge in the long term? I have no idea what that intermediary period will look like (except that it will likely be, at minimum, equally unpleasant for us as it is at present), but if history shows us anything it’s that we eventually pull through. Humanity tried to migrate out of Africa several times before it stuck, populations died out, and we find fossil remains which have genomes entirely unrelated to anyone not from Africa, but the notable thing is that we kept on trying anyways.
We’re just stubborn like that.
- Comment on Just in time 2 weeks ago:
Do we think that’s actually true, though? Life, all life, has a tendency to spread out when a niche is open in a new environment which it can fill, and there’s nothing shown there that isn’t technically within the bounds of humanity. Before capitalism, before humans were even Homo sapiens, we were already migrating out of Africa and into Eurasia. The drive to explore is, in my opinion, deeply human, and nothing says that the model of that exploration or expansion needs to be capitalistic. We wouldn’t have colonized the world in prehistory if it did.
- Comment on Would I sound taller if I gave my height as 6'-4"? 3 weeks ago:
True. I’m 5’ 6” and would absolutely call someone on this lmao
- Comment on Would I sound taller if I gave my height as 6'-4"? 3 weeks ago:
Like you’re speaking aloud an actual equation? If so, then definitely not. You’ll get called on it the first time someone who actually is 6’ is around, and to draw attention to it like that in the first place is going to sound defensive.
Best to just go about life imo, it projects more confidence, and confidence will do way more to make you seem taller than specifying that you’re four inches off from 6’ ever could.
- Comment on POV: me mentoring my juniors 4 weeks ago:
Hey, don’t let me stop you. I only mean to say that you’re very likely wasting your breath, and I know that from my own experience losing the argument against the expanded definition of literally. Languages change, prescriptivism is a losing battle, and that’s just the nature of things. It’s why we aren’t having this exchange in Proto-Indo-European.
- Comment on POV: me mentoring my juniors 4 weeks ago:
Just mentally insert “you are observing” after the “POV:” and move on with your day. This argument has been a lost battle for a long time now, in much the same was that “literally” was.
- Comment on girls be like 5 weeks ago:
Christ, I thought we moved past random = funny a decade ago, but apparently it’s alive and well.
- Comment on How many hands long do they get? 5 weeks ago:
Yeah, I’m realizing this is just a bias toward familiarity on my part. There’s several bad assumptions that I made in there which I hadn’t really given too much thought; bad practice on my part, I’ll admit.
- Comment on How many hands long do they get? 5 weeks ago:
Fair. I’ll acknowledge I’m biased here in retrospect. In particular, I’ve realized my argument for Fahrenheit (increased granularity) is directly contradictory to my argument against centimeters (too much granularity). Indeed, my view (however poorly conveyed) was that imperial units of length measurement, and the foot in particular, lend themselves to day to day estimation of size, as meters require estimation with fractions/decimals and centimeters require estimation in quantities too large to be reasonably accurate, so I was of the view that the lack of decimeters in common usage was a problem, but you make a good point that this is a fundamentally flawed assumption. After all, if you’re familiar with metric already, it’s not particularly difficult to just say ‘10cm’ and estimate in relation to tenths of a meter.
Well argued, and certainly more impassioned than my tepid defense of imperial. Consider me convinced; I’m switching teams lol.
- Comment on How many hands long do they get? 5 weeks ago:
If I might make an argument for the imperial system? I’ll acknowledge that it is bad, particularly from a scientific perspective, but one advantage that imperial has over metric is its use case for human related issues. Most of the stuff you interact with daily is much more easily measured in feet and inches vs meters and centimeters (this ignores decimeters, but I’ve literally never seen anyone use decimeters in my entire life). Another good example is temperature. Celsius is more objective, but when dealing with the standard sorts of temperatures humans are generally concerned with, Fahrenheit gives you more granularity within that range.
All that is to say: If I’m at work and someone uses imperial for an official measurement, I’m putting my fist through the drywall, but from a day to day perspective, I actually prefer imperial.
Also, the mile is fucking indefensible. I’ll happily leave all 5280 of its feet out to rot.
- Comment on What age gap is too big of an age gap if someone's in their early 30's? 1 month ago:
I think the rule breaks down any time before ~21 (always round up). In general, if you’re over 18, don’t date someone under 18. If you’re both under 18 idk but probably don’t exceed a two year age gap.
If you’re 19-20, get fucked I guess.
- Comment on It all makes sense now. 2 months ago:
Moving to Manitoba for my exotic.skirt.venture
- Comment on What's the equivalent of rose coloured glasses for always seeing something in a negative perspective? 3 months ago:
I think that’s just cynicism or perhaps pessimism.
- Comment on 32, f. Are there any dating sites that are actually free and don't suddenly force me to pay to actually use the site? 3 months ago:
A friend of mine also found their long-term partner on Hinge. Dating apps are kinda dead, but if you’re looking for something other than hookups, it seems like Hinge is one of the better options.
- Comment on Is non-sexual masochism a thing? 11 months ago:
As a Linux user (btw) let me tell you, if anyone is masochistic it’s us. The amount of times I’ve gotten sidetracked for an hour fixing a problem that would be a non-issue on Windows is kind of depressing when assessed as a whole
- Comment on Are there any video games in the Warhammer universe that are actually good? 1 year ago:
Good to know! I’ll have to go back to it. I was really enjoying it, but I just had some annoying bugs that turned me off.
- Comment on Are there any video games in the Warhammer universe that are actually good? 1 year ago:
I haven’t played it in a couple months, but I remember the quality and polish taking a serious nose dive as you got deeper into the game. Is that still the case?
- Comment on Does Sign Language have puns? 1 year ago:
We’ve all been there
- Comment on [deleted] 1 year ago:
Well said! My go-to example is ‘If someone calls and I’m not here, tell them they can leave a message’ because it covers both they and them in a singular usage.
Sidenote: I also hate the way that some people act like languages are static things, despite the known history of languages to shift and change over time. English is arguably a German creole; we don’t get to act all sanctimonious now.
- Comment on Does Sign Language have puns? 1 year ago:
Yes! My favorite example is the sign for pasteurized milk, which is just the sign for milk, but moved ‘past your eyes’.
- Comment on The majority of Americans are not engaged at work, 70% of managers have no training to lead a hybrid team and it could be killing employee engagement 1 year ago:
This is my manifesto.