galloog1

joined 1 year ago
[–] galloog1@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (8 children)

The insulation tech developed by the original NASA program is used in every household in the western world. The current electrification effort wouldn't be close to possible without the original Apollo and Mercury programs and the advancements required to go to the moon and Mars in the current effort will enable not only the development of an industrial base to support the rapid roll out of green improvements but make it more economical for the market.

It's a win win for anyone regardless of left right politics in the end. Not only the above, in the current political climate, what programs are you suggesting would do the same? Are they funded? Read the room dude. This is literally our only chance. You have the absolute worst possible take and you should stop because you make it less politically viable.

[–] galloog1@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Do you disagree concerning what would motivate you or the average person in the world? I'm answering based on the latter.

[–] galloog1@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Unironically yes, I do believe that. Space exploration is a worthy endeavor in and of itself and takes up a fraction of the budget.

[–] galloog1@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

That's called a private plane these days and it costs the equivalent.

[–] galloog1@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (10 children)

Star Trek is post scarcity. It is more evolved than your politics.

[–] galloog1@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

It doesn't reward it anymore than even local government control over resources. You act like nobody has ever tried to get out of a speeding ticket or fake their way to impress their lead.

[–] galloog1@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (6 children)

Oppressive was the word you were looking for.

[–] galloog1@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

Time is a progression. I hope we've gotten smarter but we still do often fall for the same tricks.

(Abstract narrative that everyone can agree with without agreeing what tricks we're all falling victim to.)

[–] galloog1@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

The most likely scenario is an action that causes the majority of the military to rebel such as what happened in Syria. That's partially why the military swears an oath to the Constitution and not the standing government.

For that to happen you need an inciting incident that is at least perceived to be against the Constitution by the majority of the military including a significant portion of the top brass.

We almost got there with all the January 6th shenanigans but the inciting incident involved the military sitting down and not listening to the Executive branch's unethical orders.

[–] galloog1@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Not everyone wants to be responsible for every aspect of their lives. Can I assume you don't want to participate in your own food production or waste disposal? Specialization of labor is an important component in this which most respectable leftist texts will at least attempt to answer, even if they cannot solve it without centralization of economic planning.

[–] galloog1@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This thought experiment is based on an unrealistic view not only of natural history but also of the human condition and modern economics. It is based on a view of how easy the perceived human condition was before the existence of larger society.

"In prehistoric times our deal seems to have been not so bad. During the Old Stone Age (50,000 years ago) we were only few, food (game and plants) was abundant, and survival required only little working time and moderate efforts."

This period of hunter-gatherers was largely the experience of 90% of the time looking for food. It was only the emergence of sustained and coordinated agriculture requiring public works that this started to change. Modern industrialized agriculture has enabled populations not sustainable in that text and requires a larger coordination of people than a small commune can support. That text does not cover larger governance and relies on high-output lands to sustain itself, let alone others. If you cannot enable specialization, you cannot scale nor can you provide the lifestyle people are accustomed to enjoying post-WWII.

There are already communes like this everywhere and nobody is saying that you cannot start one. The only issue is people trying to force others into this system. It starts based on oppression regardless of feasibility.

[–] galloog1@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So, I agree. Decentralization of the Soviets was immensely worse early after the revolution though so they centralized early. The CCP early in its creation had the same criticisms of the USSR resulting in a much longer attempt at decentralization and actual famine.

view more: ‹ prev next ›