KevinFromSpace

joined 1 month ago
sorted by: new top controversial old
Should we A) colonise other planets or B) build habitats in the middle of space, like O'Neill Cylinders and stuff? in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Who do we need permission from? The rocks?

Should we A) colonise other planets or B) build habitats in the middle of space, like O'Neill Cylinders and stuff? in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

If we can’t manage to keep Earth’s ecosystem thriving to support us, we certainly won’t be able to create a new self-sustaining ecosystem elsewhere. And without that, there’s no chance of any non-Earth settlement being able to sustain a healthy human society and culture long-term.

I'm unconvinced that pulling back from space programs will make Earth's ecosystem thrive.

A Mars colony (edit: or space station) owned by a private company will be a corporate prison, the inhabitants are 100% dependent on that company - who would voluntarily put their lives into the hands of the whims of some narcissistic hoarder with no empathy or regard for workers?

Agreed. That would be a super-weird concept, like a country owned by a private corporation.

Should we A) colonise other planets or B) build habitats in the middle of space, like O'Neill Cylinders and stuff? in c/[email protected]
Should we A) colonise other planets or B) build habitats in the middle of space, like O'Neill Cylinders and stuff? in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

I'm not convinced that suspending space programs would create solutions to climate change.

Should we A) colonise other planets or B) build habitats in the middle of space, like O'Neill Cylinders and stuff? in c/[email protected]
88
Should we A) colonise other planets or B) build habitats in the middle of space, like O'Neill Cylinders and stuff? (lemmy.ml)
I do not feel serenity. in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Tranquility, by definition, being a state free of turmoil, cannot be maintained, if dealing with turmoil.

Right, but it can and should be maintained while dealing with tumultuous events.

I do not feel serenity. in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

This is nothing to do with actual tranquility (in the sense of passaddhi), which is basically the opposite of everything you are describing.

You don't cultivate tranquility by not knowing "not caring" about worldly factors; you cultivate tranquililty by abandoning the five hindrances (covetousness, ill-will, sloth, agitation, and compulsive questioning).

The Upanisa Sutta says that tranquillity comes from rapture and leads to happiness (the Samaññaphala Sutta repeats this). The precondition for tranquility is rapture, not "not caring about the state of the world".

Tranquility is a mind that maintains a spacious calm in the face of adverse conditions. It's nothing like what you're saying.

Your view is harmful because you're saying that someone without tranquility (with covetousness, ill-will, sloth, agitation, and compulsive questioning, without rapture), will be better equipped to deal with worldly problems, but the exact opposite is true: tranquility creates the space to deal with worldly problems more effectively. It's harmful to advocate for hindrances because you claim that means people "care" more.

I do not feel serenity. in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

The absolute state of the religion-understanders in this thread.

If you've never read one work about finding peace thru mysticism, why voice an opinion about it? I'm not here voicing an opinion on Finnish politics.

Daniel Day-Lewis ends retirement from acting after seven years in c/[email protected]
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How many times is that now?