Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HotFix6682 t1_j8yh5y1 wrote

Wold be nice if we were all on the same page and nations didn't start claiming space territory.

28

O5-20 t1_j8ymmzr wrote

Playing devil’s advocate here— wouldn’t more competition between countries drive more exploration? Teamwork would likely just cause stagnation of progress.

3

ShadowKiller147741 t1_j8ypnyp wrote

Having territorial interests in space will inevitably lead to conflicts in space. Whatever form that may take, it'll invariably lead to immense consequences since things like conflict debris are a much greater concern in space than on Earth.

If, for example, a military vehicle is destroyed on Earth, it's highly unlikely that debris will cause damage to civilians (assuming it's not in civilian areas). That debris will eventually be consumed by the Earth and not be of significant note to anyone. But that same vehicle sending shrapnel and orbital debris around a planet creates a minefield for anything entering or exitting it, regardless of affiliation or alliance.

At the end of the day, you want to avoid armed conflict in space as much as possible. It's why countries shouldn't shoot down each other's satellites, it fucks ALL of them up.

9

O5-20 t1_j8yrl8j wrote

The amount of debris needed to trap us here on earth is a very large amount, plus, the usefulness of space will drive solutions to orbital debris which could be very useful in the future.

Also, that assumes that smashing satellites is only option used, even when other countries have considered pushing satellites out of orbit or using lasers.

The reality is that progress is derived from conflict. Without conflict, there is no progress.

−4

ShadowKiller147741 t1_j8ys26r wrote

I never said trap us here on Earth, I'm saying that it's still a significant, indiscriminant danger. And I can agree with the conflict driving progress part, but I'd rather humanity as a whole move past needing conflict to get shit done. Not saying it's likely, just preferable

2

O5-20 t1_j8yseg1 wrote

Hmm, I swore I remember reading that, but I agree It’s definitely still a significant danger.

It would be nice if we could work together, but the nature of human progress isn’t in cooperation to the contrary of how every wishes it was.

−4

Rawtothedawg t1_j8z08oe wrote

I think this leads to intergalactic war

1

O5-20 t1_j8z0gjd wrote

I’d beg to differ. Distances between planets are vast, let alone galaxies.

0

Rawtothedawg t1_j8z1i7g wrote

Not saying today. But in the near future after arrival i believe so

1

O5-20 t1_j8z1xwo wrote

Just for context, getting to the nearest solar system takes 4 years if you travel at the speed of light (186,000 m/s) and crossing the galaxy will take ~100,000 years. From then on, it’s millions of years to the next major galaxy.

Iirc we haven’t even reached 1% of light speed. So unless a revolution happens very soon, I don’t think intergalactic war is in the cards

0

Rawtothedawg t1_j8z2evr wrote

I just realized what your argument is - i misspoke. I meant interplanetary warfare

2

O5-20 t1_j8z2ox7 wrote

Oh ok, gotcha.

But I’m not arguing if the war will happen I’m arguing that it is good for progress if it does.

0

BackRowRumour t1_j8z9jo1 wrote

Agreed. Competition is the only thing that will actually drive it. Decades of genuine altruism have delivered orderly nothing.

1

Reggie_001 t1_j8yhats wrote

Yeah, well that is probably going to happen after WWIII. Good news, we are right on track!

0

PandaEven3982 t1_j8ym475 wrote

Would be nice to get rid of nations. Move to a World administration model.

0

mechanicalcontrols t1_j8yn0pm wrote

Sounds good on paper but that just means wars go from being international fighting to partisan fighting. Humans just simply aren't evolved enough yet in my estimation to make that work.

2

PandaEven3982 t1_j8ysh96 wrote

In your estimation. Is it off the cuff, where you actually look at psychology, have you looked at medicine, have you looked at making it possible instead of saying it isn't? Have you looked at any numbers? Have you looked at methodologies? Have you looked at the parenting problem?. All of these things are actually solvable. You want to know what's not solvable? Violence-based capitalism.

EDIT: the short hand is you believe humans are too stupid to grow up, so it's not possible. Would that be a fair assessment?

0

mechanicalcontrols t1_j8z0azx wrote

I never said it isn't possible entirely. I mean I don't think it's possible right now. How quickly do you see current governments being willing to give up their sovereignty?

1

PandaEven3982 t1_j8z6jrv wrote

I'm looking at 40 years as the total timetable. Ideally, in about 5 years from the stsrt of acceptance. Edit. It's mostly a mindset thing in terms of adjusting. We've built the tools already.

0

Joe_Spiderman t1_j8z7djd wrote

You sound like you are completely divorced from reality.

2

mechanicalcontrols t1_j8zey0o wrote

No kidding. I can guarantee them that say, the US for example, isn't going to give up its sovereignty in 40 or so years. It won't even give up military hegemony and barely even joined the UN.

1

PandaEven3982 t1_j8z8ts0 wrote

Is there a reason I should listen to a troll with no karma? :-)

0

Joe_Spiderman t1_j8z92el wrote

Imagine caring about how many imaginary internet points a person has...

2

PandaEven3982 t1_j8za3h4 wrote

Now you want to talk bgp and egp? What pray tell is an imaginary internet point. Teach me.

I'm not interested in metaphors, or similes, or analogies, or euphemism. I am discussing the state of the art in a number of current technologies, and how they apply to the real world around us. At the same time, I'm also talking about a broken sociology, based on nothing but old stupidity. Just because you think drudging for a living is the natural state of human beings, does not mean that the rest of us have to agree with you. Edit

0

mechanicalcontrols t1_j8zihnu wrote

Do you honestly believe the US, as an example, will willingly give up its sovereignty within its borders in 40 years? They currently have plans to fly the B-52 bomber for half that window.

What about China? Is the CCP going to relinquish power just for your world government idea?

1

PandaEven3982 t1_j8zm8vs wrote

Not what I said. i said it will take 40 years from whenever we start Willingly, no not yet. But in 5 10 years when we start diieing back from global warming, as China and USA have huge demographics problems, yeah, it starts becoming feasible. Eventually it gets bad enough, we either war ot drown. Humans may start becoming reasonable.

Yah, I think all the short term thinking is coming due soon now. :-) The next let them eat cake moment approaches, and then yup, we might be ready to cooperate.

0

mechanicalcontrols t1_j8zqaol wrote

I think it's more likely climate change plunges us into a third world war instead of a sunshine and rainbows world wide mutual aid commune but okay.

1

PandaEven3982 t1_j8zsxrt wrote

And right after the war, maybe we grow up. That's my hope. I don't think the war gets avoided unless we start drowning first. After either, we move forward.

1