Even if so, i keep having a dream that humans are the only species capable of developing spaceflight, because no other species has technology of the level necessary for that. So in a sense, humans might not be the only ones to be able to see the stars but we sure are the only species able to reach them.

damn that’s fascinating

here’s a nice video for you: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zPHLojHUCvk

it shows how most animals move through the world: they can only see the trees and stuff next to them; it takes humans to see the stars.

this is just an absolutely amazing image IMHO

Also in case somebody cares, my definition is that reality is time, space, matter and energy.

Everything that is measurable; everything that is subject of laws and that a lord would possess.

Like, i believe the word “real” literally comes from the root “re-” which means something like king-like (latin “rex”), so it describes everything associated with a worldly leader, which is mostly the possession of land areas and the (measurable) things that are thereon, such as kilograms of wheat produced.

Now that is some quality philosophy shitpost.

I mean nobody in their right fucking mind would expect the Iron Dome to be impenetrable. Maybe the Israelis are so high on their own supply (media propaganda) that they actually believe Iron Dome to be 100% safe but it’s not.

Fundamentally, the question is what does it cost to launch a missile and what does it cost to intercept one? If it costs $10k to launch a missile but $30k to intercept one, then the economics is on the side of the attacker; Meanwhile if it costs $100k to launch a missile but only $30k to intercept, then the economics are on the side of the defender. That’s what you have to look at.

And the issue is that even if Iron Dome would catch most missiles, some still make it through, and what is the cost of that? The damage they do.

The US government fundamentally doesn’t give a crap about your wellbeing. In fact if you die at 56 instead of 76 the government can cheap out of approximately 16 years of paying you a retirement.

What happens when you throw an ant out of the window of a skyscraper? Eh, they do just fine actually. These little creatures are surprisingly resilient.

It’s because when you scale things down, the ratio of mechanical strength to body mass gets much better. That’s why beetles can carry like 10x their own weight and stuff, while humans can’t.

It’s not small, it’s comfy sized.

If these creatures existed, they would rule the Earth.

It will be boring eventually like a toy that you’ve played with too much for most people.

i’d rather have him chicken out than continue a pointless war though

and fall asleep afterwards and get a nasty sunburn?

It’s difficult to describe how much Trump is doing for the climate here.

The economics of space settlements are tricky.

When you open a bakery, who do you sell the bread to? To the people in the city. That’s how you make money.

When you build rockets that can reach Mars, who do you sell to? And for what reason would anybody buy that product?

I believe this is where religion comes in. Ironically, religion (despite its very antique air about it) can aid capitalism to create a narrative around “human destiny is to reach for the stars” and “that was god’s plan for us all along” to nourish public sentiment towards spaceflight. This in turn creates a movement that is independent from short-term return-on-investments. Space settlements don’t have to return value as long as you can convince the public that you’re fulfilling the human destiny to spread throughout the cosmos that way.

well written analysis overall. a few comments though:

No, the capitalists can’t consume the surplus product. This has been considered and it has been proved not to work (eg by Luxemburg). The reason is, that capitalists are in competition with each other and are thus forced to invest in constant capital (machines etc) expanding circulation and making the problem worse. Capitalists who only consume the surplus are outcompeted and cease to be capitalists.

Yes, i agree with this. Capitalists typically don’t actually spend money on consumption themselves so they don’t increase consumption. Relying on capitalists’ consumption alone does not work at all.

One real way that this contradiction is (temporarily) dealt with, is to expand to markets who are not yet fully under the capitalist mode of production (colonialism/imperialism). […] There aren’t many white spots left on the globe though so this “solution” is starting to run into problems.

You are seriously underestimating how important the concept of settlements in outer space / other planets is to capitalists precisely for this reason. Capitalism is well aware that it has to continuously expand just to stay alive itself. And that is why outer space will be settled, whether it appears profitable at first glance or not. The state will literally just throw money in the form of subsidies at the problem until it happens. Much better than throwing money at the military, because it causes less public outrage, so it is politically “cheaper” because it costs you fewer votes. Consider that war is not profitable at first glance either, because it doesn’t create stuff, only destroys stuff. So it is not economically cheap but rather expensive and pointless; and yet we can already observe today that it still happens just to keep capitalism alive as a whole. You have even written this in your own comment! So it is not absurd to assume that the state will be willing to throw the same amount of money on outer space settlements just to keep capitalism running as a whole.

I believe that the “falling rate of profit” is actually a real phenomenon, but it is not only caused by workers not being able to afford stuff.

It’s also partially caused by other companies learning to produce the same products, which drives up competition, reduces monopolies and therefore reduces profits. Like consider medicine.

When you develop a new medicine, the first 20 years you have a patent right and therefore nobody else can produce the stuff. So you can set arbitrary prices and as long as people pay for it, you profit. But after your patent runs out, every company can produce it, which leads to cheap generica, and the rate of profit reduces significantly.

yeah well it’s all about who carries the risks i’d say. i think that if you’re willing to take the risk yourself, you should be allowed to install a banking app on any device. just beware the risk, and you need to be warned about those.

interesting.

yeah that makes sense actually