Does Light Lag Guarantee that Communism can Never Happen? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Workers of the world, unite! Then argue about Trotsky and Stalin for all eternity...
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14986802
@Thomasmariel

It is held by communists that communism can't happen until every last trace of capitalism is purged from existence. Thus it is believed that a totalitarian world government is a necessary precursor to the coming of communism, in order to ensure that there is not one human being free to act independently enough to choose capitalism.

This in itself is unlikely enough given that in all of human history there has never been a single world encompassing government let alone a government doing so whilst also maintaining complete totalitarianism. However it gets worse, infinitely worse, because this world is not the only world and homo sapiens is already on the cusp of colonising the vastness beyond earth. We already have all the science we need, all that remains is for the technology to improve just a little bit to lower the costs of escaping the gravity well of earth to hit the tipping point where colonisation of our solar system can begin in earnest.

Once people are living beyond earth the whole universe becomes open to us and the universe is far too vast to bring under a single totalitarian state and light lag guarantees that can never happen. Governance requires communications and under known science communications can never beat the speed of light. Thus two way communications between even the very nearest stars will have years long lag time. Rising to hundreds of thousands of years just for our galaxy the Milky Way and way beyond millions of millions of years for inter-galactic communication.

Given that the conditions for colonisation beyond earth is almost complete but a project to impose a single globe spanning totalitarian state is not even 1% complete it is virtually guaranteed that the former will happen before the latter and once the former happens the latter can never happen.
#14986835
SolarCross wrote:@Thomasmariel
This in itself is unlikely enough given that in all of human history there has never been a single world encompassing government


That's because past hegemons lacked, among other things, sufficient technology to make it possible. In this century and afterwards it'll be different.

let alone a government doing so whilst also maintaining complete totalitarianism. However it gets worse, infinitely worse, because this world is not the only world and homo sapiens is already on the cusp of colonising the vastness beyond earth.


No, probably not for some time, because of the great difficulty of making other worlds in our solar system habitable.

Once people are living beyond earth the whole universe becomes open to us


Don't bet on it. It's naive to think we're the only intelligent spacefaring species. Others could be far older and more advanced. One book, btw (The Alien Plan for Earth) says ET already dominates our "neck of the woods" and history is unfolding according to his plan.


Given that the conditions for colonisation beyond earth is almost complete but a project to impose a single globe spanning totalitarian state is not even 1% complete it is virtually guaranteed that the former will happen before the latter and once the former happens the latter can never happen.


A World Government must happen before there is real progress in space. Nations can't be expected to turn the bulk of their attention to space while at each other's throats here. A WG would mean much reduced defense spending-- after it is consolidated--which would be vital for major advances in space.
By the way, while a WG must be authoritarian to accomplish much on earth and in space, I don't think it'll be communist, at least not "officially." I do think a future regime/WG will control the means of production but i don't think
it'll be egalitarian in concept or favor the proletariat.
#14986837
starman2003 wrote:That's because past hegemons lacked, among other things, sufficient technology to make it possible. In this century and afterwards it'll be different.

The problem isn't technology the problem for world government is human diversity and willfulness.

starman2003 wrote:No, probably not for some time, because of the great difficulty of making other worlds in our solar system habitable.

You should look into o'neil cylinders, ring worlds and dyson swarms. There is no need to make other worlds habitable when you can make completely artificial habitats which can be made to suit human physiology perfectly and carry far more people than even hundreds of earths. The other planets in our solar system will be mostly useful for raw materials.

starman2003 wrote:Don't bet on it. It's naive to think we're the only intelligent spacefaring species.

As a matter of fact the most plausible solutions to the fermi paradox are that space faring life is extremely rare. There is plenty (massive understatement) of available real estate up there.

starman2003 wrote:A World Government must happen before there is real progress in space. Nations can't be expected to turn the bulk of their attention to space while at each other's throats here. A WG would mean much reduced defense spending-- after it is consolidated--which would be vital for major advances in space.
By the way, while a WG must be authoritarian to accomplish much on earth and in space, I don't think it'll be communist, at least not "officially." I do think a future regime/WG will control the means of production but i don't think
it'll be egalitarian in concept or favor the proletariat.

Private enterprise is where it is at. gov, world-encompassing or not, is irrelevant.
#14986853
SolarCross wrote:It is held by communists that communism can't happen until every last trace of capitalism is purged from existence. Thus it is believed that a totalitarian world government is a necessary precursor to the coming of communism, in order to ensure that there is not one human being free to act independently enough to choose capitalism.


This is incorrect.

This in itself is unlikely enough given that in all of human history there has never been a single world encompassing government let alone a government doing so whilst also maintaining complete totalitarianism. However it gets worse, infinitely worse, because this world is not the only world and homo sapiens is already on the cusp of colonising the vastness beyond earth. We already have all the science we need, all that remains is for the technology to improve just a little bit to lower the costs of escaping the gravity well of earth to hit the tipping point where colonisation of our solar system can begin in earnest.

Once people are living beyond earth the whole universe becomes open to us and the universe is far too vast to bring under a single totalitarian state and light lag guarantees that can never happen. Governance requires communications and under known science communications can never beat the speed of light. Thus two way communications between even the very nearest stars will have years long lag time. Rising to hundreds of thousands of years just for our galaxy the Milky Way and way beyond millions of millions of years for inter-galactic communication.

Given that the conditions for colonisation beyond earth is almost complete but a project to impose a single globe spanning totalitarian state is not even 1% complete it is virtually guaranteed that the former will happen before the latter and once the former happens the latter can never happen.


I would love it if all the capitalists left for the stars.
#14986857
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is incorrect.

How so?

Pants-of-dog wrote:I would love it if all the capitalists left for the stars.

Well odds are it will be happening en masse this century, the science is there and the technology is swiftly progressing. Why the hate though? I just don't understand it.
#14986860
SolarCross wrote:How so?


Not all communists beleive what you claim they do.

Well odds are it will be happening en masse this century, the science is there and the technology is swiftly progressing. Why the hate though? I just don't understand it.


Who said anything about hate?

I am merely looking forward to cleaning up the mess. Like cleaning up after toddlers, it is a lot faster and easier when the toddlers are not around creating more mess faster than you can clean it.
#14986864
Pants-of-dog wrote:I would love it if all the capitalists left for the stars.

How do you define a Capitalist? How much capital does say a United States citizen have to have to be defined as a capitalist? Steve Jobs presumably was not a Capitalist at birth but was a Capitalist at death. At what point in his life did he become unwanted vermin, that should be cleansed from the planet?
#14986976
SolarCross wrote:The problem isn't technology the problem for world government is human diversity and willfulness.


The Roman Empire encompassed many diverse peoples, some of whom fought very hard to preserve or regain their independence (usually without success). But because of poor technology just annexing Mesopotamia made their lines of communication too long


You should look into o'neil cylinders, ring worlds and dyson swarms. There is no need to make other worlds habitable when you can make completely artificial habitats which can be made to suit human physiology perfectly and carry far more people than even hundreds of earths. The other planets in our solar system will be mostly useful for raw materials.


I doubt many people would want to live in such structures, at least not for long


As a matter of fact the most plausible solutions to the fermi paradox are that space faring life is extremely rare.


Sagan once estimated a single intelligent species could colonize the galaxy in a billion years--even assuming no way to go faster than light. The multitude of known exoplanets, and the incomparably greater # that exist, makes ET highly probable. I think UFOs are the answer to "the fermi paradox."

Private enterprise is where it is at. gov, world-encompassing or not, is irrelevant.


I doubt it. The government role has been vastly larger. Space is extremely expensive and while it may prove economically renumerative in the long run, only governments can marshall adequate resources for a real effort.
#14987038
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Ferdinand Drucker
SolarCross wrote:@ThomasmarielIt is held by communists that communism can't happen until every last trace of capitalism is purged from existence. Thus it is believed that a totalitarian world government is a necessary precursor to the coming of communism, in order to ensure that there is not one human being free to act independently enough to choose capitalism.
A totalitarian world government, namely a Technocracy, is being created today. There's no guarantee that communism will be implemented. Capitalism as a noospheric operating system is responsible for great technological development. Socialism and communism missed the boat, humanity is rapidly entering a stage of civilization that has given up collective sovereignty to data/information processors. Advances in technology inevitably lead to more control and less personal autonomy. This can be summed up by the adage- “you can't manage what you can't measure.” The very nature of scientific development is to quantify physical systems so we can better manage phenomena.

Programming (the modification of perception) is as old as human language (oral and written) and perhaps as old as the human experience (a moment in the Ouroboros endo-exo-vibration when humanity learned how to adapt to things from the natural environment through trial and error and mimesis). Wild human behavior has been hunted by communicative survival strategies or ethos-programs for centuries. I'm not sure how human thought compiles or projects its potential for amalgamous concentrations of synchronous perceptions, but it is certainly a thing to be studied or least considered when we analyze the activities (and perhaps functions) of human consciousness. Nevertheless, for better or worse, It has been the subliminal goal (unspoken creed) of the tribe and modern society to modify the individual for the pursuit of group-oriented POWER. The nature of power dynamics depend on the circulation and diffusion of energy systems. These energy systems are made up of raw materials/components which have been refined by the human capacity for cognitive-physiological pattern recognition and used to reshape our experience of reality and the expression of human organization (milieu). All technologies have played a role in the reshaping of human organization. From the Promethean flame to electric circuitry (and everything in-between, stone-bronze-iron-steel, reinterpreted input/output signals), energy systems have rewired societal nervous systems (how a group behaves or communicates collectively). A more recent (r)evolution occurred when Norbert Wiener established the field of cybernetics. A marriage of electronic processors and the great triumph of the industrial era mindset or compartmentalization of thought and action (behavior), gave rise to the cybernetic communication (feedback)loop. This technological loop is a selective augmentation that found a way to piggyback the figure-ground interplay of the mind-matter interface (the resonant interval of human perception).



Specifically, the information age is applied control theory. Integrated and militaristic computer networks have invaded and occupied nearly all aspects of intelligent systems information. The doctrine of "full-spectrum dominance of the human domain condition," sums up technocratic policy. The goal is to technologically manipulate and guide all living information systems. In effect it's a civilized gene-washing operation (because natural selection involves adaptation and energetic trade-offs) unfolding under the guide of conventional progress. Remember, the motion of self-propagating energies and their morphological forms or physical bodies give rise to the experience of spacetime in relation to an omnidirectional sensation. The omnidirectionality of self-referential sensation or experience is merely an information bias deduced through the vorticies of sensory signals that are being filtered by gentic-noospheric-chain-memories which can be found in all species. All phenomena revolve. Time is a modifier shaped by the always changing or shifting energies of the universe as IT enfolds the unfolding appearance of an inter-causal evolution called LIFE. While a metaphysical monad remains cosmologically concentric, an individual aspect of it would be poly-centric, creating infinite potential for new forms (variations) to self-propagate. Of course, there are philosophical quibbles to be had-- mostly on the nature of consciousness and free-will. The idea is to control or at least manage the self-propagating nature of consciousness.

In short (if your attention span has been crippled by technotronic stimuli), Cybernetic systems hijack or intercept the information or light (for the case of this thread, because light is information) as it travels from the event to the mind. Everything you experience has already happened, given the way light travels, and cybernetic systems wish to anticipate the future by intercepting the present and managing the past.

This in itself is unlikely enough given that in all of human history there has never been a single world encompassing government let alone a government doing so whilst also maintaining complete totalitarianism. However it gets worse, infinitely worse, because this world is not the only world and homo sapiens is already on the cusp of colonising the vastness beyond earth. We already have all the science we need, all that remains is for the technology to improve just a little bit to lower the costs of escaping the gravity well of earth to hit the tipping point where colonisation of our solar system can begin in earnest.
The only thing that will accelerate colonization is an impending extinction level event on Earth.

Once people are living beyond earth the whole universe becomes open to us and the universe is far too vast to bring under a single totalitarian state and light lag guarantees that can never happen. Governance requires communications and under known science communications can never beat the speed of light. Thus two way communications between even the very nearest stars will have years long lag time. Rising to hundreds of thousands of years just for our galaxy the Milky Way and way beyond millions of millions of years for inter-galactic communication.
Which is fine, the Technocracy doesn't need to control outliers. It's not a necessity for majority control. Furthermore, outliers will need to be self-sufficient (perhaps widely available tech will provide sustainability?). If not, an "empire" can besiege rebel outposts.

Given that the conditions for colonisation beyond earth is almost complete but a project to impose a single globe spanning totalitarian state is not even 1% complete it is virtually guaranteed that the former will happen before the latter and once the former happens the latter can never happen.
This is incorrect. We have more satellite installations orbiting Earth than any other planet. Private corporations use cybernetics to compete. Eventually, all private corporations will behave the same way in order to remain competitive. This endless power struggle will lead to scientific totalitarianism.

Here is a commercial from 2019:

#14987183
starman2003 wrote:The Roman Empire encompassed many diverse peoples, some of whom fought very hard to preserve or regain their independence (usually without success). But because of poor technology just annexing Mesopotamia made their lines of communication too long

The problem of communications gets worse though as you expand out of earth which is the point of my OP. Even in ancient times near fast as light communications are possible using smoke signals, burning pyre beacons etc.

Image

But as our polities expand beyond earth the communication lines will get even longer without getting any faster than the fastest of ancient communications....

It is in the gaps, the lag, that human diversity and willfulness will get its chance.

starman2003 wrote:I doubt many people would want to live in such structures, at least not for long

People probably said the same thing about living in skyscrapers but yet... As fully artificial environments they can be better than earth in terms of hability. They will in fact be the preferred living spaces over any planetary residences including earth itself.

starman2003 wrote:Sagan once estimated a single intelligent species could colonize the galaxy in a billion years--even assuming no way to go faster than light. The multitude of known exoplanets, and the incomparably greater # that exist, makes ET highly probable. I think UFOs are the answer to "the fermi paradox."

Given the age of the universe, the beyond huge quantity of potentially life spawning real estate and the relative short colonisation period is exactly what gives rise to the fermi paradox because, ufos aside, when we look up to the heavens we see nothing but wilderness. The "they are here already" solution which you like however is a weak solution because while there is lots of evidence of ufos existing (people see them all the time) there is still a vast wilderness in heavens and there shouldn't be. No dyson swarms, no ring worlds, no radio beacons, no star lifting, no interstellar hyperlanes.. nothing except tabby's star. Tabby's star is the only mildly suspicious thing that we can see in the vast universe.

It doesn't even matter to my proposition; we may have little, no, or lots of competition for the heavenly real estate but yet it remains that light lag will defeat totalitarian central government regardless.

starman2003 wrote:I doubt it. The government role has been vastly larger. Space is extremely expensive and while it may prove economically renumerative in the long run, only governments can marshall adequate resources for a real effort.


Quantity of resources are not the sole province of governments, that much depends on the tax take, if govs take little then the "adequate resources" will be present in the private sector, if govs take lots then it will be in the public sector. The tax take is variable and arbitrary and can go either way. What governments can do which private sector cannot do so well is waste resources with impunity but I say to you this is not a sustainable advantage and that is the real reason we never went back the moon. When private enterprise goes to the moon they will not spend billions of dollars only to come back with just a small bag of rocks and some holiday snaps they will make vast industries producing gigatons of useful resources worth very much more than what it cost to get. What private enterprise can do which government cannot do well is produce outputs more valuable than the inputs and you need this to make space colonisation a self-reinforcing feedback loop.
#14987219
SolarCross wrote:But as our polities expand beyond earth the communication lines will get even longer without getting any faster than the fastest of ancient communications....

It is in the gaps, the lag, that human diversity and willfulness will get its chance.


We can't be at all sure because we don't know what technologies will be in use in a century or a millennium. Travel and communication might be near instantaneous via wormhole or something.


People probably said the same thing about living in skyscrapers but yet... As fully artificial environments they can be better than earth in terms of hability. They will in fact be the preferred living spaces over any planetary residences including earth itself.


There's a big difference between a skyscraper and a space station. A person can regularly go outside of the skyscraper and get far and wide on his own before returning instead of being cooped up in a rather limited area. Or having to wear a spacesuit every time he leaves...


Given the age of the universe, the beyond huge quantity of potentially life spawning real estate and the relative short colonisation period is exactly what gives rise to the fermi paradox because, ufos aside, when we look up to the heavens we see nothing but wilderness. The "they are here already" solution which you like however is a weak solution because while there is lots of evidence of ufos existing (people see them all the time) there is still a vast wilderness in heavens and there shouldn't be. No dyson swarms, no ring worlds, no radio beacons, no star lifting, no interstellar hyperlanes.. nothing except tabby's star. Tabby's star is the only mildly suspicious thing that we can see in the vast universe.


But that could be due to our limited ability to detect evidence for remote technology. But I once saw a study reporting considerable mid level IR(?) in a small percentage of galaxies, which can be taken as evidence for widespread colonization in them.

It doesn't even matter to my proposition; we may have little, no, or lots of competition for the heavenly real estate but yet it remains that light lag will defeat totalitarian central government regardless.


Even if that were true, totalitarian central government may have ample other means to deal with the potential threat, like engineering beings to be obedient as well as able.

Quantity of resources are not the sole province of governments, that much depends on the tax take, if govs take little then the "adequate resources" will be present in the private sector, if govs take lots then it will be in the public sector. The tax take is variable and arbitrary and can go either way.


Even in democracies, the general trend has been for more activist government.

What governments can do which private sector cannot do so well is waste resources with impunity but I say to you this is not a sustainable advantage and that is the real reason we never went back the moon.


Na, the US never went back to the moon after '72 because there was insufficient, if any, public support for it. The masses wanted their tax money to benefit them more directly and immediately, in the form of social programs, not spent on science or some costly longterm investment. The root of the problem was democracy and it won't be a problem for a future authoritarian system.
Generally NASA has been remarkably efficient. Look how Spirit and Curiosity long outlived their expected mission lifetimes. Government can be very wasteful of course but a lot of that waste stems from the priorities of the masses, imposed on policymakers.
The present capitalist, consumer oriented system is horrendously wasteful. Not so long ago, Americans spent over $80 billion on tobacco alone, or over FOUR TIMES what was spent on space.

When private enterprise goes to the moon they will not spend billions of dollars only to come back with just a small bag of rocks and some holiday snaps they will make vast industries producing gigatons of useful resources worth very much more than what it cost to get. What private enterprise can do which government cannot do well is produce outputs more valuable than the inputs and you need this to make space colonisation a self-reinforcing feedback loop.


I just don't buy it. Virtually all, if not all, progress in space has been the work of government not private enterprise. Or it was government that channeled adequate resources into this field, not corporations.
A capitalist, democratic system by its very nature is ill-suited to conquer space. Capitalism is about self aggrandizement. The idea is to enrich oneself, not serve some higher purpose. Of course capitalism can achieve a lot, but despite the potential of "gigatons of useful resources" I've yet to see corporations making the necessary vast investment in space. Given the vital role of government all along, it'll almost certainly have to provide the impetus and resources in the future as well--especially if a central gov't is backed by the means of the whole Earth.
#14987235
starman2003 wrote:We can't be at all sure because we don't know what technologies will be in use in a century or a millennium. Travel and communication might be near instantaneous via wormhole or something.

Yes all our spaceships could be powered by handwavium or even magic.

starman2003 wrote:There's a big difference between a skyscraper and a space station. A person can regularly go outside of the skyscraper and get far and wide on his own before returning instead of being cooped up in a rather limited area. Or having to wear a spacesuit every time he leaves...

O'neil cylinders are not small and they can be linked up. Even when not linked up hopping into a shuttle to get to another one is hardly more onerous than getting in a car. You might as well give up this point. There are no perfect solutions because physical reality has physical limits. Even earth, on which we spent all our evolutionary history adapting to it, is far from ideal when so much of its surface is desert, ocean, tundra and icescape. If you don't like space stations then you will have to stay home, because the reality is that space colonisation and even terraforming can't be done without them.

Image

starman2003 wrote:But that could be due to our limited ability to detect evidence for remote technology. But I once saw a study reporting considerable mid level IR(?) in a small percentage of galaxies, which can be taken as evidence for widespread colonization in them.

Perhaps but our own galaxy is very clearly wild still.

starman2003 wrote:Even if that were true, totalitarian central government may have ample other means to deal with the potential threat, like engineering beings to be obedient as well as able.

Wishful thinking on your part, you are practically indulging in magical thinking. Which begs the question why? It should be a relief to know that totalitarianism is not viable. The one thing that the 20th century taught us is that totalitarianism is stupid and shit.

starman2003 wrote:Even in democracies, the general trend has been for more activist government.

The pendulum swings back and forth on that one.

starman2003 wrote:Na, the US never went back to the moon after '72 because there was insufficient, if any, public support for it. The masses wanted their tax money to benefit them more directly and immediately, in the form of social programs, not spent on science or some costly longterm investment. The root of the problem was democracy and it won't be a problem for a future authoritarian system.
Generally NASA has been remarkably efficient. Look how Spirit and Curiosity long outlived their expected mission lifetimes. Government can be very wasteful of course but a lot of that waste stems from the priorities of the masses, imposed on policymakers.

The lack of public support is exactly because the missions were not producing outputs more valuable than the inputs. They went all that way and just came back with a little bag of rocks and some holiday snaps, then they did it again and again and again. The first time was a wow because no one had done it before but every subsequent mission was pointless.

starman2003 wrote:The present capitalist, consumer oriented system is horrendously wasteful. Not so long ago, Americans spent over $80 billion on tobacco alone, or over FOUR TIMES what was spent on space.

Government officials smoke too, and drink booze and have every other human foible and vice. Capitalism is all about giving people what they want, and what people want after survival and family and ambition is pleasure. Your complaint is with human nature not capitalism. In the USSR they had no food to eat but somehow found resources to get smashed on vodka and meth still.

starman2003 wrote:I just don't buy it. Virtually all, if not all, progress in space has been the work of government not private enterprise. Or it was government that channeled adequate resources into this field, not corporations.

It is early days yet. If the past will be like the future then we will be stuck with pointless billion dollar trips to get small bags of rocks and holiday snaps and space colonisation will go nowhere. If space colonisation is to become a self-reinforcing feedback loop then it will have to be the private sector doing the bulk of the work. The 20th century space race was in hindsight premature and mostly pointless and this is why those subject to market discipline did not touch it. In the 21st century the technology will approach the point where it is possible to do missions which produce outputs more valuable than the inputs and then those subject to market discipline will take over and produce the real space race on a scale you can't even begin to imagine. And we should hope that will be so because left to government alone it will not happen.

starman2003 wrote:A capitalist, democratic system by its very nature is ill-suited to conquer space. Capitalism is about self aggrandizement. The idea is to enrich oneself, not serve some higher purpose. Of course capitalism can achieve a lot, but despite the potential of "gigatons of useful resources" I've yet to see corporations making the necessary vast investment in space. Given the vital role of government all along, it'll almost certainly have to provide the impetus and resources in the future as well--especially if a central gov't is backed by the means of the whole Earth.

You sound as crazily anti-human as any commie. I don't wish to talk to you any further, you don't belong in civilised society.
#14987239
People watch Star Trek and think colonisation of space is within human possibility. Fools. It isn't due to human limitations.

Our bodies are designed for Earths current environment... and that is it. At best we might be able to physically explore space, but even that will be expensive where no doubt the resources would have been better spent on Earth if you are considering the capitalist interests over that of the collective as you do in this thread.

For example I read the Moon is lucrative in mineral resources. If we are to ever havest our celestial neighbour I suspect it will be cheaper, safer and more lucrative to use rovers for example.

As for Communism, it is an economic solution to a social environment that harbors such thinking. It isn't limited to the destruction of Capitalism as it can be achieved by cooperation within the social framework and not a global framework. So whether Communism can ever be achieved, the importance of interstellar travel or solar system colonisation will never be a factor in its success. Although I would suggest if we were all to reside on The Enterprise, a system of Communism is more likely to exist within the space craft rather than the objective of profit due to how society would have to function within the limitations of space.
#14987247
B0ycey wrote:People watch Star Trek and think colonisation of space is within human possibility. Fools. It isn't due to human limitations.

Star Trek is a bag of crap but colonisation is possible although you need to be more familiar with the particular science and engineering proposals to see it. If you are not aware of any of this material you don't really have anything to say worth hearing.

B0ycey wrote:Our bodies are designed for Earths current environment... and that is it.

So you are a creationist? Us darwinists would say evolved not designed. You are wrong either way because we can adapt the environment to fit our physiology, this is terraforming and making artificial habitats and we can also adapt our physiology to fit the environment, this is called bioforming and transhumanism. We are limited by the laws of nature but the laws of nature do not prohibit us from changing either the environment or ourselves and arguably we have already been doing both for as long as all of human history and longer still. This is just taking what we have already been doing to the next level.

B0ycey wrote:At best we might be able to physically explore space, but even that will be expensive where no doubt the resources would have been better spent on Earth if you are considering the capitalist interests over that of the collective as you do in this thread.

Oh great another braindead commie. Is there some secret government facility breeding you all out of cloning vats to troll the internet?

B0ycey wrote:For example I read the Moon is lucrative in mineral resources. If we are to ever havest our celestial neighbour I suspect it will be cheaper, safer and more lucrative to use rovers for example.

Automation will be invaluable for all spacebound endeavors but it is automation itself that will make human colonisation viable so it is not one or the other but the one enabling the other. Sorry to disappoint the totalitarians but earth will not be your gulag from which no one can escape.

B0ycey wrote:As for Communism, it is an economic solution to a social environment that harbors such thinking. It isn't limited to the destruction of Capitalism as it can be achieved by cooperation within the social framework and not a global framework. So whether Communism can ever be achieved, the importance of interstellar travel or solar system colonisation will never be a factor in its success. Although I would suggest if we were all to reside on The Enterprise, a system of Communism is more likely to exist within the space craft rather than the objective of profit due to how society would have to function within the limitations of space.


Why do you want to make a loss?
#14987257
SolarCross wrote:Star Trek is a bag of crap but colonisation is possible although you need to be more familiar with the particular science and engineering proposals to see it. If you are not aware of any of this material you don't really have anything to say worth hearing.


I have read a few times on here about artificial gravity and whatnot, but the reality is the only way humans will ever be sustainable in space is to recreate the exact same conditions in space as you have on Earth. Not only is that a technological headache, it is also damn expensive even if the technology was invented - which I doubt.

Also it needs to be said that whilst humans remain a blubbering mess after spending a few months on The ISS and the best we have in terms of sustainable affordable fuel is nuclear - let alone farming and gardening food is space seems impossible in terms of productivity, sorry you will need to keep smoking your bong for your Interstellar wet dream being possible whilst the need for profit is paramount to human advancement and progression.

So you are a creationist? Us darwinists would say evolved not designed. You are wrong either way because we can adapt the environment to fit our physiology, this is terraforming and making artificial habitats and we can also adapt our physiology to fit the environment, this is called bioforming and transhumanism. We are limited by the laws of nature but the laws of nature do not prohibit us from changing either the environment or ourselves and arguably we have already been doing both for as long as all of human history and longer still. This is just taking what we have already been doing to the next level.


From the mouth of a Christian convert a few months ago. Didn't you write a thread about how much you were sucking off God's cock whilst binge reading and palming one off to VSs creationist BS?

Not that it matters, the human body is designed to live on Earth. Whether they evolved to that design or whether it was created by a diety is for another thread altogether. Although just because we have formed the Noosphere through consciousness and perhaps are playing God (pun intended) by creating our own environment, doesn't prevent the fact that all this has only been executed on Earth and not Space. The inhabitants of The ISS cannot survive without being given supplies from Earth and would die if not conditioned to live there first.

Automation will be invaluable for all spacebound endeavors but it is automation itself that will make human colonisation viable so it is not one or the other but the one enabling the other. Sorry to disappoint the totalitarians but earth will not be your gulag from which no one can escape.


We went to the Moon in the 60s/70s and not since. Why? Because there is nothing humans can do in space that isn't both cheaper and more efficient to be done than by robots there. Even the ISS space station is questionable and more a vanity project than has any real usefulness in terms of what we can learn about space. So colonisation of the Earth will never be profitable under Capitalism. If and it is a big if, we were to ever colonize space it will be due to global cooperation. And guess whose economic model is based on universal cooperation? Marx or Smith?

Why do you want to make a loss?


Why do you make a gain? You cannot make a loss under Communism by the fact there is no profit. What you take from society is determined by what you need and you supply society in accordance to the ability you can offer in return. And that economic solution is more likely to occur on a spacecraft lightyears from Earth than a captain making you pay taxes and rent for your quarters and Capitalists profit by the means of production within the spacecraft.
#14987260
B0ycey wrote:I have read a few times on here about artificial gravity and whatnot, but the reality is the only way humans will ever be sustainable in space is to recreate the exact same conditions in space as you have on Earth. Not only is that a technological headache, it is also damn expensive even if the technology was invented - which I doubt.

Also it needs to be said that whilst humans remain a blubbering mess after spending a few months on The ISS and the best we have in terms of sustainable affordable fuel is nuclear - let alone farming and gardening food is space seems impossible in terms of productivity, sorry you will need to keep smoking your bong for your Interstellar wet dream being possible whilst the need for profit is paramount to human advancement and progression.

You don't know anything on this subject. Your confidence in your ignorance is misplaced.

B0ycey wrote:From the mouth of a Christian convert a few months ago. Didn't you write a thread about how much you were sucking off God's cock whilst binge reading and palming one off to VSs creationist BS?

You imagined that.

B0ycey wrote:Not that it matters, the human body is designed to live on Earth. Whether they evolved to that design or whether it was created by a diety is for another thread altogether. Although just because we have formed the Noosphere through consciousness and perhaps are playing God (pun intended) by creating our own environment, doesn't prevent the fact that all this has only been executed on Earth and not Space. The inhabitants of The ISS cannot survive without being given supplies from Earth and would die if not conditioned to live there first.

The ISS is tiny, future habitats will be vastly larger and have earth-like gravity mimicked through centrifugal forces. There are far more material and energy resources beyond earth than on it, once we can traverse the gravity well economically production of finished goods including food beyond earth will explode. It will not be long before there is more being produced beyond earth than on it.

B0ycey wrote:We went to the Moon in the 60s/70s and not since. Why? Because there is nothing humans can do in space that isn't both cheaper and more efficient to be done than by robots there. Even the ISS space station is questionable and more a vanity project than has any real usefulness in terms of what we can learn about space.

The main reason is an economical way into space has not yet been implemented. There are feasible solutions on the horizon however.


B0ycey wrote:So colonisation of the Earth will never be profitable under Capitalism. If and it is a big if, we were to ever colonize space it will be due to global cooperation. And guess whose economic model is based on universal cooperation? Marx or Smith?

Smith obviously. Commies are a bunch of mass murdering slavers as history has shown. The market is a massively parallel cooperation engine.

B0ycey wrote:Why do you make a gain? You cannot make a loss under Communism by the fact there is no profit. What you take from society is determined by what you need and you supply society in accordance to the ability you can offer in return. And that economic solution is more likely to occur on a spacecraft lightyears from Earth than a captain making you pay taxes and rent for your quarters and Capitalists profit by the means of production within the spacecraft.

If you don't make a profit you are making a loss. The one is the flip side of the other. Basically you are proud to be a loser.
#14987261
SolarCross wrote:You don't know anything on this subject. Your confidence in your ignorance is misplaced.


Nice Rebuttal - NOT!!

How about providing evidence for your claims rather then just saying my comments are misplaced. Show me the technological advancements and science I am missing. Because I know certain things. I won't claim to know everything - although I definately know the limitations of the Human body and how fragile life is to environmental change. And it is you who thinks this can be overcome somehow. So why hasn't it happened yet if it is so damn easy?

You imagined that.


Did I? Did I fuck. Or did you call Evolutionists heathens. Definately the second one.

The ISS is tiny, future habitats will be vastly larger and have earth-like gravity mimicked through centrifugal forces. There are far more material and energy resources beyond earth than on it, once we can traverse the gravity well economically production of finished goods including food beyond earth will explode. It will not be long before there is more being produced beyond earth than on it.


You make it sound like this is easy. How about I say time travel will be possible without providing evidence because Time is relative. Words are just that. Although it needs to be said that the ISS is the biggest, most expensive, cooperative, challenging program yet. And it is shit for sustaining life. And you think the blubbering mass of humans can survive on Wall-E ships. It is a dream. Human limitations are the biggest factor in space exploration. And the fact you think technogical acheviements can counter these limitations and colonise the galaxy is stuff for Star Trek fans. Not the Creationist butt sniffers.

The main reason is an economical way into space has not yet been implemented. There are feasible solutions on the horizon however.


God on. Tell me what? China are the closest at profiting from Space and they are not looking at human living in space away from the Earths lifeline. Humans require the Earth in some form to survive even under any space plan.

Smith obviously. Commies are a bunch of mass murdering slavers as history has shown. The market is a massively parallel cooperation engine.


So you think capitalism will be prevalent in Wall-E ships. Whatever!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

If you don't make a profit you are making a loss. The one is the flip side of the other. Basically you are proud to be a loser.


:eh:

Get it right. You can only make a profit if something makes a loss. Capitalism is not a zero sum game. Not everyone can profit. So if you have an economic system that does not have profit you also have an economic system that cannot make a loss.

There is no profit if everyone owns the means of production. Perhaps understand what both Capitalism and Communism are before thinking two squirrels that trade nuts are Capitalists like you have done in another thread due to your ignorance.

#Tradeisnotcapitalism
#14987265
B0ycey wrote:Nice Rebuttal - NOT!!

How about providing evidence for your claims rather then just saying my comments are misplaced. Show me the technological advancements and science I am missing. Because I know certain things. I won't claim to know everything - although I definately know the limitations of the Human body and how fragile life is to environmental change. And it is you who thinks this can be overcome somehow. So why hasn't it happened yet if it is so damn easy?

There was nothing to rebutt, I just pointed out the obvious that you are talking about a subject on which you have no knowledge. Go research it and then come back to me.

B0ycey wrote:Did I? Did I fuck. Or did you call Evolutionists heathens. Definately the second one.

I don't think you are a reliable witness given your tendency towards delusions.

B0ycey wrote:You make it sound like this is easy. How about I say time travel will be possible without providing evidence because Time is relative. Words are just that. Although it needs to be said that the ISS is the biggest, most expensive, cooperative, challenging program yet. And it is shit for sustaining life. And you think the blubbering mass of humans can survive on Wall-E ships. It is a dream. Human limitations are the biggest factor in space exploration. And the fact you think technogical acheviements can counter these limitations and colonise the galaxy is stuff for Star Trek fans. Not the Creationist butt sniffers.

It won't be easy but it is doable and humans have been doing what you consider to be impossible since forever, none of those things were easy either. Every year that passes we do ever more "impossible" things. A century ago you would be crying that humans can't fly.

Image

B0ycey wrote:God on. Tell me what? China are the closest at profiting from Space and they are not looking at human living in space away from the Earths lifeline. Humans require the Earth in some form to survive even under any space plan.

Not true. Ultimately humans need energy, materials and knowledge, from which all else can be produced, all of which can be produced and obtained beyond earth and without the earth.

B0ycey wrote:So you think capitalism will be prevalent in Wall-E ships. Whatever!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You don't even know what capitalism is.

B0ycey wrote:Get it right. You can only make a profit if something makes a loss. Capitalism is not a zero sum game. Not everyone can profit. So if you have an economic system that does not have profit you also have an economic system that cannot make a loss.

There is no profit if everyone owns the means of production. Perhaps understand what both Capitalism and Communism are before thinking two squirrels that trade nuts are Capitalists like you have done in another thread due to your ignorance.

#Tradeisnotcapitalism


This is the babbling of the insane, it is not even worth addressing. Good luck trying to make a loss on purpose, see where it gets you.
Last edited by SolarCross on 10 Feb 2019 20:49, edited 1 time in total.
#14987267
SolarCross wrote:There was nothing to rebutt, I just pointed out the obvious that you are talking about a subject on which you have no knowledge. Go research it and then come back to me.


How about you research it and then come back to me. As I said I know somethings and you know nothing but the shit you have seen on Star Trek. The fact you have come up empty speaks volumes. :lol:

Human limitations are the biggest factor in space exploration. If this wasn't true we would have gone a lot further in space by now.

This is the babbling of the insane, it is not even worth addressing. Good luck trying to make a loss on purpose, see where it gets you.


Ignorance is bliss huh SolarCross. No wonder PoD always pulls down your pants in any intellectual debate.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
#14987268
B0ycey wrote:How about you research it and then come back to me. As I said I know somethings and you know nothing but the shit you have seen on Star Trek. The fact you have come up empty speaks volumes. :lol:

Human limitations are the biggest factor in space exploration. If this wasn't true we would have gone a lot further in space by now.

We have only just begun.

B0ycey wrote:Ignorance is bliss huh SolarCross. No wonder PoD always pulls down your pants in any intellectual debate.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Deluded, as I said.

So, this was the 15 millionth post on PoFo. And[…]

@Hindsite , Jeeeez, what isn't "wonderful&qu[…]

@Stardust , The given diagrams look like an autis[…]

Racism

https://gcs.thesouthafrican.com/2016/[…]