bigbangdangler

We could be beyond it. What hasn’t happened quite yet are things like failing currencies, but it’s entirely possible we are beyond the point of no return. Once the giant ring of investments catches up with itself, the snake eats its own tail, the bottom drops out, and the greatest economic crash the world has ever seen stampedes unfettered through the lives of every person on the planet.

To look at this another way: the government of South Korea has decided to give people the feeling of a strike without actually letting it affect bottom lines in any meaningful way. That is, they have relegated the strike (a key utility of those fighting for workers’ rights) to being a tool used solely to assuage discontent in the short term. Without economic teeth, it cannot be used to enhance the lives of workers, which is ultimately the explicit goal of any strike.

South Korea is of course not alone in reducing or eliminating the rights of its citizens so that corporations continue to profit at their expense.

There are simply a lot fewer people on Lemmy. That’s to be expected.

I will say that the quality of conversation tends to be a bit higher on Lemmy. YMMV though.

I feel a lot less of the hive-mind effect on Lemmy versus Reddit. Not sure why that is.

Aside from scientific research (which can be mostly or entirely done remotely by machines), there is exceedingly little reason to inhabit Mars, or any other planet for that matter.

There are sociopolitical implications of extraterrestrial missions (think: space race), but in terms of human habitation at scale, what would be the point? In science fiction, there is usually a major impetus: the earth is dying, the earth was stolen by aliens, etc etc. In these cases, though, the fiction part handles most of the stuff that would be hardest in real life.

From a practical standpoint, anything that can be done on Mars can be done for mere fractions of the resources here on Earth. At some point, it just comes down to the economics. Even if there were major issues with pollution or resources shifting the planet towards uninhabitability, fixing or mitigating those problems is likely to use orders of magnitude fewer resources than going to Mars. If such problems were beyond fixing, it wouldn’t mean Mars gets cheaper. It would mean humans go extinct.

Now, there are charlatans who will say we absolutely need to inhabit Mars and will give you a barrage of tenuous reasons. Musk comes to mind. Usually this is done to drive investment in companies or technologies which have been nudged into seeming Mars-adjacent, but at the end of the day, they’re just raising funds for regular rich people stuff here on Earth.

That’s funny because I’m not coming to PlayStation.

I guess they just sell less then.

I would have said start betting like Biff Tannen, but that probably will end up changing the timeline “too much”.

But if I can’t die and am immune to disease, I guess I exploit that. Can’t drown so I’ll hop in an ocean and go somewhere. No need for food or lodging. I’ll just wander for the next 100 years and peoplewatch.