Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by ChicagoDave | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

ChicagoDave

1. Anti-gravity

2. Light year capable transport

3. Inertia dampers

4. Mass scale carbon capture technology

5. Robots to prepare space for habitation

6. World recognition to manage resources globally

View on HN

I'm honestly not sure whether 1, 3 or 6 is most likely to be fundamentally impossible.

It’d be fun if they were all possible.

> 4. Mass scale carbon capture technology

one of these is not like the others. direct carbon capture works now with the slight caveat that we would have to build 10x our current power supply in fission plants to power them. coccolithophores are an appealing route in principle, but research into their lifecycle and use for sequestration would be a quotidian pursuit for thousands of labs around the world, given funding.

Gravitational wells are spherical, so this unevenness can be utilized to lift up by pumping energy into higher energy state, at higher orbit.

> 6. World recognition to manage resources globally

Do you mean communism?

Think of the sea and pirate trawlers destroying the seabeds everywhere. We need to manage it.

- Protect the Amazon - Distribute food instead of wasting it - Build more trains, turn roads into park ways and bike paths - Recognize climate change globally before it kills us all

The earth's climate changes naturally over the course of tens of thousands of years. The key for us is to minimally impact it and let it do what it wants.

Now.... We may disagree on letting it go as it goes. Ice ages would overtake a ton of countries in glaciers entirely, so we may agree that that should be stopped? But........ Doing that would be directly trying to challenge the solar system and earth on their natural cycles. There would likely be massive unforeseen repercussions.

Yeah this is the typical response from a denier. Let’s use a true statement to undercut a greater threat to humanity. Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas, yes. But humanity isn’t producing natural levels of it. We’re producing levels the planet has never seen at a speed that, at this point, is more than likely to kill off ocean life, destroying an environmental ecosystem that sustains human life.

So your argument is that the planet will be fine is great, except some of us would like humanity to survive indefinitely. For that, we should do everything we can to protect the planet and it’s current occupants.

The repercussions have been foreseen. We are seeing it happen now, today, and the enemies of humanity/life cling to willful, even joyful, apocalypsm.

Yes, because any form of social organization and collaboration, other than capitalism, must be communism. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

To be fair, any form of human organization that is not commerce-based is heavy on the Faccism scale. It matters very little if it's communist or something else.

But then, there are many ways to organize a society while keeping it commerce-based... Or maybe we manage to finally crack that nut some day and make a post-scarcity society. But on the short term "manage resources globally" heavily implies an anti-humane dictatorship.

So you think the Star Trek universe is impossible.

Yes, because any form of social organization and collaboration, other than capitalism, must be fascism. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hum... I assumed the GP was joking. You don't seem to be.

Try finding at history some place where the society isn't fundamentally organized around commerce or under some heavy kind of authoritarianism.

Then you’d be shocked to learn that Wisconsin had socialist politicians for over a hundred years, creating green spaces, building great infrastructure, public schools and colleges.

Then Scott Walker shredded a bunch of it because socialism is bad.

Rule of law is not derived from commerce and is not fascism. We can agree beyond some threshold and make laws. There's nothing fascist about limiting liberties with laws chosen democratically.

I don't care what it is if it means we destroy fossil fuel production.

Communism is one model of government among many. Do YOU think that intelligent management of global resources requires communism? Is the United nations a commune because the member countries cooperate in some way? Isn't there an area between "independent actors acting selfishly" and "communism"?

I don't think they were implying communism. Which is good, because IME people on this forum can't have honest discussion or apply critical thinking in the vicinity of the subject. They start rhetoric-dumping and posturing and repeating tired arguments as if preventing thoughts about communism is their ticket to heaven. Sprinkle in a few posts positive-to-neutral on Marx to fuel the fire, and that's the recipe.

> Do YOU think that intelligent management of global resources requires communism?

I think a CENTRALISED management of the world's natural resources would require communism.

Decentralised management is what we have now.

That's a bad definition of communism you're working with.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com