Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
Web of links
So... We manage to master space travel. We manage to master interstellar travel. We eventually find a planet with suitable environment for sustaining our species. And we just overlook it.
Can someone explain me the reasoning behind this?
Sci-fi to the side, there are more minerals available - readily - on asteroids and barren planets than anywhere else. Why go hopping around looking for habitable planets, to the reason of 1 out of who knows how many, to then strip mine it?
Literally Satisfactory
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.
- Jack Handey
Holy shit! Avatar is about capitalism? How did I miss that?! I better rewatch it and see if it's a recurring theme.
What do you mean? Communists didn't mine minerals and didn't exploit indigenous people? Lol..
I dont get it either. This is not about capitalism, this is about human nature of mindless expansion and exploitation...
"It's human nature," okay bud and what about all the groups in history that prove otherwise? You're just washing history with capitalist mindsets.
I'm torn, because there's an idea that industrial capital only knows how to consume and destroy what it touches. And there's ample evidence to that effect.
But there's this other more naive notion that life never changes, species don't compete for habitat, and doing anything to alter the local ecology is this unforgivable sin. This, despite the fact that everything in the area is itself a product of eons of speciation and evolution and carnivorization.
The impulse to preserve has to be balanced with the expectation for change. The goal should be symbiosis, not stasis.
The issue is that you're changing the ecosystems and environments so much that all those eons of evolution are simply lost. The only other times this happens is during natural catastrophes. Sure, in the long run this allows new life forms to take the old ones places, but it's still a massive loss of diversity and evolutionary knowledge - and unnecessary suffering for millions of living beings.
When species compete for a habitat, they rarely destroy it - and those species that do either don't survive for long, or they wipe out large swaths. We're actively killing almost anything in our habitats, and destroying them for almost all previous species.
Does this imply communism wouldn't extract resources?
That's what I was wondering. Capitalists didn't invent exploitation of nature, it just so happened that its worldwide adoption coincided with unprecedented technological advances. There's quite a few examples of historical societies that exploited nature as much as they could and suffered for it.
Don’t forget about the part from the intro (might have been cut from the theatrical release):
They can fix a spine, if you have the money. But not from a VA check. Add $5 and you get yourself a cup of coffee.