technology

23165 readers

1 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

1. Obviously abide by the sitewide code of conduct. Bigotry will be met with an immediate ban
2. This community is about technology. Offtopic is permitted as long as it is kept in the comment sections
3. Although this is not /c/libre, FOSS related posting is tolerated, and even welcome in the case of effort posts
4. We believe technology should be liberating. As such, avoid promoting proprietary and/or bourgeois technology
5. Explanatory posts to correct the potential mistakes a comrade made in a post of their own are allowed, as long as they remain respectful
6. No crypto (Bitcoin, NFT, etc.) speculation, unless it is purely informative and not too cringe
7. Absolutely no tech bro shit. If you have a good opinion of Silicon Valley billionaires please manifest yourself so we can ban you.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Moon lander set to land human remains on the moon is crapping out (www.bbc.com)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

63 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Due to a power issue, it looks like the lander may now no longer have sufficient fuel to make a controlled landing on the moon. This was the lander that was set to carry human remains to the moon despite objections from the Navajo nation. Hopefully, this discourages any future attempts at such a stunt, since instead of a permanent mausoleum your ashes may instead be stranded in orbit or scattered amongst the moon dust if the thing crashes.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 20 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

the difference is also irelevant when the argument is that "the moon belongs to everyone"

Only if your starting assumption is that commons must be privatized and looted, which is a capitalist assumption but one that doesn’t necessarily make any sense. It’s just something you are asserting. Commodification by private entities should not be allowed on public land, think of it like a protected national park. You don’t just get to mine and make theme parks on it because it’s “public”. Likewise, rich fucks don’t just get to treat it as their playground. If they have enough money to waste on polluting and wasting resources then their money should be taxed away from them and put to better uses

[+] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

no argument here

Then why are you defending this absurd project? You aren't even doing liberal ideology coherently if you (correctly) say that their money should probably just be taken from them if this is what they are spending it on. So what, you acknowledge that this is a socially worthless endeavor such that it would be more pro-social to seize a portion of their assets, and in fact that them trying to do this should be considered a good pretext for such a seizure, and yet simultaneously that the endeavor should but considered sacrosanct?

I am begging you to read any [leftist] critiques of liberal political theory. Literally any. This contains an offhand example that is nonetheless very solid.