I can think of a good reason but i’m not sure whether you’re willing to buy into it.

people naturally don’t think of themselves as individuals. people think of themselves as a group/society.

People recognize that under a republican US government, they’re significantly more likely to go to mars and have prosperous offspring. while if they’re stuck on earth, a recession and decline is waiting for them. they can’t verbalize it and probably aren’t even rationally aware of it, but i guess they can feel it with their heart.

of course lots of you folks are gonna immediately chime in and say “nooo i saw a youtube video that explained that it’s impossible to live on mars”, and honestly, you should reconsider why you’re so eager to deny a topic that you’ve clearly not put in as much effort to think about than the people who actually do care about this project. and also, assuming it does work out; what will you do then? be ashamed of your wrong prediction? because if you’re not, that means you don’t stand to your prediction, and therefore the prediction is worthless. i’m not sure whether i was too direct about this and somebody perceived it as rude, but i’m tired of this feeling of being stuck. we need to think long-term again.

You’re assuming everybody has the same buying power. That is in reality not the case. If you remove 20% of the people, buying power only goes down by something like 2%. Therefore your point seems disputed?

do you have plausible arguments for that that could be used to convince somebody of this that isn’t already convinced?

why am I a human and not a shrimp? Isn’t that astoundingly improbable?

haha yes i agree with that :D

my personal (kinda spiritual) take on this is that we are conscious because we are “nature’s soldiers” and we’re fighting the greater cause of life itself. That is what our consciousness is targeted at and what gives it justification in front of the world.

DM me too pls :D

it will become automatically appealing to them the moment that is pays out economically for them. if they could afford more under a leftist politics, than under the current politics, people are gonna be all for it.

just a short reminder:

you can post a picture of a gun on facebook, because it is only a harmless picture of a machine that is solely built to kill people. definitely nothing that shouldn’t be shown in public

if you do post a picture if an exposed female nipple, banned, because guess what? that’s against the policy

I agree with the following: If your mother tries to kill you, and dies themselves instead as a result of the conflict, they have no right to complain.

I suppose to me, one’s moral weight is in their mind.

The problem that i see with that is the following: Assume a child has little neural activity (which, btw, is not true at all; children and newborns often have higher neural activity than grown-ups), but assume for a moment that a child had little neural activity, and therefore would be less worthy of preservation.

Now, somebody who has migraine, or has repeated electrical shocks in their brain, might be in a lot of pain, but has probably more neural activity than you. Would you now consider that since they have more neural activity, they are more worthy of life than you are? And what if you and that other person would be bound to the tracks of a trolley problem? Wouldn’t it then be the ethical thing to kill you because you have less neural activity?

deleted by creator

“everyone agrees abortion is awful…”

that doesn’t make them right btw. hitler was democratically elected too; the majority isn’t always right.

Do they present any actual arguments? That’s what would be interesting, because that is something that can be discussed.

can you name any example? and also, who’s the judge? can somebody else decide you’re too rabid for their opinion?

what does that mean?

language of privilege

i’ve never heard that phrase

And to add to that, scientific papers should be published in open-access journals, instead of Wileys et al. And Universities could run and host these journals, as it is part of their core duty: To preserve and spread knowledge.

Essentially, universities and libraries seem to have a lot in common. Both preserve and spread knowledge.

counterpoint:

the labor market is a market, and as such regulated by the rule of Supply and demand. That implies: if the supply is increased, then the price is decreased. If the supply is decreased, then the price is increased.

In the context of the labor market, that means: If there’s fewer workers in the country (which comes naturally with a smaller population), then the price for labor (a.k.a. wages) goes higher. That increases the Quality Of Life for the people, and is therefore a socially good thing.

people will sometimes make decisions that are so bad that we have a moral obligation to intervene in order to protect them from the most disastrous outcomes

in archaic times, due to the primordial habit of turning people into slaves if they couldn’t repay their debts, people were legally forbidden from going into debt at all, except if they could prove that they were a reasonable person and it was economically likely that they could pay back the debt. that was in order to prevent them from the bad fates of slaves; which makes sense to me.

Does that also apply to hypothetical martian settlements? If people ever technically managed to live on mars.

There’s definitely no higher life on mars (or we would have already found it), and it’s also unlikely that there’s any life at all - not even microbial life (due to an absence of liquid water on the surface).

Yes but i suspect that competition would be less fierce within the country, for two reasons:

• the central government can stand in and regulate that “a factory may only produce a specific amount of goods”. such regulation works better on the smaller level, because regulatory oversight is easier to achieve.

• i guess that maybe the competition could naturally be less fierce. Consider: you would not want to pick a fight with the neighbour that lives directly next door; because you still have to get along well with him. It’s easier to be in fierce competition with somebody who is on the other side of the world, because you will probably never see them again.

I’d give the revolution in the US zero % chance of success, which one is better?

no i meant that in a metaphorical sense. no free trade means that there’s no “getting ahead” (because you can’t flood a foreign market with your cheap products), so people put in less effort.