site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2d ago (text post)   9165 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 2, 2026

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Incredibly detailed rebuttal, AAQC nominated.

Thank you.

I can't really disagree with any of the specific rebuttals, although if I could revise my post I would argue that we should be focusing on developing the technologies required for this kind of self-sufficiency (Air miners, more advanced 3D printing, large scale organismal gene editing), before we set our sights on Mars.

I would like to note that there is no reason we can't work on self-sufficiency/ISRU while also "setting our sights on Mars".

Mars is not Alpha Centauri. The initial temporary and later permanent settlements will both have comparatively easy access to goods from Earth. There is absolutely no reason to "solve" the local manufacturing issue, whereas if you're trying to set up an interstellar colony of some kind, you would be wise to have such things nailed down well in advance.

More importantly, the mere act of trying is almost certainly necessary to even develop the technology for long-term sustainability. The best simulation of permanent off-world habitation is a less permant off-world habitat.

The ecological argument was not necessarily that we should not colonize space, but rather we are focusing on the wrong aspects of question (how to get there) instead of how to survive there. The longest mission conducted outside of earth orbit is still Apollo, and it seems quite hubristic to me to assume we can even survive the journey to Mars when we haven't spent even a month outside of Earth's magnetosphere.

Figuring out the logistics of getting to Mars cheaply will massively kickstart the R&D required to survive there. I do not see what makes you so pessimistic, we've already sent humans to the Moon, we've had them live in microgravity for extended periods, and we know how to make radiation shielding. What exactly is so challenging about Mars? Why on Earth (pun not intended) would a month outside the Van Allens be lethal?

I must stress on the fact that incrimental development is the sane way to do this. Elon doesn't intend to just send a dozen dudes and dudettes to Mars with a box of tools and tell them to figure it out once they get there. Nobody proposes that.

Not so with what you're suggesting. A world of asteroid mining, artificial wombs, and AI data centers in space is unrecognizable to a person today, and potentially not even a possibility

Huh? Who is this person in question? Do they live under a rock?

We've brought back samples from asteroids. We have artificial wombs, which have gestated large mammals for a significant period. We have companies launching IPOs for AI data centers in space, leaving asire:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_data_center

Companies pursuing space-based AI infrastructure

  • Aetherflux[27]
  • Blue Origin[28]
  • Google – Project Suncatcher[29]
  • Nvidia[30]
  • OpenAI[31][32]
  • SpaceX[33]
  • Starcloud[34]

Like seriously, we're going to need a bigger rock. This is all Tomorrow AD stuff.

I just don't see this future emerging in a world where technological development is slowing, demographics are collapsing, and there's no actual incentive to send humans (rather than robots or Von Neumann probes) to space. Only time will tell which of us is right.

Without getting into the weeds about the Great Stagnation, the technology required for space industrialization is within touching distance. Unless our technology becomes arrested at the level we are at, permanently, I don't see how it isn't inevitable.

I didn't engage your initial post's discussion about motivation, because it wasn't central to my earlier arguments. But it's worth noting that the average person's opinion (poorly informed as it is) is not and never has been particularly important for space flight.

The popularity of the original Space Race is grossly overstated. Most people back then didn't particularly care that much. It still happened because politicians and technocrats wanted to beat the Soviets, and the Soviet central planners wanted to beat the Americans (even if the average peasant would have traded the Soyuz for more vodka).

And that's just government. The world's richest man (last time I checked, I'm not keeping count) is specifically obsessed with space, and SpaceX had already achieved miracles. He has more money than either of us have grains of rice, if he wants it, he'll put people on Mars. Might not happen on the timelines he wants, but that is very far from it never happening.

Even if Musk dies of a ketamine overdose, his contributions won't go away either. SpaceX collapsed launch costs. The Chinese are already getting surprisingly close, and if not them, Blue Origin. Reusable rockets were a pipe-dream a few decades back. It's very easy to get used to miracles. Short of a nuclear war, this is the worst our space capabilities will ever be.

I also share your pessimism about government spending, but there are a lot of other things besides space (biological research, creating a circular economy, reducing the tax burden, etc.) that the government could be spending money on.

And no evidence that they're ever going to do it. To the extent that all money is fungible, I'd rather spend it on NASA rather than many other present alternatives.

I didn't engage your initial post's discussion about motivation, because it wasn't central to my earlier arguments. But it's worth noting that the average person's opinion (poorly informed as it is) is not and never has been particularly important for space flight.

Not sure I'd agree with this. I feel the politics of the 60s/70s/80s gets glossed over in a weird way in regards to history, but atleast part of the Civil Rights Movement were actively protesting against the Apollo program.

Now, it's questionable how much this had in terms of affect on political policy and influencing NASA, but I'm not so quick to dismiss it.

The popularity of the original Space Race is grossly overstated. Most people back then didn't particularly care that much.

Conversely, I'm not so sure about this, either.

If you've never watched it, there's an incredible documentary about the Apollo program called In The Shadow of the Moon, which goes into amazing and indepth interviews with surviving Apollo astronauts at the time of the documentary. It also shows near world-wide celebration when America managed to land safely on the moon.

So I don't know. I wouldn't be that quick to dismiss the importance of public opinion.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I feel the need to go rewatch a certain documentary...

Not sure I'd agree with this. I feel the politics of the 60s/70s/80s gets glossed over in a weird way in regards to history, but atleast part of the Civil Rights Movement were actively protesting against the Apollo program.

I did say:

The popularity of the original Space Race is grossly overstated. Most people back then didn't particularly care that much. It still happened because politicians and technocrats wanted to beat the Soviets, and the Soviet central planners wanted to beat the Americans (even if the average peasant would have traded the Soyuz for more vodka).

It also shows near world-wide celebration when America managed to land safely on the moon.

My grandpa remembers hearing it announced live on the radio, and people really were happy.

But I don't see a contradiction between people celebrating the successful outcome and the majority not particularly seeking investment into the programs that brought about the outcome. Most Americans drastically overestimate NASA's share of the budget, which at least weakly implies that they wouldn't mind a higher share than in reality. They're not going to change their voting patterns over it, nobody lost an election for supporting the SLS despite it being an absolute boondoggle.

Short of a nuclear war, this is the worst our space capabilities will ever be.

There is no way of knowing this. This was also true in 1973, and then until very recently, it wasn't for a long time. That recent change was not guaranteed. It could only take a relatively minor slowdown in global economic growth to make spaceflight uneconomical if not impossible, and while the whole of human history is one long mostly-continuous rise in technological capability, past performance is no guarantee of future results, as they say.

I don't see how a slowdown in "growth" can make things worse than they are today. You'd need a widespread recession and general contraction of the economy, and we were launching people into space when the absolute size of the economy was much smaller.

I don't see anything short of nuclear war bringing about an absolute retreat from space. The military and economic value of spaceflight is far too great. If we can launch satellites, then we have the tools to launch astronauts, and we have rather widespread knowledge that is rather hard to completely lose.

I exclude AGI, because if we're wiped out by it, it's going to find its own way to space. Humans not invited.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats