site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   24551 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 6, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is a "this will be difficult" argument, not a "laws of physics forbid it" argument.

Sometimes the difficulty is in fact too great. And yes, blaming it on physics is a contraction. It's all the fields derived from physics: Engineering, the mechanics of space travel, economics, biology, etc.

My understanding is that Antarctic-related for-profit activity is already lucratively profitable, but due to government regulations most of the profit so far is simply on the journey, as it's illegal to open, e.g., a resort there, out of a desire to avoid awakening the Great Old Ones.

True, but please let me move the goalposts. Not to get one up over you, but because I was sloppy before - I think it's necessary to modify my statement about antarctic or oceanic colonies with a "self-sufficient". Given the vast distances involved in space, to turn it into a "population frontier" as I understand the term, human settlements out there will need to be self-sufficient, which given the inherent infertility of any place in space means making them closed-cycle bottled ecosystems under extremely hostile environmental conditions. To my knowledge, the Antarctic settlements do not meet that requirement even given the Antarctic's relatively high habitability.

The "it's expensive" argument smuggles in a hidden assumption that economic growth on Earth will taper off. Otherwise (logically) at a certain point establishing a colony on Mars will be as economically trivial (as a percentage of global value) as establishing year-round stations in Antarctica, and since we've done the latter essentially for research and entertainment, your priors should be that we would do the former, too. (And this argument holds true even if you argue that economic growth on Earth cannot grow to an infinite or indeterminately large value – you have to argue that growth will stall out before we reach the Mars-colonization-is-trivial point.)

I'm certainly open to arguments that economic growth on Earth will taper off before we reach that point, but it's probably not worth assuming without justification.

My argument is more that no matter how much the economy of Earth grows, space is inherently uneconomical. There's nothing up there except death. What little value one could imagine here or there - minerals in asteroids, solar power, free real estate - is so extremely far away, and accessible only under such extremely hostile conditions, that there's no economic sense in getting any of it.

So let me reiterate. Colonizing Antarctica or the Ocean Floor are, to me, necessary proofs that it's doable at all, at small scale, assuming nothing ever goes wrong. And even then, it remains a bad idea, because there's no point to it, and things will go wrong, and as soon as they do everyone involve will die.

That is my opinion given what we currently know and can predict with any degree of confidence. I hope to be proven wrong eventually, but right now I don't see any predictions of space colonization that aren't mostly just wishful thinking.

Given the vast distances involved in space, to turn it into a "population frontier" as I understand the term, human settlements out there will need to be self-sufficient, which given the inherent infertility of any place in space means making them closed-cycle bottled ecosystems under extremely hostile environmental conditions. To my knowledge, the Antarctic settlements do not meet that requirement even given the Antarctic's relatively high habitability.

By this definition of "population frontier," I question whether there's ever been a population frontier. No country on Earth today is self-sufficient, and no near-term contemplated space colony would be self-sufficient, either. It would be ridiculous to say "because your space colony intends to watch the BBC, it is doomed to failure."

Now, I definitely see where you are coming from. But I don't think the proper metric is "self-sufficiency," it is probably self-sufficiency in housing, food, water, and power. If a space colony starts somewhere, it will be reasonable to believe that software, entertainment, and microchips can be imported from Earth.

It is also not correct to assume that a space colony must be a closed-cycle bottled ecosystem, particularly if you include colonizing other planets as part of "space colonization." The moon, Mars, and asteroids all have water ice. If I thought that a true closed-cycle bottled ecosystem was an integral part of space colonization, I would be much less inclined to raise my eyebrows at the "physics rule out space colonization" – a true closed-cycle ecosystem, it seems to me be very close to an insurmountable challenge at any plausible scale, but in any likely space colonization scenario you're likely going to be able to import (and export) a lot of matter from your ecosystem pretty trivially, which means it is not closed-cycle.

My argument is more that no matter how much the economy of Earth grows, space is inherently uneconomical. There's nothing up there except death. What little value one could imagine here or there - minerals in asteroids, solar power, free real estate - is so extremely far away, and accessible only under such extremely hostile conditions, that there's no economic sense in getting any of it.

My problem with this argument is that it does not predict past actions; therefore, it is hard to believe it is a good guide for future actions. The International Space Station cost billions and in terms of economic efficiency, it would have been more cost-effective to cash the money and burn it to boil water to create steam to drive a turbine and sell the electricity. But because humans are not driven entirely by cost efficiency, humans have been in space continuously for 25 years.

This is not to say that I am saying that space colonization is inevitable. I just don't find these arguments that it is impossible persuasive.

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