Asklemmy

43770 readers

1379 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Should we A) colonise other planets or B) build habitats in the middle of space, like O'Neill Cylinders and stuff? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 5 days ago by KevinFromSpace@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

146 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] frauddogg@hexbear.net 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Isn't there space for both?

No. Flatly. You do not get to eject any more human garbage into the cosmos from which we came-- you already have WHOLE FUCKING ARRAYS of busted up satellites and pieces of rockets and a bunch of other more shit floating in high orbit that you have no plans to go retrieve, mind you; fuck would you propose making even more for? Other than the narcissistic techbro flex, I mean?