Hopefully nowhere

Pervasive racism, classism, queerphobia, chuavanism etc. The constant propaganda posts where we all get together to trash a poor person, Black person, or queer person for unsanctioned behavior.

Pervasive sophistry.

The pervasive allegiance to the political spetrum and to partisanship discourses. They police themselves to keep each other in line.

The pervasive scientism and technological optimism which is only countered by doomerism and dogma.

Honestly I just can’t stand the users.

Encyclopedia CD ROM

Explore rice fields

CDs

Metal shows

More metal shows

Seems to be a trend. It happened in the new Antman movie. The ants fall into a time vortex and are trapped for centuries but build a socialist utopia while they are trapped. Hank Pym is like “I know socialism is a loaded word but…”

There is probably not a universal equation. I think generally extrajudicial killings are immoral in a way that is different from state sanctioned killings, although no state execution is necessarily moral.

If your state is run by a death cult it may be that legal and “legitimate” executions are done out of classist, racist, imperialist intentions. It is probably not controversial to say, without nuance, none of these can be moral.

Extrajudicial killings can delegitimize the state because theoretically it should be able to either execute legally, create a legal means, or, if such laws exist, be able to enforce the law forbidding executions/murder. If a state is oppressing the capitalist class via executions, it must do so openly and legally. If a state is opting to not deal out executions, it should find means of legal force. Otherwise, it proves itself untrustworthy, or unable to carry out its mandate.

I suppose there could be exceptions to this where the state needs plausible deniability among the (imperialist) international community. It’s hard to imagine something legal not being at least somewhat public, but maybe it could be done legally and secretly. I think resorting to this is ultimately a dangerous path to go down. Nobody needs a purge to get out of hand, it helps no one.

In the early 19th century, the Cherokee outlawed any sale of land by Cherokee people to the US under penalty of death. However, the state would not directly carry out executions. Instead, the state revoked any and all protections from the perpetrator, meaning any and all of the perpetrators’ compatriots were basically allowed to kill them at any point, essentially booting them from the nation and the states jurisdiction.

In this case we have sanctioned killings that are not carried out by legally designated, professional court authorities but rather anyone that is willing and able. The state is more nebulous in this situation. It is still the “state” in a very broad sense that is executing them because it is enabling anyone to do it for them which differs from Anglo/Western legalisms. But it is not like the court sentences anyone to die on a certain date and then enforces it to be done by a sanctioned official. There are not really any police to hunt down perpetrators, only community members to jump them. These indirect executions killings, where anyone can kill you if the state wills it, are probably more moral than an unsanctioned murder done by a state agent because the victim is legally ignored by the state in the popular interests of survival and maintains its legitimacy.

During this period the state of Georgia sought to undermine the Cherokee Republic by outlawing Cherokee laws, among other things, in an effort to make their lives as miserable as possible so they would agree to sell their land and leave. So here is an example of perhaps needing to take care of things inconspicuously, with some plausible deniability to perhaps confuse the settler states. In this case, if the Cherokee did something reasonably extrajudicial as a means of carrying out the spirit of the law designed to ensure survival, it would not necessarily be immoral, because there are unique circumstances.

Life beyond Earth is superfluous because all of this still affects life on Earth.

Edit: Also I think its irresponsible to see “lifeless” spaces as places that we have a freedom from responsibility to. Space and the beyond is part of us, still connected to us. It is colonial sensibilities that push static and sanitized ideas of place. This is why the questions of life beyond Earth, questions of space exploration, cannot just be asked in the context of STEM, which oftentimes reproduces colonial sensibilities by default because it separates itself from humanities and social sciences.

It is difficult to seperate colonialism from some of the colloquial visions for expansion into space.

I am am pretty convinced that it is a mix of capital driven tech-optimism and justification for colonialism. I personally think of climate change as inseparable from colonialism. So the idea that we can just find Earth 2, or turn Mars green is mostly cope for the fact that the global minority has destroyed the world.

At the end of the day space exploration is deeply tied to the MIC and is embedded in the strategic goals of capital. It relies on access to cheap labor and resources just as any industry does, and this affects the periphery more than anyone else.

This doesnt apply as much for the global majority, who, as part of their thrown condition, must be technically and scientificly capable for defensive purposes. I also am not sure how Soviet or Chinese visions of space exploration might be qualitatively similar or different than the western mind. I think there is a difference between exploration and expansion. But I think westerners have them mixed together.

I love astronomy but I think there is a ton of dogma involved with thoughts around exploration and expansion that are rarely addressed by STEM.