:D

I don’t think there is a single universal Great filter, and living and then potentially sentient beings with various traits will face various obstacles.

First, life needs suitable materials for polymers and a lot of energy. Most places don’t have both.

Next, basic blocks of life that would be self-replicating and adaptive should be randomly generated, which is extremely unlikely and literally took over a billion years on Earth, a planet with generally great conditions for such process.

Then, those blocks should be able to get together to form complex structures - ideally, many separate ones, so that one event wouldn’t destroy the entire effort. Earth had it easy, with billions of super simple life forms.

Next, assuming life survived up to this point in a potentially unfriendly and ever-changing environment, bombarded by UV light and exposed to myriad of sources of damage, it should not destroy itself or environment too badly to never recover. Earth had periods when life generated too much carbon dioxide or too much oxygen (yes, that too was a thing), and those were critical points at which our story could very much end.

Then, life has to evolutionize and get into complex forms, either by forming multicellular organisms or by making a cell a powerhouse of everything.

Then, life has to get sentient, and some kind of response system should be available and get highly complex.

Then, most of the sentient creatures just won’t be tribal, and civilization requires society and a common effort.

Then, many more won’t be expansionist, and will die out in some small region.

Many also won’t be competitive, which would slow down evolution.

For those species who are competitive, they shouldn’t destroy each other while they’re at it, and this is currently one of the risks of our own.

And after all that, they should develop space travel and either get as developed and decisive and resource-rich as to send a generational ship to some random planet named Earth populated by genocidal monkeys, or to somehow hyperdrive here. They can very much decide it’s not worth it, and they may be so far away we couldn’t see signs of their civilization.

Seen this post over and over. This is not a new study at that point

Depends on the definition of “wasting”

There’s always a way to spend less water, even less than you currently do.

But normally spending more water translates to comfort, as well as better washing.

Nice :)

Test test

Edit: working fine, it seems

@mrmanager@lemmy.today

Same

Sometimes people just get along so well it seems magical, and they actually both fall for each other.

This is rare, but it happens, and it’s something to treasure, something people are insanely happy and in love years into their marriages, still trying to believe their luck.

And if you’re looking for the one, you may opt not to look for “hoes” or treating your partner like that.

Woah, impressive! Trying to get back on reading track myself, and this is something to be proud of!

I’m doing amazing, a dawn of love, work doing great, and generally life is in a very good place rn

And you?

Communism does not necessitate self-sufficiency, moreover, a switch to fully domestic production is detrimental to any economy. The reason modern economy is globalized is that it’s simply more efficient, and capitalist economies are all about efficiency, as it allows to extract more value. At the same time, many past socialist economies were forced to only partner with other socialist economies, which limited their options and hurt their economy.

One of the key reasons communist classics called for a global revolution is to gain the critical mass of communism-aligned countries to minimize this effect and maximize globalization efforts. The communist endgame is one interconnected world without any nations to begin with, not to mention any protectionism.

That’s all, like, economics 101.

No, I just state the fact that protectionism doesn’t mean communism and globalism doesn’t mean capitalism.

They are different terms for a reason.

There was everything protectionist about Nazi Germany, who seeked to give control of German industries to German capitalists.

As I said, protectionism may coexist or not coexist with communism, as it can with any other economic system.

If you’re serious about equating protectionism and communism, you should probably be happy with the way things were done in the Third Reich.

You should seriously reconsider the terms you employ, and read the classics more thoroughly. Also, open the goddamn Wikipedia if you’re too lazy for that.

Strict prohibitions on foreign controlling interest in real estate, capital, and intellectual property, for starters.

This is protectionism and it has literally nothing to do with communism. Those are two absolute different things that can coexist or not coexist.

Same relates to your other points.

Your rhetoric is eerily similar to protectionist points of Nazi Germany, a very non-communist state that was obsessed with domestic control and protecting domestic capitalist with the proclaimed idea of “capital belonging to all people of Germany”, as opposed to “evil Jewish cartels”.

Simply trapping the capital inside the country speaks little of what gets to the workers. And if we talk communism, ALL of the capital is directly owned by the collective of workers. Which is not China.

Define “communist economic policies”.

If you’re Luo Wen, you’re in favor of state regulations of the capitalist market; you are not pursuing communist policies.

It’s not enough to maintain domestic control of the capital - this is a feature of any protectionist regime, even a fascist one. You should also make sure this capital is entirely democratically controlled and owned by the workers - which is not what happens in China. The capital of Chinese businesses is not the “property of workers”.

You’re right on classics - but off topic.

I’m saying that China does not economically classify as a communist state, neither did even USSR, because it just wasn’t feasible at the moment.

I’m combating the change of meaning where communism as officially proclaimed ideology is conflated with communism as an actual economic system. As a result of this, people start thinking that communism is when a state controls some sides of economy and gets involved in social programs, which is not a definition of communism, it’s a capitalist state with social elements.

A state can even apply some of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist principles, but it is economically capitalist as long as means of production are controlled by private entities looking for profit. This is not an argument about what China should or shouldn’t do - this is an argument that China is not economically communist or even socialist, like it or not. Neither was USSR during the so-called New Economic Policy.

A return in form of cash or lease.

Textbook communism is an economy that is 100% worker-owned, with everyone’s needs directly met without the intervention of money. The rest is not that, by literal definition. Let’s not play into the hands of people who want to call that communism and ultra-left to exploit in their own needs.

China does have some strong policies, but it doesn’t make it communist by any definition. Also, high home ownership rate is mostly a cultural phenomenon, with housing still seen as “best investment” despite the fact there are entire ghost towns full of houses that never ever filled.

I’m well aware that US pressures China militarily, and that China has a much more peaceful approach. However, Chinese ships regularly bully other countries in the South China Sea against international maritime laws.

The infrastructure China builds is not just a gift - but an investment on which China expects a return. I’m not convinced China is actively pursuing debt trap diplomacy, but it certainly uses economic power to pressure other countries into various concessions.

The economy of China is not characterized by the common/social ownership of the means of production, which means it is not socialist. No amount of five-year plans can change that.

China does spark international conflicts and does bully its neighbors, but it is true that the country doesn’t cosplay world police and doesn’t participate much in military operations outside the country, which is a big plus.

As per the bar, it shouldn’t fall lower just because some country got even more evil. We can compare the evils, but the evil will be there.

With all that said, I do not say “China bad”. But claiming “China good” would also not be correct.

By that I primarily meant “Chinese government is not guilty in atrocities it ordered to commit”

But in general, of course China is a miracle in many ways.