4 ms·

My definition of terrorism was always more in the lines of destroying life, not spreading it. Life might be very rare, even possible that life only developed he

by lukan 1y ago

My definition of terrorism was always more in the lines of destroying life, not spreading it. Life might be very rare, even possible that life only developed here .. then our job might be exactly this, find ways to spread life.

kakacik 1y ago
Spreading foreign life that kills local life (even if by just out-competing on resources) sounds a bit like terrorism though. But I have hard time believing even hardened organisms like moss or tardigrades could survive millions of years of hard vacuum and extreme cosmic radiation. Maybe embedded in some properly protective envelope, 1 out of billion trillion might. And then that one has 1 out of billion billion trillion chance to land eventually on a place that could be called livable. Or add few extra zeroes.
- lukan 1y ago
  To kill local life, it first must exist, which is not confirmed at all. And if it exists, it is likely way better adopted to the local conditions. In genetal, nature works with small chances, look how many seeds a plant gives and how few of them will be a new plant. (Or how many sperms are created for 1 human) But sure, chances here are way, way lower.
hereme888 1y ago
You're wrong for many reasons, and I have no sense of humor.
- lukan 1y ago
  The latter is your problem I guess, but I am interested in the reasons why you think I am wrong.
  - hereme888 1y ago
    I don't, at all. I thought it was a funny response to state the obvious: that terrorism is about killing, not spreading life.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      Sure, but some forms of it - like weaponized anthrax - do both. (And terrorism is often more about causing fear than raw death counts.)
ordu 1y ago
> My definition of terrorism was always more in the lines of destroying life, not spreading it When you come to some place and change it drastically, is it a good thing or a bad thing? I don't think it is. There are some excuses that I can accept, but if you do it "just for fun" of it, I think it is an evil deed. Places have their own history, their own shapes and forms, and then someone comes and wipes it off just because they can. It cannot be Good, can't it?
- lukan 1y ago
  You talk about dead stones as if they have life. But they are dead. Spreading life is for fun in a way, that without life there is no fun at all. Just nothing, dead matter. (unless you believe in animism)

by lukan 1y ago

kakacik 1y ago

Spreading foreign life that kills local life (even if by just out-competing on resources) sounds a bit like terrorism though. But I have hard time believing even hardened organisms like moss or tardigrades could survive millions of years of hard vacuum and extreme cosmic radiation. Maybe embedded in some properly protective envelope, 1 out of billion trillion might. And then that one has 1 out of billion billion trillion chance to land eventually on a place that could be called livable. Or add few extra zeroes.

lukan 1y ago
To kill local life, it first must exist, which is not confirmed at all. And if it exists, it is likely way better adopted to the local conditions. In genetal, nature works with small chances, look how many seeds a plant gives and how few of them will be a new plant. (Or how many sperms are created for 1 human) But sure, chances here are way, way lower.

hereme888 1y ago

You're wrong for many reasons, and I have no sense of humor.

lukan 1y ago
The latter is your problem I guess, but I am interested in the reasons why you think I am wrong.
- hereme888 1y ago
  I don't, at all. I thought it was a funny response to state the obvious: that terrorism is about killing, not spreading life.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    Sure, but some forms of it - like weaponized anthrax - do both. (And terrorism is often more about causing fear than raw death counts.)

ordu 1y ago

> My definition of terrorism was always more in the lines of destroying life, not spreading it When you come to some place and change it drastically, is it a good thing or a bad thing? I don't think it is. There are some excuses that I can accept, but if you do it "just for fun" of it, I think it is an evil deed. Places have their own history, their own shapes and forms, and then someone comes and wipes it off just because they can. It cannot be Good, can't it?

lukan 1y ago
You talk about dead stones as if they have life. But they are dead. Spreading life is for fun in a way, that without life there is no fun at all. Just nothing, dead matter. (unless you believe in animism)