Recent comments in /f/explainlikeimfive

MacSanchez t1_j93im6w wrote

How do you not get this? We were all taught what this was at a very young age and the fact that you don’t get it makes me wonder what other simple concepts you can’t grasp.

This was a half-assed attempt at gaslighting, which is a psychological attack to make someone question their own sanity or understanding of the topic at hand

12

tr14l t1_j93idn9 wrote

Gaslighting is telling someone something is true when it isn't, or isn't true when it is. The effect is basically to convince not to trust their own perception. This term comes from an old play in which a husband continually adjusted the gas-fueled lamps in their house to be dimmer and dimmer over time. His wife would complain about it and he would lie and say they were as bright as they'd ever been. The effect was to make her think she was crazy.

13

allen84 t1_j93i8ym wrote

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, or sanity. The term "gaslighting" originates from the 1938 play "Gas Light," in which a husband attempts to convince his wife that she is going insane by manipulating her environment and denying things that he previously said or did.

In modern usage, gaslighting can take many forms, including denial of facts or events, persistent lying or misrepresentation, projection of one's own actions or beliefs onto another person, and manipulating someone's emotional responses to make them doubt themselves. Gaslighting can occur in a variety of settings, including personal relationships, workplace environments, and political or social contexts.

Gaslighting can be extremely damaging to the mental health and well-being of the targeted individual, and it can lead to feelings of confusion, anxiety, and self-doubt. It is important to be aware of the signs of gaslighting and to seek support from trusted friends, family members, or mental health professionals if you suspect that you or someone you know is being gaslit.

6

NatashOverWorld t1_j910ijf wrote

I did miss one thing though. Superhabitable planets or Earth like planets would obviously be far easier to adjust to human needs. Kepler 1126b is the best IIRC.

But that becomes a question of reaching it and time taken.

1

RionWild t1_j910blg wrote

The idea of being an adventurer is so romanticized that it’s way more appealing to discover something new than fix the old. The idea of a new world is appealing to some, they don’t give a shit about the current any more. Everything here is claimed.

1

huskers2468 t1_j90zux3 wrote

I think you are putting two inequitable objectives together.

The primary goal of interplanetary colonization isn't to save the world. There might be some selling points to "save the species," but we aren't really at that point. I view it more as a challenge to see if we can, not that it's a necessity.

It's "cool" to be able say the human race was able to colonize multiple planets, and to be apart of the team that accomplished the feat.

Why would they want to colonize the ocean floor, when there is still plenty of land to develop?

1

carbonbasedlifeform t1_j90zusx wrote

Well for one thing there are a thousand times more resources spread throughout the solar system then there are on our planet. Entire oceans of hydrocarbons. Asteroids that are 30% platinum. Would seem kind of silly if we ended up killing one another for access to resources when they are vastly more available beyond the gravity well of the earth.

Learning to exploit those resources leads into the idea of moving our heavy industry off planet. Would sure be nice to turn earth into one big nature preserve without losing our capacity to produce the goods we want.

Thirdly you don't just start building a generational ship to get to explore the nearby habitable exoplanets when we find them. We need to have an entire industry devoted to mining, refining, and construction in space if we want to be able to build such a thing.

1

Flair_Helper t1_j90zq6s wrote

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Loaded questions are not allowed on ELI5. A loaded question is one that posits a specific view of reality and asks for explanations that confirm it. A loaded question, by definition, presumes that something must be true in order for the question to stand.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

1

skaliton t1_j90zjdj wrote

because 'the economy' is based on endless expansion forever. Fixing the ecosystem is just kicking the can down the road a few years.

​

But terraforming planets allows for this always hungry monster to be fed either indefinitely or far enough that it may as well be forever.

1

theGreatWhite_Moon t1_j90ypes wrote

and it might be valid, but it doesn't make sense in the sahara/mars desert case.

We might have theories working in some sort of simulation that would help us fix stuff, but technology hasn't caught up yet and innovation promises new viewpoints that open room for advancement towards testing and implementation of aforementioned theories.

We don't have that much control over where these innovative sparks of creation spawn and if a field is stale people search for inspiration elsewhere.

3

qtqtc t1_j90ygqd wrote

Why not both? This is what currently happens. And science on a distant location drops some knowledge, that can help us on earth.

The important part in our live is, to gather information and share it. So we can generate insights and come up with solutions. So it's important to research an many tasks, not only on a single branch.

1

21_19 t1_j90yf4n wrote

Hmmmmm....... My assumption, peasants and commoners need something to be occupied by, such exploration being one of the reasons out of, race, politics, sports, traditions, economic status, etc.... Just my assumption, or it might be for new studios for MCU to film on.

1

NatashOverWorld t1_j90yeci wrote

There really isn't any. The amount of work involved to terraform, and time, would vastly overshadow what it would take to repair the Earth.

Plus it's mostly theoretical and untested, whereas in the case of Earth its mostly a matter of stopping pollution.

No, it's pretty much wish fulfillment at the moment.

1