You say you're independent, but you refer to far-right propaganda as fact, which suggests you're not as independent as you believe yourself to be.

Furthermore, the aspect of you referring to Biden's center-right policies as being "radical left" and "extremist" suggests you're more accurately positioned somewhere between the hard-right and the far-right. Sure, the center-right, seen from the perspective of the hard-right, is to their left. But being to the left of the hard-right is very different from being on the left.

It's quite telling how immensely to the right the whole Overton window of American politics is when a lame party such as the DEM, with its grand total of zero left-wing policies, is considered as not only "the" left, but even as the "extreme" left. Go figure...

Well, I'll have to admit, I didn't have "learning that someone on Slashdot believes that the Cold War was a myth" on my bingo card for today.

Ah! A GB News regular, I see!

Are they still following the old trick of taking one single isolated event, and talking about that one single isolated event non-stop for ten years straight to give the gullible the impression that one single isolated event happened twenty thousand times?

Nope, see Alexandr Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics.

They don't want to, but they want to cause the impression they want to. The more afraid individual NATO countries are they're going to be invaded, the more the invest in their own military strength, and refuse to share their stockpile of weapons and ammunitions with Ukraine, after all, what if they need those stockpiles? Better to hard them in fear a future hypothetical war, than to spend it on the current real war that, if won, would stop the future potential aggressor cold.

Hence, threatening NATO countries is an extremely effective psy-op for Russia. And European leaders are quite the idiots for not perceiving that's what's going on.

Ah! Another American whose history lessons were limited to learning that, I dunno, George Washington once cut a tree and that the US saved the world all alone twice! Nice!

Me, I'm quite amused when I see the US doing such things for roughly the same reason I'm amused when I see its pseudo-conservatives destroying its welfare system. The result will be, respectively, what happened to the British Empire and to China after WW2. As the old saying goes, never interrupt your adversary when he's doing something stupid! ;-)

You seem to be confusing "wanting to get rid of communists" with "wanting their countries to be poor and dangerous".

It's not hard to understand. Three things have been happening all at the same time in Europe, and each one of these are, all by itself, of the kind that prompts governments to go into authoritarian mode. All three put together make this exponentially more the case:

a) Risk of Russian invasion.

Russia has already been attacking NATO countries via invasion of their airspace via drone fleets and military aircraft, plus several cases of cutting oceanic data cables, and other forms of harassment, including explicit verbal threats against several members.

Preparing for war requires managing citizens morale. Completely free flow of information is detrimental to this effect, since either true of false (propaganda) content telling citizens the war is going bad can become a self-fulling prophecy. Hence, governments see the need to start implementing all the technology needed for effective control of information flow right before and during a war if it happens.

b) Rise of internal threats.

First and foremost, the far-right parties on those countries have been growing in popularity and power, being financed as a 5th column by Russia. If victorious, they will fracture the EU, weakening them all against aggressors. Additionally, European leaders fear losing power and, in the extreme, losing their lives and freedom to far-right extremists.

As such the see the curbing of those propaganda efforts as absolutely necessary for the survival of their, well, everything.

b) Betrayal by a former major ally.

The US has sided with the enemy of Europe, Russia, on a number of fronts, having been undermining the European effort in the buffer zone between Europe and Russia (aka Ukraine), helping to fund the above internal threats, relentlessly pressuring European countries on all economic fronts, and actively threatening to invade and conquer European territories, meaning what was a risk of a war on a single front has grown into a serious risk of a two-fronts war. Additionally, the US controls most of the information exchange technology Europe uses, meaning it can advance the propaganda mentioned above way more effectively than Russia alone could, and get intelligence on Europe at levels Russia alone absolutely wouldn't be able to.

As such, transferring control of information channels from US national security associates to European ones became urgent, with an immediate need to reduce as much as possible the power the US has to advance those contrary goals, which again requires controlling information flows.

Hence the recent push.

Notice I don't agree with any of the above. I'm of the "the best counter to bad speech is more speech" school of thought myself. But that's what I see as the core motivations behind this movement.

As for the US, it's trying to implement a Fascist political regime. As any such movement, it uses the tools of freedom to raise, then once in power destroys those tools. As such, what we're observing over there is much simpler than what's going on Europe, even if the end result, if it arrives at its goal, is pretty much the same.

And other countries are following so many variations of the same issues.

USAID was horrifically corrupt

The cuts to USAID are projected to cause 14 million extra deaths - a large minority of those children - by 2030. And USAID engendered massive goodwill among its recipients

But no, by all means kill a couple million people per year and worsen living conditions (creating more migration) in order to save $23 per person, that's clearly Very Smart(TM).

And I don't know how to inform you of this, but the year is now 2025 and the Cold War and the politics therein ended nearly four decades ago. And USAID was not created "to smuggle CIA officers" (though CIA offers used every means available to them to do their work, certainly), it was created as a counterbalance to the USSR's use of similar soft power to turn the Third World to *its* side.

They can go back at any point if they don't think the conditions and salaries offered are worth the job. What matters is that they remain free to leave, with no "catches" keeping them there (inability to get return transport, inability to communicate with the outside world, misinformation, etc etc). Again, there's a debate to have over what conditions should be mandated by regulation, but the key point is that the salary offered - like happens illegally today en masse - is lower than US standards but higher than what they can get at home.

What on Earth are you talking about? Nobody is trying to make other countries poor and dangerous. People come to the US from these countries because even jobs that are tough and underpaid by US standards are vastly better than what is available at home. Creating a formal system just eliminates the worst aspects of it: the lawlessness, the sneaking across the border in often dangerous conditions (swimming across rivers, traveling through deserts), "coyotes" smuggling people in terrible conditions, and so forth. The current US system is the dumbest way you could possibly handle it: people wanting to work, US employers wanting them, the US economy benefitting from it... but still making it illegal, chaotic, dangerous, and unregulated for those involved.

Also, point of note: it's unlikely you'd actually grow plants and humans in interconnected habitats anyway. You might pump some gases from one to the next, but: agriculture takes up lots of area / volume. If you're talking Mars rather than Venus, then you're talking large pressure vessels, which is a lot of mass, proportional to the pressure differential. Which is expensive. But plants tolerate living at much lower pressures than humans (and there's potential to engineer / breed them to tolerate even lower - the main problems are that they mistake low pressure for drought, and that's a response we can manipulate). So it makes much more sense to grow them in large, low-pressure structures with a mostly-CO2 / some O2 / no N2 atmosphere, rather than at human-comfortable pressure levels.

That said, you don't want human workers having to work in pressure suits, so ideally you'd use a sliding tray system (we use them on Earth to save space in greenhouses) or similar, except that you'd move the plants through an airlock into a human-comfortable area for any non-mechanized work. Obviously, mechanized systems can operate at any pressure level, and also obviously, some work would still need to be done in pressure suits every now and again (maintenance, cleaning, etc).

None of this applies to a floating Venus habitat, where in your typical Landis design your crew - and potentially agriculture - are just living in your lifting envelope, at normal pressures. The envelope is massive, so you have no shortage of space for agriculture, all well-illuminated from all angles if the envelope is transparent. The challenges there are different - how to support them, humidity management, water supply, falling debris, etc.

If only the US had some sort of aid program designed to try to make conditions more favourable in the sort of countries that economic migrants tend to flee from. Maybe the US could call it "US Aid" or something, and give it a decent budget rather than gutting it to save $23 per American.

But the main issue is that the proper solution is obviously to have a formal, controlled, actually viable work visa system for economic migrants, distinct from asylum. The US economy is immensely boosted by millions of (generally awful) jobs being done by illegal immigrants at substandard wages (which are still vastly more than they could get at home), making US goods far more competitive than they would otherwise be and pumping huge sums of money into the economy. Formalize it. Basic worker protections but not the minimum wages or benefits that citizens get. You drop off an application for a sponsoring company, and so long as you're employed with them and not causing problems, you can stay. Fired, laid off, or quit, and you go back to your country (where you can reapply for a different job). You can also promote maquiladoras, wherein immigrants are also working for your companies, but the labour is being done across the border (but the goods move freely without tariffs, so it's like having the work done in your country).

(I find it hilarious hearing people like Vance talking about how he'll bring housing costs down by kicking out immigrants, freeing up housing. Um, dude, exactly who do you think it is that builds the housing in much of the US?)

"Refugee papers" OMG I'm dying here...

Biosphere 2 was an attempt at fully closed loop self-regulation. That doesn't work, and is not what is under discussion. The discussion is of using systems to maintain environments.

Production of oxygen is not remotely difficult. Not by plants, but again, industrial systems. Systems to make O2 from CO2 and/or water are TRL10. They exist, you can just buy them off the shelf. Same with reusable CO2 scrubbers (it's a very simple chemical process: cool = absorb CO2, hot = release CO2; they just cycle between cold and hot and whether they're connected to the input or output)..

You seem to have the idea that the proposal is just to have plants and humans life in harmony with no technology. If that were the actual proposal, I would agree with you. But that's not the actual proposal.

Yeah. Because if Mars' gravity is insufficient, and you'd have to live in rotating habitats anyways, then what are you even doing there, instead of being located e.g. on an asteroid where it's much easier to make a rotating habitat, where your surface is much more resource-rich, and where delivery and return of goods is much easier?

Venus, by contrast, I think few people doubt that its gravity would be sufficient for human life. Mars, it's *probably* enough, but it's not well studied. Moon seems like a coin toss at this point.