5 ms·

Some modern thinking has confused self-loathing and careful introspection. There were a great many things that could have, or arguably should have, been done di

Some modern thinking has confused self-loathing and careful introspection. There were a great many things that could have, or arguably should have, been done differently in the past, but many of those things were done in the context and to the standards of the day. The transgressions of the past resulted in a technologically advanced society. Introspection considers this and asks, "what should we do differently in the future?" Self loathing says, "we shouldn't exist and should spend our future doing nothing." > There are many, many people in the world who don't know that we went to the moon, there are people who don't have access to electricity and plumbing. I'm not arguing here for not exploring other planets, but I am trying to make a case for focusing out scientific efforts of improving the lives of everyone on the planet. Your second statement contradicts your first. Either you want to ensure that everyone has access to electricity and plumbing before science spends any effort on exploration, or you don't. The natural conclusion of this argument is that no money should be spent on exploration, and all money should be redistributed evenly to everyone so that everyone maintains an identical standard of living. I don't want to assume that's what you meant, but if it isn't, I can't figure out what your ideal world looks like.

omegaworks 8y ago
You're presenting an either/or scenario where none was proposed by the poster you were responding to. The thread began begging the wealthiest countries on the planet to contribute a significant amount of that wealth toward space exploration. No one here is making the argument that we should spend no money on space exploration. People are simply arguing against spending significantly more on it when we have more pressing issues to contend with.
- thaumaturgy 8y ago
  The person I responded to, in the part that I quoted, brought up people without electricity and plumbing as a contrast to spending efforts on exploration. It looks like an either/or to me. > People are simply arguing against spending more on it when we have more pressing issues to contend with. But this argument happens every time the issue of funding space exploration comes up. Every single time. Without fail. Not a single time is there a proposed NASA budget without part of the discussion devolving into, "why don't we just hand the money out to the poor instead?" Not a single time do the risks and costs of SpaceX, or a new satellite, or the rovers, or the ISS, or other efforts get discussed without someone saying, "but cancer..." This is a line of thinking which scrutinizes every single dollar spent on exploration. Left unchallenged, it would eventually halt all spending on exploration altogether. I, and a lot of other people -- like the person at the top of this thread -- believe that exploring Mars is not just worthwhile, it's necessary, in spite of the many other people on Earth who have more immediate needs. Dr. Robert Zubrin argued that case far more eloquently than I could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2Mu8qfVb5I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2Mu8qfVb5I
  - evanlivingston 8y ago
    I think that you have associated my comment with different lines of reasoning presented by other individuals. I made no argument against funding space exploration. I even said "I'm not arguing here for not exploring other planets". Nor did I discuss prioritizing spending in other ways. Please don't assume an argument against exploration is being made whenever a concern about exploration is raised. We can conduct science and also be seriously critical of it's impacts simultaneously. I was attempting to critique to the narrative presented by pc86 used to frame our approach to exploration, namely exploration for exploration's sake and to interrogate what progress means to us, particularly because the example used included a comment about colonizing the new world. Sure, it's dangerous to litigate the past but also one of the best teachers about how to go about constructing out future.
    - hanselot 8y ago
      Could you redirect your pessimism to any (literally any) sport in existence? Before you bitch about people trying to make our species multiplanetary, clean up the existing bullshit we spend money on. Go and convince a redneck football supporter of your point and see how civil that discourse will be.
  - vehementi 8y ago
    > But this argument happens every time the issue of funding space exploration comes up. Every single time. Without fail. Not a single time is there a proposed NASA budget without part of the discussion devolving into, "why don't we just hand the money out to the poor instead?" Not a single time do the risks and costs of SpaceX, or a new satellite, or the rovers, or the ISS, or other efforts get discussed without someone saying, "but cancer..." So? You say that like repetition means it's necessarily a nonsensical droning of idiots. Maybe the reason people always respond with that is that they have a point. Dr. Zubrin doesn't make any compelling points there sadly. There is a ton of "real science" to do here at a wildly better cost-benefit ratio.
    - watwat1 8y ago
      It absolutely is a mindless babbling of idiots. Myopic, virtue signalling empty shells of human beings to be more precise.
ada1981 8y ago
Certainly we ought to solve global hunger and access to water before spending trillions of dollars to go find water on mars.
- djtriptych 8y ago
  Hunger and access to water are political problems not scientific ones.
  - bushidone 8y ago
    I think the simple answer is 'hedging'. Cancer, hunger and the like are unlikely to kill the entire human race in one go. A climate event or asteroid could, which would render all other efforts redundant. Mars exploration means hedging the survival of our species. A diverse portfolio is where the smart money is.
    - ada1981 8y ago
      This is a nobel reason, however I imagine the real answer is closer to sex appeal and money. Also, who should determine how the resources of humanity are deployed? People who arbitrarily have gained control of the resources? For a tiny fraction of what is spent on space, we could solve world hunger and water. It also seems a well fed and hydrated global population would be much happier, healthier, creative and productive. Another question for folks who make the hedging argument — at what point do we say “ok, we have X% of the population living off world, so now we are going to divert funds to make sure people have access to basic human needs on earth.”
      - lambdadmitry 8y ago
        > For a tiny fraction of what is spent on space, we could solve world hunger and water. No we realistically can't. How exactly do you propose doing that? Keep in mind that there is a ton of precedents where local governments withheld foreign aid (which was supposed to "solve hunger" at least at that part of the world) to enrich themselves and/or to control their citizens. How do you solve that with any amount of money? Bomb the "bad governments" into submission? Just keep the money in some account waiting for those governments to become more civilized? Might as well colonize Mars in the meantime

omegaworks 8y ago

You're presenting an either/or scenario where none was proposed by the poster you were responding to. The thread began begging the wealthiest countries on the planet to contribute a significant amount of that wealth toward space exploration. No one here is making the argument that we should spend no money on space exploration. People are simply arguing against spending significantly more on it when we have more pressing issues to contend with.

thaumaturgy 8y ago
The person I responded to, in the part that I quoted, brought up people without electricity and plumbing as a contrast to spending efforts on exploration. It looks like an either/or to me. > People are simply arguing against spending more on it when we have more pressing issues to contend with. But this argument happens every time the issue of funding space exploration comes up. Every single time. Without fail. Not a single time is there a proposed NASA budget without part of the discussion devolving into, "why don't we just hand the money out to the poor instead?" Not a single time do the risks and costs of SpaceX, or a new satellite, or the rovers, or the ISS, or other efforts get discussed without someone saying, "but cancer..." This is a line of thinking which scrutinizes every single dollar spent on exploration. Left unchallenged, it would eventually halt all spending on exploration altogether. I, and a lot of other people -- like the person at the top of this thread -- believe that exploring Mars is not just worthwhile, it's necessary, in spite of the many other people on Earth who have more immediate needs. Dr. Robert Zubrin argued that case far more eloquently than I could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2Mu8qfVb5I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2Mu8qfVb5I
- evanlivingston 8y ago
  I think that you have associated my comment with different lines of reasoning presented by other individuals. I made no argument against funding space exploration. I even said "I'm not arguing here for not exploring other planets". Nor did I discuss prioritizing spending in other ways. Please don't assume an argument against exploration is being made whenever a concern about exploration is raised. We can conduct science and also be seriously critical of it's impacts simultaneously. I was attempting to critique to the narrative presented by pc86 used to frame our approach to exploration, namely exploration for exploration's sake and to interrogate what progress means to us, particularly because the example used included a comment about colonizing the new world. Sure, it's dangerous to litigate the past but also one of the best teachers about how to go about constructing out future.
  - hanselot 8y ago
    Could you redirect your pessimism to any (literally any) sport in existence? Before you bitch about people trying to make our species multiplanetary, clean up the existing bullshit we spend money on. Go and convince a redneck football supporter of your point and see how civil that discourse will be.
- vehementi 8y ago
  > But this argument happens every time the issue of funding space exploration comes up. Every single time. Without fail. Not a single time is there a proposed NASA budget without part of the discussion devolving into, "why don't we just hand the money out to the poor instead?" Not a single time do the risks and costs of SpaceX, or a new satellite, or the rovers, or the ISS, or other efforts get discussed without someone saying, "but cancer..." So? You say that like repetition means it's necessarily a nonsensical droning of idiots. Maybe the reason people always respond with that is that they have a point. Dr. Zubrin doesn't make any compelling points there sadly. There is a ton of "real science" to do here at a wildly better cost-benefit ratio.
  - watwat1 8y ago
    It absolutely is a mindless babbling of idiots. Myopic, virtue signalling empty shells of human beings to be more precise.

ada1981 8y ago

Certainly we ought to solve global hunger and access to water before spending trillions of dollars to go find water on mars.

djtriptych 8y ago
Hunger and access to water are political problems not scientific ones.
- bushidone 8y ago
  I think the simple answer is 'hedging'. Cancer, hunger and the like are unlikely to kill the entire human race in one go. A climate event or asteroid could, which would render all other efforts redundant. Mars exploration means hedging the survival of our species. A diverse portfolio is where the smart money is.
  - ada1981 8y ago
    This is a nobel reason, however I imagine the real answer is closer to sex appeal and money. Also, who should determine how the resources of humanity are deployed? People who arbitrarily have gained control of the resources? For a tiny fraction of what is spent on space, we could solve world hunger and water. It also seems a well fed and hydrated global population would be much happier, healthier, creative and productive. Another question for folks who make the hedging argument — at what point do we say “ok, we have X% of the population living off world, so now we are going to divert funds to make sure people have access to basic human needs on earth.”
    - lambdadmitry 8y ago
      > For a tiny fraction of what is spent on space, we could solve world hunger and water. No we realistically can't. How exactly do you propose doing that? Keep in mind that there is a ton of precedents where local governments withheld foreign aid (which was supposed to "solve hunger" at least at that part of the world) to enrich themselves and/or to control their citizens. How do you solve that with any amount of money? Bomb the "bad governments" into submission? Just keep the money in some account waiting for those governments to become more civilized? Might as well colonize Mars in the meantime