3 ms·

As I understood, estimates for that wall range between 25 and 75 billion USD depending on who you ask. And this being government contracts, it might very well b

As I understood, estimates for that wall range between 25 and 75 billion USD depending on who you ask. And this being government contracts, it might very well balloon to 100 billion or more if you factor in surprises and corruption. Other than that, I agree... NASA isn't getting enough funding. As are climate initiatives in the US. And the same goes for similar agencies and initiatives in the EU where I live. I'm more skeptical about DARPA, but to their credit they're not just enablers of death; they're also working on some certifiably good stuff, like fighting human trafficking [1]. [1]: https://www.darpa.mil/program/memex https://www.darpa.mil/program/memex

nostrademons 8y ago
DARPA is IMHO one of the most ironic agencies on the planet: it's an organization whose fundamental purpose is evil (let's kill people better) that has managed to invent some of the best technological developments in history. The Internet, the GUI, time-sharing, TOR, and virtual reality are all DARPA-offshoots.
- anongraddebt 8y ago
  Wouldn't effective defense of a nation-state require putting resources behind projects that lead to "killing people better?" If so, would the purpose of effectively defending a nation-state be evil?
  - nostrademons 8y ago
    Yes. :-) There are a lot of different ethical systems, but almost all of them consider killing people to be evil. Sometimes people quibble about whether killing people in self-defense or defense of others is evil, eg. "Would it be evil to go back in time and kill Hitler?" But note the asymmetry: it may be debatable whether killing Hitler is justified, but everyone save some very fringe movements believes that Hitler himself was evil. We put up with nation-states because of survivorship bias. There are two kinds of people: those who live under the jurisdiction of a modern nation-state, and those who are now dead. From the surviving individual's POV, it's better to be the person for whom's benefit your country kills, than the person killed by them.
    - hnaccy 8y ago
      >There are a lot of different ethical systems, but almost all of them consider killing people to be evil. This is too strong a claim.
    - harimau777 8y ago
      I don't think that's accurate. Christianity, at least, forbids murder but not killing in general.
    - james_s_tayler 8y ago
      You're evil. You'd rather Hitler rocks up and the Allied forces weren't able to defend because they didn't invest in military technology or have an army because that would be evil. At some point you just have to get a grip on reality.
    - anongraddebt 8y ago
      Consider the following hypothetical: You're a female rape victim. The rapist broke into your house and performed said act. 6 months pass, and you decide to buy a gun (a glock, say) and take self-defense classes which include weapons training. You now stash the gun under your pillow at night, and you live alone. Would effective self-defense (ostensibly, including the likelihood of killing a potential perpetrator) be evil? I don't see how you get out of this puzzle. The only thing I can think of is something like St. Augustine's argument that it can be sinful to do something, but still be a morally right act (or morally right thing to do). One of his points is that this is one of the perplexing aspects of the human condition. But if we follow Augustine down this path, then we don't really end up with a conclusion that you wanted to drive at. You want to say putting resources behind a nation-state defending itself is evil, and is evil tout court. Augustine's argumentative path won't get you there. Now, you could say individual self-defense is not the same as nation-state self-defense. That's fair. But, let's now walk our way down this path a bit. Is there a relevant and substantive difference between individual self-defense and the self-defense of a village of 50 native american indians soon to be snuffed out by Custer? How about 1,000? At what point do we say too many people in the collective ('nation-state') makes effective self-defense evil, in general.

nostrademons 8y ago

DARPA is IMHO one of the most ironic agencies on the planet: it's an organization whose fundamental purpose is evil (let's kill people better) that has managed to invent some of the best technological developments in history. The Internet, the GUI, time-sharing, TOR, and virtual reality are all DARPA-offshoots.

anongraddebt 8y ago
Wouldn't effective defense of a nation-state require putting resources behind projects that lead to "killing people better?" If so, would the purpose of effectively defending a nation-state be evil?
- nostrademons 8y ago
  Yes. :-) There are a lot of different ethical systems, but almost all of them consider killing people to be evil. Sometimes people quibble about whether killing people in self-defense or defense of others is evil, eg. "Would it be evil to go back in time and kill Hitler?" But note the asymmetry: it may be debatable whether killing Hitler is justified, but everyone save some very fringe movements believes that Hitler himself was evil. We put up with nation-states because of survivorship bias. There are two kinds of people: those who live under the jurisdiction of a modern nation-state, and those who are now dead. From the surviving individual's POV, it's better to be the person for whom's benefit your country kills, than the person killed by them.
  - hnaccy 8y ago
    >There are a lot of different ethical systems, but almost all of them consider killing people to be evil. This is too strong a claim.
  - harimau777 8y ago
    I don't think that's accurate. Christianity, at least, forbids murder but not killing in general.
  - james_s_tayler 8y ago
    You're evil. You'd rather Hitler rocks up and the Allied forces weren't able to defend because they didn't invest in military technology or have an army because that would be evil. At some point you just have to get a grip on reality.
  - anongraddebt 8y ago
    Consider the following hypothetical: You're a female rape victim. The rapist broke into your house and performed said act. 6 months pass, and you decide to buy a gun (a glock, say) and take self-defense classes which include weapons training. You now stash the gun under your pillow at night, and you live alone. Would effective self-defense (ostensibly, including the likelihood of killing a potential perpetrator) be evil? I don't see how you get out of this puzzle. The only thing I can think of is something like St. Augustine's argument that it can be sinful to do something, but still be a morally right act (or morally right thing to do). One of his points is that this is one of the perplexing aspects of the human condition. But if we follow Augustine down this path, then we don't really end up with a conclusion that you wanted to drive at. You want to say putting resources behind a nation-state defending itself is evil, and is evil tout court. Augustine's argumentative path won't get you there. Now, you could say individual self-defense is not the same as nation-state self-defense. That's fair. But, let's now walk our way down this path a bit. Is there a relevant and substantive difference between individual self-defense and the self-defense of a village of 50 native american indians soon to be snuffed out by Custer? How about 1,000? At what point do we say too many people in the collective ('nation-state') makes effective self-defense evil, in general.