4 ms·

And this is why getting private industry into space is what matters. $1.6 billion is a tiny fraction of what we spend on things that will have basically 0 impa

by rjf72 7y ago

And this is why getting private industry into space is what matters. $1.6 billion is a tiny fraction of what we spend on things that will have basically 0 impact on the longterm outcome of our species. But since it doesn't get votes or feed special interests, it's left unfunded. Of course even if it was funded, it might well get cut. For instance one reason Nixon stripped down the space program was literally because he didn't like JFK and didn't want JFK's legacy overshadowing his own. [1] Bezos, for instance, wanting to spend the majority of his wealth creating a private space industry can be seen as capricious, but I think this is myopic. Some time, ideally not all that far from now, space will have revolutionized every single aspect of our society. It provides endless lands for colonizing, endless mineral resources for harvesting, and an infinite frontier to reach ever deeper into. If we only moved forward once everything else was sound and stable, we'd never move forward. [1] - http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/jason-callahan/20141003-how-richard-nixon-changed-nasa.html http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/jason-callahan/20...

jaratec 7y ago
"A new life awaits you in the Off-World colonies. The chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!" (Blade Runner)
dmead 7y ago
> And this is why getting private industry into space is what matters. Really? that's an interesting conclusion to jump to. Maybe it would be easier to properly run the government than try to make companies that pretend to do the job of nation states? Bezos is doing what he's doing precisely because he has the money to do it and not be beholden to profit motives. Saying "we should get private companies involved in space" comes with a HUGE asterix of "as long as they aren't beholden to profit motives". And yes, spaceX is a thing but they're never going to turn a profit. The whole thing is a for profit company in name only.
- pault 7y ago
  At one point international trade was the job of nation states. I don't think it's outrageous to imagine that some large scale endeavors require enormous upfront capital and organization, but eventually become cheap enough to move to the private sector.
  - dmead 7y ago
    I agree, i thought of the old trade companies in England that were basically responsible for spreading the british empire. I still can't but think this is somehow different.
- MockObject 7y ago
  > Maybe it would be easier to properly run the government One generation doesn't seem to be able to run government more properly than its preceding generation, so it's probably impossible to do better than we are doing.
  - Frondo 7y ago
    Previous generations have done lots better; what you're seeing is the end result of a few decades of the "starve the beast" project, working its way into governments from local to the federal level. There's now one mainstream party that wants the government to run properly, serve the people, etc., and one mainstream party that runs explicitly under the slogan of "the government isn't the solution, the government is the problem," and claims that any use of government resources for a social benefit is "socialism." Please don't buy into the idea that government, by its nature, is dysfunctional--please look at other countries around the world to see that it is possible to have a non-corrupt, beneficent government entity that improves life for its citizens. That's just not what we have in the US.
    - rjf72 7y ago
      You have a very unrealistic image of governmental history. As mentioned a big part of the reason Nixon decided to can the space program was because he literally did not like JFK. That was in 1972. If you want to go back further in history we had a vice president and secretary of the treasury literally engage in a duel to the death over their disputes. In particular the man on the $10 bill was killed by vice president of the man on the nickel. That was in 1804. If you'd like to go in between those we dates were busy killing each other off in a Civil War. Even looking at the present, I think many are not aware of what's happening in Europe. Systems from Scandinavia's welfare state to the UK's NHS are in increasingly bad shape with things looking to only become worse. It's a mixture of increasing migration, an aging population, in the case of healthcare systems populations becoming generally less healthful, and increasing ideological fracturing of society. These are all issues that the US has has been an unfortunate leader on. The solidity of these systems will be illustrated over the next decade or two. Suffice to say, places like Sweden are already a good distance from the country you may think you are idealizing, and a few decades from now it will likely be even further away from that ideal. The point of this is that you need to compare apples to apples. If you're still idealizing Europe in a couple of decades, I'll concede the point - but I doubt you will be.
jchrisa 7y ago
Certainly would be useful to diversify the efforts. That way one political hiccup in one swamp town can't pause progress for decades.
notahacker 7y ago
A bit of an exaggeration to argue the space industry is "unfunded", when the government spends double AMZN's net income on NASA every year even now. $1.6bn is one small step for government, one giant leap for the private sector.

by rjf72 7y ago

jaratec 7y ago

"A new life awaits you in the Off-World colonies. The chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!" (Blade Runner)

dmead 7y ago

> And this is why getting private industry into space is what matters. Really? that's an interesting conclusion to jump to. Maybe it would be easier to properly run the government than try to make companies that pretend to do the job of nation states? Bezos is doing what he's doing precisely because he has the money to do it and not be beholden to profit motives. Saying "we should get private companies involved in space" comes with a HUGE asterix of "as long as they aren't beholden to profit motives". And yes, spaceX is a thing but they're never going to turn a profit. The whole thing is a for profit company in name only.

pault 7y ago
At one point international trade was the job of nation states. I don't think it's outrageous to imagine that some large scale endeavors require enormous upfront capital and organization, but eventually become cheap enough to move to the private sector.
- dmead 7y ago
  I agree, i thought of the old trade companies in England that were basically responsible for spreading the british empire. I still can't but think this is somehow different.
MockObject 7y ago
> Maybe it would be easier to properly run the government One generation doesn't seem to be able to run government more properly than its preceding generation, so it's probably impossible to do better than we are doing.
- Frondo 7y ago
  Previous generations have done lots better; what you're seeing is the end result of a few decades of the "starve the beast" project, working its way into governments from local to the federal level. There's now one mainstream party that wants the government to run properly, serve the people, etc., and one mainstream party that runs explicitly under the slogan of "the government isn't the solution, the government is the problem," and claims that any use of government resources for a social benefit is "socialism." Please don't buy into the idea that government, by its nature, is dysfunctional--please look at other countries around the world to see that it is possible to have a non-corrupt, beneficent government entity that improves life for its citizens. That's just not what we have in the US.
  - rjf72 7y ago
    You have a very unrealistic image of governmental history. As mentioned a big part of the reason Nixon decided to can the space program was because he literally did not like JFK. That was in 1972. If you want to go back further in history we had a vice president and secretary of the treasury literally engage in a duel to the death over their disputes. In particular the man on the $10 bill was killed by vice president of the man on the nickel. That was in 1804. If you'd like to go in between those we dates were busy killing each other off in a Civil War. Even looking at the present, I think many are not aware of what's happening in Europe. Systems from Scandinavia's welfare state to the UK's NHS are in increasingly bad shape with things looking to only become worse. It's a mixture of increasing migration, an aging population, in the case of healthcare systems populations becoming generally less healthful, and increasing ideological fracturing of society. These are all issues that the US has has been an unfortunate leader on. The solidity of these systems will be illustrated over the next decade or two. Suffice to say, places like Sweden are already a good distance from the country you may think you are idealizing, and a few decades from now it will likely be even further away from that ideal. The point of this is that you need to compare apples to apples. If you're still idealizing Europe in a couple of decades, I'll concede the point - but I doubt you will be.

jchrisa 7y ago

Certainly would be useful to diversify the efforts. That way one political hiccup in one swamp town can't pause progress for decades.

notahacker 7y ago

A bit of an exaggeration to argue the space industry is "unfunded", when the government spends double AMZN's net income on NASA every year even now. $1.6bn is one small step for government, one giant leap for the private sector.