3 ms·

> The first moon landing was at once a historical inevitability and an improbable fluke. Inevitable because we had already done it so many times in our storytel

> The first moon landing was at once a historical inevitability and an improbable fluke. Inevitable because we had already done it so many times in our storytelling and our dreams. Now, who's dreams? It boggles my mind. When the opportunity comes to talk about the moon, this magical license to speak for the entire human race appears in the pockets all of the young professionals everywhere. Someone's dream can't be to lift up the poor and sick and hated, to make sure no one is left behind. Surely only the opposite could be true: we must leave those people behind, and go to the moon. Otherwise "you are a weird radical who doesn’t know the first thing about Economics. You are a sentimental bleeding-heart who will never understand how things work. Pick yourself up, bucko, and if you say you can’t you’re just making excuses, you’re just the kind of sorry unproductive parasite that the Job Creators and Entrepreneurs have to generously subsidize through their brilliance and benevolence."

DoreenMichele 7y ago
Yeah, no. I'm a homeless advocate. I'm also pro space exploration. These are not mutually exclusive interests, geez.
- detcader 7y ago
  I don't understand how space exploration in the US is an "interest" rather than a commitment of $20 billion per year to something other than infrastructure, public health and anti-poverty programs... and I prefer Gil Scott-Heron's more metrical "yea, no" on the question.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    > something other than infrastructure, public health and anti-poverty programs Or something other than military spending. Space exploration is probably the best way to redirect the efforts of the powerful military-industrial complex. And once it enables something like colonization of Mars, it'll result in "more people to figure out solutions for the problems on Earth (and Mars)", as population growth advocates are fond of saying. More people without further burdening Earth's ecosystems.
    - detcader 7y ago
      Military spending is a function of geopolitics and the world economy-- Moon Fever isn't even a key in the dictionary of an optional parameter. Maybe the fundamental disagreement here comes down to whether we think the way our working society is currently structured alienates us from each other or not. Human wellbeing may seem like a function of population growth, but I believe that is an illusion. If what we have now is a healthy society, then sure, let's expand it to the moon and Mars.
      - deogeo 7y ago
        > Military spending is a function of geopolitics and the world economy It's also in large part a function of military-industrial complex lobbying. As for human wellbeing - I don't think that's a function of population growth. But technological progress is a function of the total number of people. > If what we have now is a healthy society, then sure, let's expand it I'm sure that by this logic, we never would have left Africa.
        detcader 7y ago
        Yes: that technological progress is the driver of societal health, the middleman between human population growth and the end of human problems-- techno-progressivism and transhumanism-- looks to be the operating framework when space exploration is talked about among my peers. It's not (just) that it's boring to suggest that "missions to Mars should be considered unaffordable luxuries until everyone has adequate shelter, nutrition, and healthcare, and is free from violence and exploitation" or "before getting to put our energies toward the search for other life, and the better understanding of the universe, we have to avoid boiling the planet alive or vaporizing each other in a nuclear holocaust [1]," it's impossible, without more technology. [1] https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/this-little-rock-and-all-who-sail-on-it https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/this-little-rock-and-...
        deogeo 7y ago
        > until everyone has adequate shelter, nutrition, and healthcare, and is free from violence and exploitation I.e. never. See my previous comment about staying in Africa. But why are we only applying this "unaffordable luxury" logic to space exploration? Just the film industry spends $136 billion per year. Add videogames and tourism to that, novels and music and professional sport, and cancel all of it, until we have achieved this utopia of yours. It's not like we'll be without - the films and stories created so far will still be around. You might think it's different, because one is public spending, the other is private. But public spending is (or should be..) just spending we choose to do collectively, instead of individually. If 60% of voters decide a space program is worth pursuing, that's little different than if 60% of moviegoers buy a ticket. You can even pretend that 100% of your taxes go towards homeless shelters, while 100% of their taxes go towards space, if it makes you happy.
plugger 7y ago
This argument was also used during Apollo and it's a false argument. If NASA's budget (then or now) was re-appropriated to combating homelessness around the world it wouldn't even begin to make a dent. Even for US only based homelessness it wouldn't massively tip the scale. It seems this argument is best wielded by those who don't know but "feel" something's wrong.
- detcader 7y ago
  $20 billion a year would relieve a lot of people's suffering (I dunno, I could be wrong.) If people are simply numbers in a system, then yes, we can't "massively tip the scale" with $20 billion and we should ignore statistically insignificant strategies.

DoreenMichele 7y ago

Yeah, no. I'm a homeless advocate. I'm also pro space exploration. These are not mutually exclusive interests, geez.

detcader 7y ago
I don't understand how space exploration in the US is an "interest" rather than a commitment of $20 billion per year to something other than infrastructure, public health and anti-poverty programs... and I prefer Gil Scott-Heron's more metrical "yea, no" on the question.
- deogeo 7y ago
  > something other than infrastructure, public health and anti-poverty programs Or something other than military spending. Space exploration is probably the best way to redirect the efforts of the powerful military-industrial complex. And once it enables something like colonization of Mars, it'll result in "more people to figure out solutions for the problems on Earth (and Mars)", as population growth advocates are fond of saying. More people without further burdening Earth's ecosystems.
  - detcader 7y ago
    Military spending is a function of geopolitics and the world economy-- Moon Fever isn't even a key in the dictionary of an optional parameter. Maybe the fundamental disagreement here comes down to whether we think the way our working society is currently structured alienates us from each other or not. Human wellbeing may seem like a function of population growth, but I believe that is an illusion. If what we have now is a healthy society, then sure, let's expand it to the moon and Mars.
    - deogeo 7y ago
      > Military spending is a function of geopolitics and the world economy It's also in large part a function of military-industrial complex lobbying. As for human wellbeing - I don't think that's a function of population growth. But technological progress is a function of the total number of people. > If what we have now is a healthy society, then sure, let's expand it I'm sure that by this logic, we never would have left Africa.
      - detcader 7y ago
        Yes: that technological progress is the driver of societal health, the middleman between human population growth and the end of human problems-- techno-progressivism and transhumanism-- looks to be the operating framework when space exploration is talked about among my peers. It's not (just) that it's boring to suggest that "missions to Mars should be considered unaffordable luxuries until everyone has adequate shelter, nutrition, and healthcare, and is free from violence and exploitation" or "before getting to put our energies toward the search for other life, and the better understanding of the universe, we have to avoid boiling the planet alive or vaporizing each other in a nuclear holocaust [1]," it's impossible, without more technology. [1] https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/this-little-rock-and-all-who-sail-on-it https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/this-little-rock-and-...
        deogeo 7y ago
        > until everyone has adequate shelter, nutrition, and healthcare, and is free from violence and exploitation I.e. never. See my previous comment about staying in Africa. But why are we only applying this "unaffordable luxury" logic to space exploration? Just the film industry spends $136 billion per year. Add videogames and tourism to that, novels and music and professional sport, and cancel all of it, until we have achieved this utopia of yours. It's not like we'll be without - the films and stories created so far will still be around. You might think it's different, because one is public spending, the other is private. But public spending is (or should be..) just spending we choose to do collectively, instead of individually. If 60% of voters decide a space program is worth pursuing, that's little different than if 60% of moviegoers buy a ticket. You can even pretend that 100% of your taxes go towards homeless shelters, while 100% of their taxes go towards space, if it makes you happy.

plugger 7y ago

This argument was also used during Apollo and it's a false argument. If NASA's budget (then or now) was re-appropriated to combating homelessness around the world it wouldn't even begin to make a dent. Even for US only based homelessness it wouldn't massively tip the scale. It seems this argument is best wielded by those who don't know but "feel" something's wrong.

detcader 7y ago
$20 billion a year would relieve a lot of people's suffering (I dunno, I could be wrong.) If people are simply numbers in a system, then yes, we can't "massively tip the scale" with $20 billion and we should ignore statistically insignificant strategies.