3 ms·

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 fundam

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.
    - detcader 7y ago
      I don't think about art as comparable to space travel, and I don't think all the artists and schools losing funding in favor of STEM do either... Sure, I think democracy was the point of Gil-Scott Heron writing his poem, and N. Robinson writing his essays? To convince who they could to deprioritize one thing in favor of another? But let's not pretend the current system of political campaigning in the US is at this moment translating pure public sentiment into pure public spending.

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.
  - detcader 7y ago
    I don't think about art as comparable to space travel, and I don't think all the artists and schools losing funding in favor of STEM do either... Sure, I think democracy was the point of Gil-Scott Heron writing his poem, and N. Robinson writing his essays? To convince who they could to deprioritize one thing in favor of another? But let's not pretend the current system of political campaigning in the US is at this moment translating pure public sentiment into pure public spending.