3 ms·

> It is hard to convey how “sustainable” this feels to me. For the first time, humans have gone into orbit in a spacecraft that was designed from the ground up

by qubex 6y ago

> It is hard to convey how “sustainable” this feels to me. For the first time, humans have gone into orbit in a spacecraft that was designed from the ground up to be a commercial venture. I understand your sentiment, but I’m also profoundly unsettled by the idea that commerce and capitalism are reaching beyond the clutches of our planet. Today is definitely a threshold, but what that threshold means, in a broader sense, is not clear to me. As liberals we celebrate the entrepreneurial slam-dunk and as technologists we admire the elegant engineering. But maybe I’m jaded, but I fear the profit motive is going too far. We live in a truly extraordinary moment socioeconomically. Never before in the history of mankind had so much activity been predicated upon commercial viability — and never before had so much gone undone simply because it is unprofitable. Spacefaring nations’ governments have not abdicated spaceflight, and indeed they’re likely to militarise their approach ever more. But now we have private enterprise ferrying people up there too. “Sustainable”... what a funny word. When have commercial ventures ever been “sustainable”? A sustainable commercial venture tends to be one that externalises most of its costs (look at the sustainability of bulwarks of 20th century commercial ventures, such as the automotive industry and its bedfellow oil & gas). I will say I’m glad that manned spaceflight is no longer the prerogative of a couple of extraordinarily well-heeled superpowers. But...

orangecat 6y ago
I fear the profit motive is going too far. And I hope it goes further. We've seen what happens when decisions are made on the basis of political expedience rather than cost-effectiveness: you get SLS. Or more accurately, you don't get SLS.
- icelancer 6y ago
  Amen. SLS is an embarrassment. It is clear who should be handling the future of spaceflight after today.
nickik 6y ago
Wow, I hate the philosophy behind this comment so much. The it must be exhausting to look at the world threw such a pessimistic lenses. Its like human commerce is some cancer and if business and capitalist spreads the then the cancer will grow and take over the universe ultimiatly leading to the end of the universe because the inherent un-sustainability. If we only could achieve things with the pure power of love, our achievements would be so glorious without the dirtying influence of the profit motive. > Never before in the history of mankind had so much activity been predicated upon commercial viability No idea of how you get to that or how you would actually show that this is correct. > and never before had so much gone undone simply because it is unprofitable. Again, based on what? How you measure that? Can you show hard numbers that this is true in any way? And even if it was, is it it not better that there so many things in the first place, as opposed to the waste majority of history? > Spacefaring nations’ governments have not abdicated spaceflight, and indeed they’re likely to militarise their approach ever more. By any measure human space flight in particular and space-flight in general is less military driven now then ever before. > When have commercial ventures ever been “sustainable”? By any measure most humans care about they are very sustainable. Nothing is sustainable for infinity. In the comment above it was clearly meant that it is sustainable compared to congress driven political budget cycles. Or more likely at least for a decade or two there will very likely be a commercial way to get to space. > A sustainable commercial venture tends to be one that externalises most of its costs (look at the sustainability of bulwarks of 20th century commercial ventures, such as the automotive industry and its bedfellow oil & gas). Its utterly and completely wrong to claim that MOST of the cost is externalized, that is just simply bad math even in industries with a lot of external cost. And then you pick automotive and gas as examples, you do understand that selling of vegan hamburgers is also a commercial venture. Are you saying humanity is not sustainable because we can only have 7 billion people because of commercial ventures. Would going back to 100M human living as hunter gathers in a totally non commercial way be 'sustainable' enough for you? Any the automotive industry is very sustainable and will not go away for a very, very, very long time, there is no indication that we are gone run out of gas anytime soon either, not for decades and more likely never. Far more likely that we are gone come up with something better and basically not use gas much anymore, but it will still be commercially available at that point.

by qubex 6y ago

orangecat 6y ago

I fear the profit motive is going too far. And I hope it goes further. We've seen what happens when decisions are made on the basis of political expedience rather than cost-effectiveness: you get SLS. Or more accurately, you don't get SLS.

icelancer 6y ago
Amen. SLS is an embarrassment. It is clear who should be handling the future of spaceflight after today.

nickik 6y ago

Wow, I hate the philosophy behind this comment so much. The it must be exhausting to look at the world threw such a pessimistic lenses. Its like human commerce is some cancer and if business and capitalist spreads the then the cancer will grow and take over the universe ultimiatly leading to the end of the universe because the inherent un-sustainability. If we only could achieve things with the pure power of love, our achievements would be so glorious without the dirtying influence of the profit motive. > Never before in the history of mankind had so much activity been predicated upon commercial viability No idea of how you get to that or how you would actually show that this is correct. > and never before had so much gone undone simply because it is unprofitable. Again, based on what? How you measure that? Can you show hard numbers that this is true in any way? And even if it was, is it it not better that there so many things in the first place, as opposed to the waste majority of history? > Spacefaring nations’ governments have not abdicated spaceflight, and indeed they’re likely to militarise their approach ever more. By any measure human space flight in particular and space-flight in general is less military driven now then ever before. > When have commercial ventures ever been “sustainable”? By any measure most humans care about they are very sustainable. Nothing is sustainable for infinity. In the comment above it was clearly meant that it is sustainable compared to congress driven political budget cycles. Or more likely at least for a decade or two there will very likely be a commercial way to get to space. > A sustainable commercial venture tends to be one that externalises most of its costs (look at the sustainability of bulwarks of 20th century commercial ventures, such as the automotive industry and its bedfellow oil & gas). Its utterly and completely wrong to claim that MOST of the cost is externalized, that is just simply bad math even in industries with a lot of external cost. And then you pick automotive and gas as examples, you do understand that selling of vegan hamburgers is also a commercial venture. Are you saying humanity is not sustainable because we can only have 7 billion people because of commercial ventures. Would going back to 100M human living as hunter gathers in a totally non commercial way be 'sustainable' enough for you? Any the automotive industry is very sustainable and will not go away for a very, very, very long time, there is no indication that we are gone run out of gas anytime soon either, not for decades and more likely never. Far more likely that we are gone come up with something better and basically not use gas much anymore, but it will still be commercially available at that point.