5 ms·

The counter argument to that, is that it is worth while to do things, even if there are other things that are worth while to do. For any single item one can pi

The counter argument to that, is that it is worth while to do things, even if there are other things that are worth while to do. For any single item one can pick out "Why spend on X, when Y has a need", someone else can come along and say "Why spend on Y when Z has a need".

bumby 6y ago
I think that's exactly the point. It's a disagreement about what gets priority to get optimized. The problem is exacerbated when there are multiple giant sinks for resources (e.g., colonizing Mars, combating climate change). In a world of limited resources, some things have to get sidelined.
- aquadrop 6y ago
  I think colonizing Mars is pretty small sink compared to climate change and many others. With how SpaceX going, I think for the first stage it's comparable to something like one modern Olympic games event cost.
  - bumby 6y ago
    >first stage it's comparable to something like one modern Olympic games event cost. To continue on with the steelmanning, the first stage is probably a drop in a bucket compared to the entire effort. How much freight do you think it would take to colonize a planet with a population large enough to be relatively self-sufficient? Just the payload cost would be huge and that's just to park it (not to assemble, maintain etc.) I think the steelman argument would be to focus on things immediately needed, like healthcare, before space adventurism. Edit: to put a finer point on it, the commercial space industry is essentially subsidized by the government precisely because it's not currently economical. In other words, if the government wasn't a customer there would be no commercial space industry. There's nothing inherently wrong with this because it's how high-risk industries often get started (e.g., the airlines), but the fact that it is subsidized by the government points to the fact that it is (currently) inherently uneconomical
    - derekp7 6y ago
      So if SpaceX shuts down their entire operations (and lets include all rocket companies), then that would completely fix health care and the climate crises? I'm not following the logic of how that would work. It is basically a larger version of the argument "Well, if you are so poor, why did you drink that cup of coffee this morning?"
      - bumby 6y ago
        >that would completely fix health care and the climate crises? At no point did I say it's a magic bullet that would "completely fix" any of that. But spending hundreds of millions directly on healthcare would likely pay more healthcare dividends than, say, some unintended materials science application that started in rocket engine development. How exactly do you think funding gets doled out? They aren't just given a blank check...Agencies request a certain amount, then as the sausage gets made on Capitol Hill, some programs are shaved, others are padded. The people in those discussions are bringing their priorities to the table and, in some cases, will have to make concessions like not having their metaphorical coffee in order to save a higher priority project.
      - eptcyka 6y ago
        I agree, spending more money on healthcare in the states would be fruitless, as the US already pays more per capita for healthcare than any other nation.
        bumby 6y ago
        I'm not sure if this is meant to be snarky/sarcastic but do you understand some of the dynamics that bear this out? For example, the U.S. pays more than 40% (down from 50%) of the worlds medical R&D. They essentially subsidize healthcare for much of the rest of the world (meaning the U.S. bears more of the cost so other countries can have cheaper care). There's plenty wrong with the U.S. healthcare system that needs fixing, but trite sentences don't begin to capture the real nature of the problem.
- mulmen 6y ago
  My disagreement with these arguments is not around what gets prioritized. I disagree with the fundamental premise that we have to pick at all. Human civilization is not single threaded. We can absolutely colonize Mars while solving global warming. In fact I can even imagine ways in which colonizing Mars can help solve global warming.
  - bumby 6y ago
    While I'm generally in favor of what SpaceX is doing, I don't think your point holds up in any sort of constrained environment. Could there be a marginal (or even reasonable) tangential benefit to other industries? Of course, but not as much as if those industries were the primary focus to begin with. With limited resources, you have to prioritize or else you can run the risk of being spread so thin nothing is adequately funded so nothing really gets accomplished. You can't fight a war on all fronts, all the time.
    - chillacy 6y ago
      What you're saying is true but I don't believe humans to be in any kind of "constrained environment" if more people can work on ad delivery and social media marketing than space exploration and environmental engineering combined.
      - bumby 6y ago
        >I don't believe humans to be in any kind of "constrained environment" I probably didn't do a good job of explaining that I meant "constrained environment" in the operations research sense. Everything rooted in the real world is constrained. Why don't we each take a private jet to work everyday? Because we're constrained on money. If we're not constrained on money, we're constrained on time. If it's not that, we're constrained by the amount of carbon we can release and still have a reasonably favorable environment for humans. One of the reasons the Space Shuttle became somewhat of a boondoggle was because of this. They had a constrained budget but had to meet the demands of multiple, often competing, stakeholders. Musk knows this; he knows that NASA has constraints he doesn't. He doesn't have to spread his facilities across multiple States to help ensure support from as many Congress people as possible. He doesn't have to expose himself to the same level of political risk that can change every four years. He can optimize under a different set of constraints, but it would be a mistake to assume he's unconstrained.

bumby 6y ago

I think that's exactly the point. It's a disagreement about what gets priority to get optimized. The problem is exacerbated when there are multiple giant sinks for resources (e.g., colonizing Mars, combating climate change). In a world of limited resources, some things have to get sidelined.

aquadrop 6y ago
I think colonizing Mars is pretty small sink compared to climate change and many others. With how SpaceX going, I think for the first stage it's comparable to something like one modern Olympic games event cost.
- bumby 6y ago
  >first stage it's comparable to something like one modern Olympic games event cost. To continue on with the steelmanning, the first stage is probably a drop in a bucket compared to the entire effort. How much freight do you think it would take to colonize a planet with a population large enough to be relatively self-sufficient? Just the payload cost would be huge and that's just to park it (not to assemble, maintain etc.) I think the steelman argument would be to focus on things immediately needed, like healthcare, before space adventurism. Edit: to put a finer point on it, the commercial space industry is essentially subsidized by the government precisely because it's not currently economical. In other words, if the government wasn't a customer there would be no commercial space industry. There's nothing inherently wrong with this because it's how high-risk industries often get started (e.g., the airlines), but the fact that it is subsidized by the government points to the fact that it is (currently) inherently uneconomical
  - derekp7 6y ago
    So if SpaceX shuts down their entire operations (and lets include all rocket companies), then that would completely fix health care and the climate crises? I'm not following the logic of how that would work. It is basically a larger version of the argument "Well, if you are so poor, why did you drink that cup of coffee this morning?"
    - bumby 6y ago
      >that would completely fix health care and the climate crises? At no point did I say it's a magic bullet that would "completely fix" any of that. But spending hundreds of millions directly on healthcare would likely pay more healthcare dividends than, say, some unintended materials science application that started in rocket engine development. How exactly do you think funding gets doled out? They aren't just given a blank check...Agencies request a certain amount, then as the sausage gets made on Capitol Hill, some programs are shaved, others are padded. The people in those discussions are bringing their priorities to the table and, in some cases, will have to make concessions like not having their metaphorical coffee in order to save a higher priority project.
    - eptcyka 6y ago
      I agree, spending more money on healthcare in the states would be fruitless, as the US already pays more per capita for healthcare than any other nation.
      - bumby 6y ago
        I'm not sure if this is meant to be snarky/sarcastic but do you understand some of the dynamics that bear this out? For example, the U.S. pays more than 40% (down from 50%) of the worlds medical R&D. They essentially subsidize healthcare for much of the rest of the world (meaning the U.S. bears more of the cost so other countries can have cheaper care). There's plenty wrong with the U.S. healthcare system that needs fixing, but trite sentences don't begin to capture the real nature of the problem.
mulmen 6y ago
My disagreement with these arguments is not around what gets prioritized. I disagree with the fundamental premise that we have to pick at all. Human civilization is not single threaded. We can absolutely colonize Mars while solving global warming. In fact I can even imagine ways in which colonizing Mars can help solve global warming.
- bumby 6y ago
  While I'm generally in favor of what SpaceX is doing, I don't think your point holds up in any sort of constrained environment. Could there be a marginal (or even reasonable) tangential benefit to other industries? Of course, but not as much as if those industries were the primary focus to begin with. With limited resources, you have to prioritize or else you can run the risk of being spread so thin nothing is adequately funded so nothing really gets accomplished. You can't fight a war on all fronts, all the time.
  - chillacy 6y ago
    What you're saying is true but I don't believe humans to be in any kind of "constrained environment" if more people can work on ad delivery and social media marketing than space exploration and environmental engineering combined.
    - bumby 6y ago
      >I don't believe humans to be in any kind of "constrained environment" I probably didn't do a good job of explaining that I meant "constrained environment" in the operations research sense. Everything rooted in the real world is constrained. Why don't we each take a private jet to work everyday? Because we're constrained on money. If we're not constrained on money, we're constrained on time. If it's not that, we're constrained by the amount of carbon we can release and still have a reasonably favorable environment for humans. One of the reasons the Space Shuttle became somewhat of a boondoggle was because of this. They had a constrained budget but had to meet the demands of multiple, often competing, stakeholders. Musk knows this; he knows that NASA has constraints he doesn't. He doesn't have to spread his facilities across multiple States to help ensure support from as many Congress people as possible. He doesn't have to expose himself to the same level of political risk that can change every four years. He can optimize under a different set of constraints, but it would be a mistake to assume he's unconstrained.