4 ms·

The problem with protect and conserve is that is leads to limited resources mentality. "There is not enough to go around" becomes ugly very fast. https://mobil

The problem with protect and conserve is that is leads to limited resources mentality. "There is not enough to go around" becomes ugly very fast. https://mobile.twitter.com/robert_zubrin/status/1013477057488216064 https://mobile.twitter.com/robert_zubrin/status/101347705748... Edit: Will surely invest considerable resources to convert Earth to a national park once we have outgrown earth's economy 100x

bumby 6y ago
>is leads to limited resources mentality I think greed and hedonic adaptation can also lead to this. There's no monopoly on some of the lesser angels of human nature. That link is assuming that the ends justify the means, which I tend to believe is the road to evil. In this case, there are more foundational principals that would take precedence.
FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
You touch on the primary flaw of "spend the money here on Earth" argument. Money spent on space programs IS spent here on Earth. The money paid to engineers and fabricators and for raw materials goes to pay for house payments, durable goods, food and taxes of the individuals working on these projects. And those payments create jobs delivering these services, which benefits an ever increasing number of people. It's not as if dollar bills were litterally burned to provide rocket thrust.
- bumby 6y ago
  I think you’re taking the phrasing too literally. It is meant to confer the money should be spent on programs that directly contribute to more people’s lives than just those who work on the specific program. Your same argument can be used for the defense contractors as well and people will still line up to argue it’s not the best use of tax dollars
  - nickik 6y ago
    This program is about giving internet to under-served communities so their children can do remote schoolwork and things like that. What exactly is your problem with that?
    - bumby 6y ago
      I, personally, don’t have an issue with it. The context was that I am trying to give a good faith steelman argument for those who don’t think it’s the best use of money when other, perhaps more pressing, problems exist here “on earth” (quotations being used because I think the original intent of the phrase was too literally interpreted). To extend that argument, is it better to give underserved internet access or spend the money on something that potentially saves someone’s life, like mosquito netting? I think even though HN is very in love with high tech problems, many would argue we could serve humanity better by prioritizing those lower tech problems that tend to solve more fundamental needs

bumby 6y ago

>is leads to limited resources mentality I think greed and hedonic adaptation can also lead to this. There's no monopoly on some of the lesser angels of human nature. That link is assuming that the ends justify the means, which I tend to believe is the road to evil. In this case, there are more foundational principals that would take precedence.

FlyMoreRockets 6y ago

You touch on the primary flaw of "spend the money here on Earth" argument. Money spent on space programs IS spent here on Earth. The money paid to engineers and fabricators and for raw materials goes to pay for house payments, durable goods, food and taxes of the individuals working on these projects. And those payments create jobs delivering these services, which benefits an ever increasing number of people. It's not as if dollar bills were litterally burned to provide rocket thrust.

bumby 6y ago
I think you’re taking the phrasing too literally. It is meant to confer the money should be spent on programs that directly contribute to more people’s lives than just those who work on the specific program. Your same argument can be used for the defense contractors as well and people will still line up to argue it’s not the best use of tax dollars
- nickik 6y ago
  This program is about giving internet to under-served communities so their children can do remote schoolwork and things like that. What exactly is your problem with that?
  - bumby 6y ago
    I, personally, don’t have an issue with it. The context was that I am trying to give a good faith steelman argument for those who don’t think it’s the best use of money when other, perhaps more pressing, problems exist here “on earth” (quotations being used because I think the original intent of the phrase was too literally interpreted). To extend that argument, is it better to give underserved internet access or spend the money on something that potentially saves someone’s life, like mosquito netting? I think even though HN is very in love with high tech problems, many would argue we could serve humanity better by prioritizing those lower tech problems that tend to solve more fundamental needs