5 ms·
I didn’t say that increasing the pool was a bad idea. In fact, I said it’s a benefit, albeit a marginal one because it’s a relatively small % of people we’re ta
by _u1dn 5y ago
I didn’t say that increasing the pool was a bad idea. In fact, I said it’s a benefit, albeit a marginal one because it’s a relatively small % of people we’re talking about here. The problem is that it comes at a cost. Furthermore, while we’re on the subject of pool increase, it’s also vastly lowering the selection pool if they favor people from this small group.
There may be aspects of the selection process that are arbitrary, but not having physical disabilities isn’t one of them. As the article discusses, this would involve changing a number of aspects about the program to accommodate this one specific group. It’s not just a matter of “reconsidering and expanding” the restrictions, it’s clearly a major undertaking.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- anthony_romeo 5y agoYou can choose to believe that if you want. I don't see any meat to your argument beyond mere hunchery. For example, you merely identify that a "cost" exists, but you didn't bother to claim it was a meaningful cost in the context of the broader space program.