4 ms·

This anti-space exploration position is basically a meme now and is so unoriginal and tiresome. Where's your anger when it comes to movie development, internat

This anti-space exploration position is basically a meme now and is so unoriginal and tiresome. Where's your anger when it comes to movie development, international tourism, stadium construction, the cosmetics industry, and the rest of the endless list of nonsense that is more wasteful and less beneficial than allocating a tiny proportion of Earth's resources towards rocket tech? I hope to hear this cynical take when the next Spiderman is announced! (I'll be holding my breath, though)

skywal_l 5y ago
It's a strawman argument. I don't think people are against space exploration. When a dude alone can finance a space program it creates two moral issues: 1. How come a guy who make people pee in bottles have enough money for this? 2. Should space exploration be privatized this way. Of course, you can see no evil here, but that's different from caricaturing legitimate arguments.
- mewpmewp2 5y ago
  I think this is a pro towards capitalism. It's good that we have individuals with successful track record who managed to gather so many resources and instead of blowing it on expensive vices, they decide to use those resources to organize groups of people to innovate on things that no government would have incentive to do in order to have a better product or some sort of escape latch for humanity if things were to go very wrong. If instead of something like capitalism we taxed people until they wouldn't have left over money to start new businesses, how would new businesses even be brought to life? How would you go about organizing group of people to work on a single goal that would not have immediate benefit and especially when a common lay person would think it's a complete waste of time? In such world where wealth was divided equally and 99% common people who don't understand the subject or potential gains many years down the line. Would we use some sort of voting system in such a world on what we should build if that something would require 100B worth of resources to build? I think if you managed to earn that 100B in the current system, it's evidence of your ability to use money wisely, to make something out of nothing, enough of it for it to provide more than 100B worth of value to the world, I think I would trust such person to make good decisions on next businesses and start ups as well as opposed to people collectively voting and trying to organize on what the next innovative attempt would be. In the end worrying about him having 100B, just seems like envy out of ego rather than pragmatic thinking to me.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  1. I won't respond to this because this is a wealth inequality question/debate which is much broader in scope. 2. Yes, definitely. Government should step in and run the show only when there's market failure.

skywal_l 5y ago

It's a strawman argument. I don't think people are against space exploration. When a dude alone can finance a space program it creates two moral issues: 1. How come a guy who make people pee in bottles have enough money for this? 2. Should space exploration be privatized this way. Of course, you can see no evil here, but that's different from caricaturing legitimate arguments.

mewpmewp2 5y ago
I think this is a pro towards capitalism. It's good that we have individuals with successful track record who managed to gather so many resources and instead of blowing it on expensive vices, they decide to use those resources to organize groups of people to innovate on things that no government would have incentive to do in order to have a better product or some sort of escape latch for humanity if things were to go very wrong. If instead of something like capitalism we taxed people until they wouldn't have left over money to start new businesses, how would new businesses even be brought to life? How would you go about organizing group of people to work on a single goal that would not have immediate benefit and especially when a common lay person would think it's a complete waste of time? In such world where wealth was divided equally and 99% common people who don't understand the subject or potential gains many years down the line. Would we use some sort of voting system in such a world on what we should build if that something would require 100B worth of resources to build? I think if you managed to earn that 100B in the current system, it's evidence of your ability to use money wisely, to make something out of nothing, enough of it for it to provide more than 100B worth of value to the world, I think I would trust such person to make good decisions on next businesses and start ups as well as opposed to people collectively voting and trying to organize on what the next innovative attempt would be. In the end worrying about him having 100B, just seems like envy out of ego rather than pragmatic thinking to me.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fighterpilot 5y ago
1. I won't respond to this because this is a wealth inequality question/debate which is much broader in scope. 2. Yes, definitely. Government should step in and run the show only when there's market failure.