8 ms·

Call them what you want. They pushed the world forward, period.

by joshsyn 5y ago

krapp 5y ago
They pushed the world, certainly. Whether they pushed it "forward" is debatable.
tayo42 5y ago
Going to the moon again is pushing the world forward? Why? Humans got there and there's been no reason to go back
- jhgb 5y ago
  "Why? Humans got there and there's been no reason to go back" -- Europeans in 1493 about the Americas...not!
  - medstrom 5y ago
    They might have said it if the Americas had even worse living conditions than Antarctica. We're not colonizing that either.
    - jhgb 5y ago
      > We're not colonizing that either. That might largely be explained by the fact that doing so would be illegal as per international law to begin with.
      - AngryData 5y ago
        It isn't like anybody is going to really stop you from living there. There are multiple land disputes over Antarctica and nobody has given a shit about those. Plus all the research stations which provide permanent habitat if someone wanted to keep shipping in supplies. You expect if you built a greenhouse or power generation source for indoor gardening that some government would spend the effort to send in troops or bomb you?
        jhgb 5y ago
        > It isn't like anybody is going to really stop you from living there. ...are you sure about that? Have you tried violating the international treaties?
        skissane 5y ago
        > You expect if you built a greenhouse or power generation source for indoor gardening that some government would spend the effort to send in troops or bomb you? Well, if you are a US citizen, it is illegal to do that in Antarctica without a permit from the NSF (under the Antarctic Conservation Act). If you do it anyway, expect to be prosecuted, and the US will send agents to arrest you, even if you are in Antarctica. The FBI has made an arrest in Antarctica before (due to a fight at McMurdo Station). All state parties to the Antarctic Treaty have similar laws, which (generally speaking) apply to their nationals worldwide. If you were a sole citizen of a country which is not a party to the Antarctic Treaty – such as, Andorra or Afghanistan or Costa Rica or Cyprus or Ireland or Malta or Nigeria or Uzbekistan – then you'd have somewhat more chance of getting away with it. But surely your act would cause an international incident and they'd look at ways of shutting you down – the country of which you are citizen might suddenly decide to sign the Treaty as well, and shut you down. If the country of citizenship lacks the resources to shut you down, it may give permission to another country which does have those resources (e.g the US) to act against you on its behalf.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- marcinzm 5y ago
  These companies aren't going to the moon, the US government is going to the moon using these companies. These companies are significantly lowering the cost of going into space and eventually going to Mars. That is moving the world forward.
  - tayo42 5y ago
    So nasa wants to go, they're driving the innovation. > SpaceX CEO Elon Musk responded to the GAO decision on Twitter with a flexed-biceps emoji. This sounds like billionaires and their egos fighting with each other. Not really trying to make the world better
    - marcinzm 5y ago
      >So nasa wants to go, they're driving the innovation. You said going to the Moon isn't innovation. You can't have it both ways.
      - tayo42 5y ago
        Nasa is research motivated. These companies are profit and ego driven.
- B4CKlash 5y ago
  This is an incredibly small minded perspective. Difficult challenges require new technologies, new processes and new ways of thinking. More specifically, technologies developed through the race to land on the moon (and space flight generally) are integral to almost every aspect of 'your' life and define what most of us consider human flourishing. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies#:~:text=Well%2Dknown%20products%20that%20NASA,swimsuits%2C%20and%20CMOS%20image%20sensors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies#:~:t.... https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/20-inventions-we-wouldnt-have-without-space-travel https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/20-inventions-we-would...
  - tayo42 5y ago
    These companies are just trying to shoot rockets further then each other. They're not science pr research companies. We're not learning more about space and the universe thanks to the them. What spin off tech have we gotten from them?
    - sterlind 5y ago
      Starlink? But these companies (well, at least SpaceX) have their focus on making orbit cheap and sustainable, and pushing towards Mars colonization and asteroid mining. Those are engineering and logistics problems more than science problems, but I think they're very important.
      - tsimionescu 5y ago
        Those are all ways to squander the Earth's limited resources while sounding forward thinking. Colonizing Mars will likely never happen, there is simply no upside: huge challenges, with no interesting resources. The Earth has plenty of space, we're limited by resources, and there are no interesting resources on Mars. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that we'll have a colony outside the solar system before a colony on Mars. Asteroid mining is more plausible, but still extremely unlikely given our current technology. There are massive hurdles, and few things that would massively improve life on Earth - it's much more interesting from a profit perspective than a future of humanity perspective.
- AngryData 5y ago
  Well there is the prospect of mining, refining, and construction in space and on the moon. While all that presents a whole slew of new challenges, it also has many huge benefits. Rockets use like 90% of their fuel just getting their payload into off of Earth, refining fuels on the moon would make going any place else in the solar system super cheap. Building ships already in space would allow much lighter designs and less constricted spaces as it doesn't have to survive an external atmosphere and intense winds. It also makes asteroid capturing and mining feasible, currently we would need an almost perfectly ideal asteroid to capture because we can't get that much fuel up into space to push an asteroid around much at all. We open up tons of potential candidates if we can make even small amounts of fuel off of Earth. Capture even a small platinum asteroid and nudge it into a collision course with Antarctica and you just made platinum stupid cheap which has a bazillion amazing uses but currently costs ridiculous amounts of money. It would be worth more than the entirety of all space programs on Earth combined, just to do it once.
  - tayo42 5y ago
    Antarctica is a fragile environment, no way we are going on purpose slam an asteroid into it so we can continue to pollute our planet. This isn't realistic at all
cratermoon 5y ago
They have certainly pushed the world. Whether the direction we're going is 'forward' is extremely debatable. It certainly might look that way from certain positions, but not all points of view agree, and there's no clear way to determine which should be privileged.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  It's one thing to disagree, another to call them sociopaths. If what they're doing is debatable - let's debate then. With respect for each other and with civility.
  - bigbob2 5y ago
    So it's civil to engage in anti-competitive behavior which arguably sets back the progress of humanity ("pushing the world forward"), but not civil to use the word 'sociopath' in reference to such actions? I was always taught that actions speak louder than words.
    - smabie 5y ago
      I mean sociopath has a real definition you can't just call everyone you don't like sociopaths.
      - bigbob2 5y ago
        That's fine, but you also can't just call someone uncivil for using a hyperbole you don't agree with.
  - cratermoon 5y ago
    The word you're looking for is not sociopath, it's 'psychopath'. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-642-28036-8_128 https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3...
- joshsyn 5y ago
  Exactly most of the complaints I find are simply out of jealousy of their accomplishments and the need for power among people who want to put limits on their achievements. Can we revert back to its none of your business what they do?

Call them what you want. They pushed the world forward, period.

krapp 5y ago

They pushed the world, certainly. Whether they pushed it "forward" is debatable.

tayo42 5y ago

Going to the moon again is pushing the world forward? Why? Humans got there and there's been no reason to go back

jhgb 5y ago
"Why? Humans got there and there's been no reason to go back" -- Europeans in 1493 about the Americas...not!
- medstrom 5y ago
  They might have said it if the Americas had even worse living conditions than Antarctica. We're not colonizing that either.
  - jhgb 5y ago
    > We're not colonizing that either. That might largely be explained by the fact that doing so would be illegal as per international law to begin with.
    - AngryData 5y ago
      It isn't like anybody is going to really stop you from living there. There are multiple land disputes over Antarctica and nobody has given a shit about those. Plus all the research stations which provide permanent habitat if someone wanted to keep shipping in supplies. You expect if you built a greenhouse or power generation source for indoor gardening that some government would spend the effort to send in troops or bomb you?
      - jhgb 5y ago
        > It isn't like anybody is going to really stop you from living there. ...are you sure about that? Have you tried violating the international treaties?
      - skissane 5y ago
        > You expect if you built a greenhouse or power generation source for indoor gardening that some government would spend the effort to send in troops or bomb you? Well, if you are a US citizen, it is illegal to do that in Antarctica without a permit from the NSF (under the Antarctic Conservation Act). If you do it anyway, expect to be prosecuted, and the US will send agents to arrest you, even if you are in Antarctica. The FBI has made an arrest in Antarctica before (due to a fight at McMurdo Station). All state parties to the Antarctic Treaty have similar laws, which (generally speaking) apply to their nationals worldwide. If you were a sole citizen of a country which is not a party to the Antarctic Treaty – such as, Andorra or Afghanistan or Costa Rica or Cyprus or Ireland or Malta or Nigeria or Uzbekistan – then you'd have somewhat more chance of getting away with it. But surely your act would cause an international incident and they'd look at ways of shutting you down – the country of which you are citizen might suddenly decide to sign the Treaty as well, and shut you down. If the country of citizenship lacks the resources to shut you down, it may give permission to another country which does have those resources (e.g the US) to act against you on its behalf.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
marcinzm 5y ago
These companies aren't going to the moon, the US government is going to the moon using these companies. These companies are significantly lowering the cost of going into space and eventually going to Mars. That is moving the world forward.
- tayo42 5y ago
  So nasa wants to go, they're driving the innovation. > SpaceX CEO Elon Musk responded to the GAO decision on Twitter with a flexed-biceps emoji. This sounds like billionaires and their egos fighting with each other. Not really trying to make the world better
  - marcinzm 5y ago
    >So nasa wants to go, they're driving the innovation. You said going to the Moon isn't innovation. You can't have it both ways.
    - tayo42 5y ago
      Nasa is research motivated. These companies are profit and ego driven.
B4CKlash 5y ago
This is an incredibly small minded perspective. Difficult challenges require new technologies, new processes and new ways of thinking. More specifically, technologies developed through the race to land on the moon (and space flight generally) are integral to almost every aspect of 'your' life and define what most of us consider human flourishing. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies#:~:text=Well%2Dknown%20products%20that%20NASA,swimsuits%2C%20and%20CMOS%20image%20sensors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies#:~:t.... https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/20-inventions-we-wouldnt-have-without-space-travel https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/20-inventions-we-would...
- tayo42 5y ago
  These companies are just trying to shoot rockets further then each other. They're not science pr research companies. We're not learning more about space and the universe thanks to the them. What spin off tech have we gotten from them?
  - sterlind 5y ago
    Starlink? But these companies (well, at least SpaceX) have their focus on making orbit cheap and sustainable, and pushing towards Mars colonization and asteroid mining. Those are engineering and logistics problems more than science problems, but I think they're very important.
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      Those are all ways to squander the Earth's limited resources while sounding forward thinking. Colonizing Mars will likely never happen, there is simply no upside: huge challenges, with no interesting resources. The Earth has plenty of space, we're limited by resources, and there are no interesting resources on Mars. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that we'll have a colony outside the solar system before a colony on Mars. Asteroid mining is more plausible, but still extremely unlikely given our current technology. There are massive hurdles, and few things that would massively improve life on Earth - it's much more interesting from a profit perspective than a future of humanity perspective.
AngryData 5y ago
Well there is the prospect of mining, refining, and construction in space and on the moon. While all that presents a whole slew of new challenges, it also has many huge benefits. Rockets use like 90% of their fuel just getting their payload into off of Earth, refining fuels on the moon would make going any place else in the solar system super cheap. Building ships already in space would allow much lighter designs and less constricted spaces as it doesn't have to survive an external atmosphere and intense winds. It also makes asteroid capturing and mining feasible, currently we would need an almost perfectly ideal asteroid to capture because we can't get that much fuel up into space to push an asteroid around much at all. We open up tons of potential candidates if we can make even small amounts of fuel off of Earth. Capture even a small platinum asteroid and nudge it into a collision course with Antarctica and you just made platinum stupid cheap which has a bazillion amazing uses but currently costs ridiculous amounts of money. It would be worth more than the entirety of all space programs on Earth combined, just to do it once.
- tayo42 5y ago
  Antarctica is a fragile environment, no way we are going on purpose slam an asteroid into it so we can continue to pollute our planet. This isn't realistic at all

cratermoon 5y ago

They have certainly pushed the world. Whether the direction we're going is 'forward' is extremely debatable. It certainly might look that way from certain positions, but not all points of view agree, and there's no clear way to determine which should be privileged.

systemvoltage 5y ago
It's one thing to disagree, another to call them sociopaths. If what they're doing is debatable - let's debate then. With respect for each other and with civility.
- bigbob2 5y ago
  So it's civil to engage in anti-competitive behavior which arguably sets back the progress of humanity ("pushing the world forward"), but not civil to use the word 'sociopath' in reference to such actions? I was always taught that actions speak louder than words.
  - smabie 5y ago
    I mean sociopath has a real definition you can't just call everyone you don't like sociopaths.
    - bigbob2 5y ago
      That's fine, but you also can't just call someone uncivil for using a hyperbole you don't agree with.
- cratermoon 5y ago
  The word you're looking for is not sociopath, it's 'psychopath'. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-642-28036-8_128 https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3...
joshsyn 5y ago
Exactly most of the complaints I find are simply out of jealousy of their accomplishments and the need for power among people who want to put limits on their achievements. Can we revert back to its none of your business what they do?