5 ms·

Would you consider 100 trillion dollars spent on a research base 30 millions miles away which is going to tell you how to make better insulation and grooved pav

Would you consider 100 trillion dollars spent on a research base 30 millions miles away which is going to tell you how to make better insulation and grooved pavement to be wisely invested?

salawat 4y ago
...And provides a fallback point in terms of existential threats to the Earth biosphere? Some things no finite money supply can trump the value of.
- giantg2 4y ago
  I think that depends on if someone believes we should be expanding, or that the human race provides some value that's worth preserving.
  - webmaven 4y ago
    Those that feel otherwise are free to vote with their feet, their wallets, and their ballots. So far, the "human species has value" faction has been winning for.. well, forever, since we aren't extinct. Yet.
    - Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
      > So far, the "human species has value" faction has been winning for.. well, forever, since we aren't extinct. Yet. No, it was the "my life and the life of my family has value". The human specie wins as byproduct of that
      - giantg2 4y ago
        That's basically what I was going for. We have subjective value and mostly self value. I wonder if we provide any objective net benefit when looking from non human centric perspective.
        salawat 4y ago
        Looking at it from an objective, systemic approach, you and yours have zero possibility of survival of an Earth biosphere destabilizing event. A chance can be acquired. If you're going to hide behind the "greedy genes" train of thought, you will need to look elsewhere for a justification on why this would be bad.
        giantg2 4y ago
        "Looking at it from an objective, systemic approach, you and yours have zero possibility of survival of an Earth biosphere destabilizing event." And why would that be a bad thing? The question isn't about the human centric perspective (which you're still taking). The question is about what net benefit does humanity provide the Earth or, potentially in the future, other planets. Why would out extinction be a bad thing from a non-human perspective? I'm not sure why you're bringing "greedy genes" into this.
        salawat 4y ago
        As far as benefit to planet goes, I'll be honest, not tracking it. I'm tracking benefit to life and biosphere, which I do think is becoming increasingly connected with human self-interest, as we are very much the most active "shepherds" of the biosphere we inhabit. Life as we know it will likely not exist anywhere but where we take it, and put in place the conditions for it's continued existence. The Earth, or Mars having an interest or value impact is... Honestly a non-issue in my book. Call me biased against inanimate objects if you like, you won't be wrong.
        Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
        > Looking at it from an objective, systemic approach, you and yours have zero possibility of survival of an Earth biosphere destabilizing event. I don't think that is going to be my problem or my children's problem or my grandchildren's. Once you have exhausted that, well who cares what happens next. And mind that I am a pretty long term view guy compared to 99% of the population. The vast majority of the human population doesn't care about what would happen 5 or 10 years from now. I suspect righfully so. At some point even intellectuals have to admit that time spent worrying is subtracted from the time spent living. So basically yeah, let's dig up all the oil, light that on fire to propel our amazing house party and run the place into the ground. We may never live forever so we better live for now.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Earth is so much better place to live that only scenario where I see us actually needing Mars or other off-planet habitation is something like moon sized object hitting earth or maybe rogue blackhole. That is total apocalyptic destruction of planetary body itself. Mars sucks, and Earth will never be as bad. And anything we can use to live on Mars can be done on Earth, without the involved transportation costs. And self-sufficient colony is just pure sci-fi.
giantg2 4y ago
That wasn't the argument. It was on whether the ISS provided "nothing" of value. There's also a huge difference in value proposition when the ISS is much cheaper and can perform a large number of the same experiments which can benefit others from a technology standpoint.

Would you consider 100 trillion dollars spent on a research base 30 millions miles away which is going to tell you how to make better insulation and grooved pavement to be wisely invested?

salawat 4y ago

...And provides a fallback point in terms of existential threats to the Earth biosphere? Some things no finite money supply can trump the value of.

giantg2 4y ago
I think that depends on if someone believes we should be expanding, or that the human race provides some value that's worth preserving.
- webmaven 4y ago
  Those that feel otherwise are free to vote with their feet, their wallets, and their ballots. So far, the "human species has value" faction has been winning for.. well, forever, since we aren't extinct. Yet.
  - Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
    > So far, the "human species has value" faction has been winning for.. well, forever, since we aren't extinct. Yet. No, it was the "my life and the life of my family has value". The human specie wins as byproduct of that
    - giantg2 4y ago
      That's basically what I was going for. We have subjective value and mostly self value. I wonder if we provide any objective net benefit when looking from non human centric perspective.
      - salawat 4y ago
        Looking at it from an objective, systemic approach, you and yours have zero possibility of survival of an Earth biosphere destabilizing event. A chance can be acquired. If you're going to hide behind the "greedy genes" train of thought, you will need to look elsewhere for a justification on why this would be bad.
        giantg2 4y ago
        "Looking at it from an objective, systemic approach, you and yours have zero possibility of survival of an Earth biosphere destabilizing event." And why would that be a bad thing? The question isn't about the human centric perspective (which you're still taking). The question is about what net benefit does humanity provide the Earth or, potentially in the future, other planets. Why would out extinction be a bad thing from a non-human perspective? I'm not sure why you're bringing "greedy genes" into this.
        salawat 4y ago
        As far as benefit to planet goes, I'll be honest, not tracking it. I'm tracking benefit to life and biosphere, which I do think is becoming increasingly connected with human self-interest, as we are very much the most active "shepherds" of the biosphere we inhabit. Life as we know it will likely not exist anywhere but where we take it, and put in place the conditions for it's continued existence. The Earth, or Mars having an interest or value impact is... Honestly a non-issue in my book. Call me biased against inanimate objects if you like, you won't be wrong.
        Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
        > Looking at it from an objective, systemic approach, you and yours have zero possibility of survival of an Earth biosphere destabilizing event. I don't think that is going to be my problem or my children's problem or my grandchildren's. Once you have exhausted that, well who cares what happens next. And mind that I am a pretty long term view guy compared to 99% of the population. The vast majority of the human population doesn't care about what would happen 5 or 10 years from now. I suspect righfully so. At some point even intellectuals have to admit that time spent worrying is subtracted from the time spent living. So basically yeah, let's dig up all the oil, light that on fire to propel our amazing house party and run the place into the ground. We may never live forever so we better live for now.
Ekaros 4y ago
Earth is so much better place to live that only scenario where I see us actually needing Mars or other off-planet habitation is something like moon sized object hitting earth or maybe rogue blackhole. That is total apocalyptic destruction of planetary body itself. Mars sucks, and Earth will never be as bad. And anything we can use to live on Mars can be done on Earth, without the involved transportation costs. And self-sufficient colony is just pure sci-fi.

giantg2 4y ago

That wasn't the argument. It was on whether the ISS provided "nothing" of value. There's also a huge difference in value proposition when the ISS is much cheaper and can perform a large number of the same experiments which can benefit others from a technology standpoint.