3 ms·

> This is not just "creating jobs." This is making sure another piece of a cornerstone of American technological dominance stays alive so we can continue to mai

> This is not just "creating jobs." This is making sure another piece of a cornerstone of American technological dominance stays alive so we can continue to maintain the standard of living we have now. There's something deeply disturbing in this passage. I hope I'm not the only one seeing it. It sounds like you think the global stage is a zero sum game, and the only way to maintain the current standard of living is to assert dominance. To clarify with an example: in a group stranded on a desert island, without enough food for the whole group, I think a good strategy would be: * share the available food fairly * work to get more food The mindset of the passage I quoted would probably lead people in this situation to, instead, try to get as much food as possible for themselves.

TeMPOraL 4y ago
> There's something deeply disturbing in this passage. I hope I'm not the only one seeing it. Yes. This "disturbing thing" is, unfortunately, the cold, hard reality of the world. > In a group stranded on a desert island, without enough food for the whole group, I think a good strategy would be: \n\n* share the available food fairly\n\n* work to get more food Yes. Unfortunately, the entire recorded history and everything you see happening every day provides an unending stream of hard evidence that this strategy is not naturally possible for humans to take. The entire enterprise of society and civilization is, in a sense, about making it so that people take your strategy more often than the obvious one, which is for groups and individuals to hoard enough to minimize perceived risk to their own survival. Additionally, the idea behind a competitive, free market, is that this very nature can be exploited for good of all, if the effort can be directed towards methods of hoarding that actually grow the pie. I'm not an American, but I do recognize that "American technological dominance" in this technology is a big part of what kept my neighborhood (Europe) in peace for the past few decades. Americans would be wise to recognize that this is a big part of what makes your country rich. I don't think GP sees space industry, or the economy, as zero-sum game in an absolute sense. But it obviously is in the relative sense, and it's the relative sense that also translates into geopolitical importance. (And FWIW, I suspect bringing this up is another kind of "make people complaining about space industry funding go away", because again, this kind of argument typically resonates with them. Commercial and scientific space sectors, as well as enthusiasts, tend to lean towards cooperation, "citizens of the world" kind of thinking. Space exploration is actually one of those things that encourage this view.)

TeMPOraL 4y ago

> There's something deeply disturbing in this passage. I hope I'm not the only one seeing it. Yes. This "disturbing thing" is, unfortunately, the cold, hard reality of the world. > In a group stranded on a desert island, without enough food for the whole group, I think a good strategy would be: \n\n* share the available food fairly\n\n* work to get more food Yes. Unfortunately, the entire recorded history and everything you see happening every day provides an unending stream of hard evidence that this strategy is not naturally possible for humans to take. The entire enterprise of society and civilization is, in a sense, about making it so that people take your strategy more often than the obvious one, which is for groups and individuals to hoard enough to minimize perceived risk to their own survival. Additionally, the idea behind a competitive, free market, is that this very nature can be exploited for good of all, if the effort can be directed towards methods of hoarding that actually grow the pie. I'm not an American, but I do recognize that "American technological dominance" in this technology is a big part of what kept my neighborhood (Europe) in peace for the past few decades. Americans would be wise to recognize that this is a big part of what makes your country rich. I don't think GP sees space industry, or the economy, as zero-sum game in an absolute sense. But it obviously is in the relative sense, and it's the relative sense that also translates into geopolitical importance. (And FWIW, I suspect bringing this up is another kind of "make people complaining about space industry funding go away", because again, this kind of argument typically resonates with them. Commercial and scientific space sectors, as well as enthusiasts, tend to lean towards cooperation, "citizens of the world" kind of thinking. Space exploration is actually one of those things that encourage this view.)