3 ms·

This is quite an amusing way to describe it. Clearly motivated, too. > debris may destroy the environment around it "Destroy the environment" invokes some rat

This is quite an amusing way to describe it. Clearly motivated, too. > debris may destroy the environment around it "Destroy the environment" invokes some rather grandiose associations for what is essentially pulverizing a steel tube in the middle of nowhere. > and people on board may die Perhaps you have missed the part where those tests are conducted with the explicit intention of figuring out failure modes. SpaceX Crew Dragon is "one of two U.S. human-rated orbital transport spacecraft". This is a result of the same developmental process.

piva00 3y ago
> "Destroy the environment" invokes some rather grandiose associations for what is essentially pulverizing a steel tube in the middle of nowhere. This cavalier attitude to what it means to affect the environment is exactly what brought us to a steady march into climate disaster. The middle of nowhere is still an environment for other species, not showing a little respect or consideration for that is exactly the kind of moral arrogance from humankind we need to look into and fix.
- airgapstopgap 3y ago
  I'd argue that this tedious posture of caring about the environment is vastly more responsible for the climate disaster; it is very popular with the anti-nuclear crowd, after all. > the kind of moral arrogance from humankind we need to look into and fix No we don't. What we need to fix is scope insensitivity and addiction to symbolics and gut feelings.
  - piva00 3y ago
    > I'd argue that this tedious posture of caring about the environment is vastly more responsible for the climate disaster; it is very popular with the anti-nuclear crowd, after all. Posturing is all one can do when living under systems too big to be changed by the individual, it's through it that on can socially demonstrate insatisfaction with the status quo, posturing is just a social expression of values. I could call your posturing in the name of progress just as tedious and we wouldn't get anywhere. > No we don't. What we need to fix is scope insensitivity and addiction to symbolics and gut feelings. Neglect of scope in this case isn't lost, it's simply that for a facet of people the scope of a billionaire trying to reach Mars while destroying what they can get away with is what is seen as wrong with the establishment right now. It was known that the pad could be bad, they simply didn't care, probably because it'd be a little bit more expensive to do it properly, probably because people (like you did) wouldn't care, it's in "the middle of nowhere" for you anyway. That's the attitude that I'm against. Good luck with fixing gut feelings, you'll discover that no human being is absolutely rational, and hence you'll never be able to act on pure rationality under a democracy. Call it tedious as much as you want, I'm pretty jaded by this progress-at-any-cost posturing.
    - valval 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - inglor_cz 3y ago
      "I'm pretty jaded by this progress-at-any-cost posturing." Some people, like me, are jaded by the suffocating safetyism that seems to have no upper limit in its appetite to introduce even more obstacles to everything in order to move the needle from 99,999 to 99,9999 per cent. It is not just about industry; for example, the contemporary "helicopter parenting" standards are absolutely awful and I am glad that there is a "free range parenting" movement trying to counter them. In my opinion, this pendulum needs to swing a little bit back if we want to solve the currently pressing issues. Life cannot be made riskless and Nothing Untoward Should Ever Happen isn't a viable innovation strategy.
      - apple4ever 3y ago
        > Life cannot be made riskless and Nothing Untoward Should Ever Happen isn't a viable innovation strategy. Very well put. Life is all about tradeoffs. We should discuss them, both sides, instead of ignoring the downsides and pretending "you just want people to do!" You are right, it is not helpful and we can't solve problems like that.

piva00 3y ago

> "Destroy the environment" invokes some rather grandiose associations for what is essentially pulverizing a steel tube in the middle of nowhere. This cavalier attitude to what it means to affect the environment is exactly what brought us to a steady march into climate disaster. The middle of nowhere is still an environment for other species, not showing a little respect or consideration for that is exactly the kind of moral arrogance from humankind we need to look into and fix.

airgapstopgap 3y ago
I'd argue that this tedious posture of caring about the environment is vastly more responsible for the climate disaster; it is very popular with the anti-nuclear crowd, after all. > the kind of moral arrogance from humankind we need to look into and fix No we don't. What we need to fix is scope insensitivity and addiction to symbolics and gut feelings.
- piva00 3y ago
  > I'd argue that this tedious posture of caring about the environment is vastly more responsible for the climate disaster; it is very popular with the anti-nuclear crowd, after all. Posturing is all one can do when living under systems too big to be changed by the individual, it's through it that on can socially demonstrate insatisfaction with the status quo, posturing is just a social expression of values. I could call your posturing in the name of progress just as tedious and we wouldn't get anywhere. > No we don't. What we need to fix is scope insensitivity and addiction to symbolics and gut feelings. Neglect of scope in this case isn't lost, it's simply that for a facet of people the scope of a billionaire trying to reach Mars while destroying what they can get away with is what is seen as wrong with the establishment right now. It was known that the pad could be bad, they simply didn't care, probably because it'd be a little bit more expensive to do it properly, probably because people (like you did) wouldn't care, it's in "the middle of nowhere" for you anyway. That's the attitude that I'm against. Good luck with fixing gut feelings, you'll discover that no human being is absolutely rational, and hence you'll never be able to act on pure rationality under a democracy. Call it tedious as much as you want, I'm pretty jaded by this progress-at-any-cost posturing.
  - valval 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    "I'm pretty jaded by this progress-at-any-cost posturing." Some people, like me, are jaded by the suffocating safetyism that seems to have no upper limit in its appetite to introduce even more obstacles to everything in order to move the needle from 99,999 to 99,9999 per cent. It is not just about industry; for example, the contemporary "helicopter parenting" standards are absolutely awful and I am glad that there is a "free range parenting" movement trying to counter them. In my opinion, this pendulum needs to swing a little bit back if we want to solve the currently pressing issues. Life cannot be made riskless and Nothing Untoward Should Ever Happen isn't a viable innovation strategy.
    - apple4ever 3y ago
      > Life cannot be made riskless and Nothing Untoward Should Ever Happen isn't a viable innovation strategy. Very well put. Life is all about tradeoffs. We should discuss them, both sides, instead of ignoring the downsides and pretending "you just want people to do!" You are right, it is not helpful and we can't solve problems like that.