5 ms·
Sorry, but no. There's billions of people on earth; we can tackle many problems at once in parallel.
by least 3y ago
Sorry, but no. There's billions of people on earth; we can tackle many problems at once in parallel.
- throwanem 3y agoYes, that's worked out wonderfully for us of late, hasn't it.
- scarface_74 3y agoHow would spending billions on the space race help?
- throwanem 3y agoExactly my question.
- least 3y agoNumerous technological advancements have been made as a result of the space race, but asking for justification on spending money on scientific inquiry is just going to come to whether or not you support science generally.
- throwanem 3y agoI'd like to see some justification for considering science and space exploration as one and the same. It's hardly as if we've run out of things to learn from this planet, after all.
- jacquesm 3y agoPersonally I'd like to see some justification for discovering America, there was plenty to be learned in Spain and Portugal at the time.
- throwanem 3y agoGiven how Europeans have behaved themselves on this continent, that really doesn't qualify as a meaningful counterargument. If anything, it's more to my point than yours.
- scarface_74 3y agoWell the people that were already here and died from both disease brought by the Europeans and murder might not see that as progress
- least 3y agoThey don't have to be the same, but exploration is a necessary part of the scientific process, whether that be in the depths of the ocean, inside the earth, or in space. Curiosity has driven exploration, discovery, and subsequently science. It's fine that you're not as curious as some, but suggesting that we must only focus on things on Earth when we have literally billions of people on earth that all have individual interests and things they're curious about is just about limiting progress, not about preserving Earth.
- throwanem 3y agoThe Nuremberg Code also limits progress. Will you make the same complaint about it? If not, then we've established a mutually acceptable baseline for limits on human progress, and a subset of mutually acceptable reasons for imposing such limits. I suggest only that we need not stop there.
- least 3y agoThese aren't remotely comparable. How about just justify your rationale behind wanting to impose limits on space exploration on all of humanity?
- throwanem 3y agoI did that in my first comment. How on Earth do you support the claim that one deliberately self-imposed limit on human progress can't be compared with another?
- least 3y agoYou defined the limitation as "looking after the people on earth first," which has basically no meaning, so no, I would not say that you adequately defined those constraints in your first comment. > How on Earth do you support the claim that one deliberately self-imposed limit on human progress can't be compared with another? You're being obtuse. There's a much more clearly defined intersection of human ethics when it comes to performing science on human beings than there is with some sort of vague proposition that space exploration is a waste of resources that is harming humanity indirectly by not allocating those resources towards taking care of other human beings.
- eru 3y agoWe could have spent money directly on the technologies we are interested in. That would have likely been more efficient.
- least 3y agoIt largely has, yes. The fact that things aren't perfect isn't justification for condemnation of the entire process.
- throwanem 3y agoIt's rare I find myself reaching for the adjective "Panglossian".
- robertlagrant 3y agoSadly you aren't Dr Strange, able to see the results of every possible decision to get the best outcome. That would be cool. But for now, we have to just observe how countries enact progress, and it does seem to be that the ones that delegate and diversify do the best at it.
- throwanem 3y agoIt takes being a Marvel superhero to extrapolate from yesterday and today to tomorrow?
- robertlagrant 3y agoNo, to know what past change would've made today much better.
- throwanem 3y agoI do wish that people who feel the need to dispute what I've said in this thread would more reliably address themselves to things I have said, rather than to claims I've not even approached making.
- robertlagrant 3y agoIf you rely on implication to make your point, you should mentally underwrite the risk of being frustrated at people who read what you wrote, rather than read your mind :-)
- jvanderbot 3y agoYou don't have to convince this person and won't. This is what it looks like to parallelize: vehiment disagreement on priorities.