4 ms·

These aren't remotely comparable. How about just justify your rationale behind wanting to impose limits on space exploration on all of humanity?

by least 3y ago

throwanem 3y ago
I 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 ago
  You 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.
  - throwanem 3y ago
    > which has basically no meaning I don't think it has less meaning than the idea that the most sere and hostile environment for our species that we've yet been able to access - the deadliest imaginable desert, accessible only at vast effort and expense - has for our taking the boundless cornucopia of riches that space maximalists constantly promise, and with no more support than you complain I offer. Meanwhile you blithely argue that some significant fraction of a trillion dollars, available in this happy counterfactual from what had been the war department's budget, should be devoted to this and nothing else, with no thought to the opportunity cost - and demand I justify myself in arguing we should better do otherwise! That opportunity cost would be measured in human lives, consigned to neglectful death in the service of your cause - but whether by neglect or murder, dead is dead. You'd be far from the first so to act; history is replete with examples, even ignoring the one we live among now. Such people are sometimes called to account. What would you say if you were?
    - least 3y ago
      > I don't think it has less meaning than the idea that the most sere and hostile environment for our species that we've yet been able to access - the deadliest imaginable desert, accessible only at vast effort and expense - has for our taking the boundless cornucopia of riches that space maximalists constantly promise, and with no more support than you complain I offer. We've already benefited greatly from just the process of trying to get there. Even if there is no "riches" to be had in terms of extracting resources from alien planets, we still gain from our endeavors. This can be indirectly through technological advancements made in service to that mission (which we've seen plenty of already), or it can simply be in the pursuit of knowledge in the understanding of our universe. > Meanwhile you blithely argue that some significant fraction of a trillion dollars, available in this happy counterfactual from what had been the war department's budget, should be devoted to this and nothing else, with no thought to the opportunity cost - and demand I justify myself in arguing we should better do otherwise! Why do you assume that there is not thought to the opportunity cost? It's quite clear that we have different priorities on how humanity should allocate its resources but to say that it's not a consideration is just crass. The amount of human productivity we dedicate towards space exploration is a remarkably small percent of what's available, and a lot of that is driven by individual's interest in it. The space program's budget is minuscale compared to what we spend elsewhere, maybe around 5% of a trillion dollars. That's a significant amount of money, but you seem to think that could be better spent on... what, exactly? Let's say we reallocate that budget to social security. That'd be adding less than 4% to its budget, which is already over a trillion dollars. Or the combined spend of medicaid and medicare, in which case it would be less than 3%. > That opportunity cost would be measured in human lives, consigned to neglectful death in the service of your cause A lot of things have indirect consequences, positive and negative. Many things that have dramatically improved the livelihoods of humanity have come at a great cost. > but whether by neglect or murder, dead is dead. You'd be far from the first so to act; history is replete with examples, even ignoring the one we live among now. Such people are sometimes called to account. What would you say if you were? The advancements made by curious people has made the world less impoverished and less "dead." Even if 100% of human productivity was allocated towards protecting human life, people will still die. That is life. At what point in your hypothetical world where you got to make these policies would it be acceptable for humanity to start exploring space again? When humans stop dying? Humanity's driven by curious people willing to explore well beyond what seems rational to most people, not myopic luddites who would eschew entire avenues of exploration simply because they can't understand the utility in it.

These aren't remotely comparable. How about just justify your rationale behind wanting to impose limits on space exploration on all of humanity?

by least 3y ago

These aren't remotely comparable. How about just justify your rationale behind wanting to impose limits on space exploration on all of humanity?

throwanem 3y ago

I 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 ago
You 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.
- throwanem 3y ago
  > which has basically no meaning I don't think it has less meaning than the idea that the most sere and hostile environment for our species that we've yet been able to access - the deadliest imaginable desert, accessible only at vast effort and expense - has for our taking the boundless cornucopia of riches that space maximalists constantly promise, and with no more support than you complain I offer. Meanwhile you blithely argue that some significant fraction of a trillion dollars, available in this happy counterfactual from what had been the war department's budget, should be devoted to this and nothing else, with no thought to the opportunity cost - and demand I justify myself in arguing we should better do otherwise! That opportunity cost would be measured in human lives, consigned to neglectful death in the service of your cause - but whether by neglect or murder, dead is dead. You'd be far from the first so to act; history is replete with examples, even ignoring the one we live among now. Such people are sometimes called to account. What would you say if you were?
  - least 3y ago
    > I don't think it has less meaning than the idea that the most sere and hostile environment for our species that we've yet been able to access - the deadliest imaginable desert, accessible only at vast effort and expense - has for our taking the boundless cornucopia of riches that space maximalists constantly promise, and with no more support than you complain I offer. We've already benefited greatly from just the process of trying to get there. Even if there is no "riches" to be had in terms of extracting resources from alien planets, we still gain from our endeavors. This can be indirectly through technological advancements made in service to that mission (which we've seen plenty of already), or it can simply be in the pursuit of knowledge in the understanding of our universe. > Meanwhile you blithely argue that some significant fraction of a trillion dollars, available in this happy counterfactual from what had been the war department's budget, should be devoted to this and nothing else, with no thought to the opportunity cost - and demand I justify myself in arguing we should better do otherwise! Why do you assume that there is not thought to the opportunity cost? It's quite clear that we have different priorities on how humanity should allocate its resources but to say that it's not a consideration is just crass. The amount of human productivity we dedicate towards space exploration is a remarkably small percent of what's available, and a lot of that is driven by individual's interest in it. The space program's budget is minuscale compared to what we spend elsewhere, maybe around 5% of a trillion dollars. That's a significant amount of money, but you seem to think that could be better spent on... what, exactly? Let's say we reallocate that budget to social security. That'd be adding less than 4% to its budget, which is already over a trillion dollars. Or the combined spend of medicaid and medicare, in which case it would be less than 3%. > That opportunity cost would be measured in human lives, consigned to neglectful death in the service of your cause A lot of things have indirect consequences, positive and negative. Many things that have dramatically improved the livelihoods of humanity have come at a great cost. > but whether by neglect or murder, dead is dead. You'd be far from the first so to act; history is replete with examples, even ignoring the one we live among now. Such people are sometimes called to account. What would you say if you were? The advancements made by curious people has made the world less impoverished and less "dead." Even if 100% of human productivity was allocated towards protecting human life, people will still die. That is life. At what point in your hypothetical world where you got to make these policies would it be acceptable for humanity to start exploring space again? When humans stop dying? Humanity's driven by curious people willing to explore well beyond what seems rational to most people, not myopic luddites who would eschew entire avenues of exploration simply because they can't understand the utility in it.