4 ms·
The United States spent 6% of its GDP putting human beings on the moon. And this was done during a time that historians don't generally consider to be a time of
by shadowgovt 3y ago
The United States spent 6% of its GDP putting human beings on the moon. And this was done during a time that historians don't generally consider to be a time of vast deprivation for the populace; it turns out investing in and inventing rocketry and aerospace technologies the likes of which humanity has never seen before is great for job creation.
How much of the GDP should we be willing to spend to actively replace pollution generating energy plants with lower polluting alternatives?
- flerchin 3y agoNo we didn't. Not even close.
- throwawayqqq11 3y agoPollution will be in every path we choose, managing the waste is the quest and i dont think that direct government intervention is the best or most practical way here. IMO regulations and sanctions would be better. Eg. imagine the EU or US enforcing fully repairable or recyclable products in their markets. What would china do?
- pjc50 3y ago> imagine the EU or US enforcing fully repairable or recyclable products in their markets. What would china do? What, you mean like the existing WEEE directive which requires all electronics to be lead-free and recyclable? China would, obviously, start selling repairable and recyclable products into those markets.
- AlbertCory 3y ago> The United States spent 6% of its GDP putting human beings on the moon. Sorry, wrong. The Apollo program cost about $25B in 1960's dollars. That's over the entire period, not just one year. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190712-apollo-in-50-numbers-the-cost https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190712-apollo-in-50-num... "In 1965, Nasa funding peaked at some 5% of government spending," But government spending != GDP. According to this, https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/gdp-gross-domestic-product https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/gdp-... GDP in 1965 was $743B
- shadowgovt 3y agoMy mistake. Amortizing the numbers, it comes out to more like 2.5% annually. https://www.herkulesprojekt.de/en/is-there-a-master-plan/the-moon-landing.html https://www.herkulesprojekt.de/en/is-there-a-master-plan/the... ... so the question stands. How much are we willing to spend, and do we think it will actually damage either the economy or people's quality-of-life (when having a major industrial project in fact creates job and business opportunities, historically speaking)?
- AlbertCory 3y agoClever of you to acknowledge but then glide over the wild exaggeration there. Still wrong, though: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1022937/history-nasa-budget-1959-2020/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1022937/history-nasa-bud... 1965 NASA budget in billions: $5.25 (the peak year) 1965 GDP: $743 billion giving us a NASA budget of 0.007 of GDP, or 0.7%
- shadowgovt 3y agoApollo project is generally considered to have cost $25 billion, not $5 billion. Still, if we consider 0.007 of GDP in modern numbers, that's 2.65 trillion (2023) * 0.007 --> $18 billion. The fossil fuel industry receives $760 billion in subsidy. We're already spending more on energy; we're just spending it on the wrong energy.
- AlbertCory 3y agoYou need to just admit error, not pivot. 5B is for 1965 alone, the peak year. As I said. 25B is the total over all years.
- shadowgovt 3y agoError admitted. Now about the point, which is "How much should we be willing to spend on something that may be life-or-death for much of humanity?" Because, again, $760 billion in fossil fuel subsidy. A tenth of that for renewables.