4 ms·

I think there were some benefits that are difficult to quantify. I'm not talking about progress with technology, instead I am mostly thinking about the psychol

I think there were some benefits that are difficult to quantify. I'm not talking about progress with technology, instead I am mostly thinking about the psychological effect that seeing Earth from the surface of the Moon provided. I believe it altered the perspective of almost everybody at the time.

pfdietz 3y ago
I think when one has to reach for this sort of vague, magical stuff it's time to pause and reconsider what one is trying to defend. I don't think it altered much of anything. I don't think most people cared or gave any thought to it. I doubt it changed even the space fans. This sounds like wishful thinking from a group looking for an easy way to alter intractable human nature.
- shawabawa3 3y ago
  If you want something concrete, the development of GPS is directly linked to the space race
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    It was linked to unmanned space activities. We'd have had it without a manned space program.
    - HPsquared 3y ago
      And even more specifically, military spending. Similarly, development in rocketry was mostly focused around the V2 and the race to ICBMs. Similarly, jet engines were originally developed for fighter aircraft.
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        In a way, the manned space program was a way to try to whitewash the technology that was actually coming from cold war military spending.
- polygamous_bat 3y ago
  I think you may enjoy reading about Mcnamara’s fallacy, coincidentally also related McNamara of the Vietnam war: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy I hope it makes you reconsider your position about disregarding non-quantifiable benefits. > But when the McNamara discipline is applied too literally, the first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. The second step is to disregard that which can't easily be measured or given a quantitative value. The third step is to presume that what can't be measured easily really isn't important. The fo[u]rth step is to say that what can't be easily measured really doesn't exist. This is suicide. — Daniel Yankelovich, "Interpreting the New Life Styles", Sales Management (1971)
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    The McNamara fallacy is about inappropriate metrics against real, objective measures like "have we actually won the war?", not competition against vague considerations that aren't even objectively definable. The "Overview Effect" thing also struck me as self-serving bullshit. It didn't seem to reflect anything I ever saw in the real world. It was something a space fan would like to be true, and so motivated reasoning took hold.

pfdietz 3y ago

I think when one has to reach for this sort of vague, magical stuff it's time to pause and reconsider what one is trying to defend. I don't think it altered much of anything. I don't think most people cared or gave any thought to it. I doubt it changed even the space fans. This sounds like wishful thinking from a group looking for an easy way to alter intractable human nature.

shawabawa3 3y ago
If you want something concrete, the development of GPS is directly linked to the space race
- pfdietz 3y ago
  It was linked to unmanned space activities. We'd have had it without a manned space program.
  - HPsquared 3y ago
    And even more specifically, military spending. Similarly, development in rocketry was mostly focused around the V2 and the race to ICBMs. Similarly, jet engines were originally developed for fighter aircraft.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      In a way, the manned space program was a way to try to whitewash the technology that was actually coming from cold war military spending.
polygamous_bat 3y ago
I think you may enjoy reading about Mcnamara’s fallacy, coincidentally also related McNamara of the Vietnam war: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy I hope it makes you reconsider your position about disregarding non-quantifiable benefits. > But when the McNamara discipline is applied too literally, the first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. The second step is to disregard that which can't easily be measured or given a quantitative value. The third step is to presume that what can't be measured easily really isn't important. The fo[u]rth step is to say that what can't be easily measured really doesn't exist. This is suicide. — Daniel Yankelovich, "Interpreting the New Life Styles", Sales Management (1971)
- pfdietz 3y ago
  The McNamara fallacy is about inappropriate metrics against real, objective measures like "have we actually won the war?", not competition against vague considerations that aren't even objectively definable. The "Overview Effect" thing also struck me as self-serving bullshit. It didn't seem to reflect anything I ever saw in the real world. It was something a space fan would like to be true, and so motivated reasoning took hold.