5 ms·

this is a really sad and disappointing perspective for someone to have. if you are putting people's lives at risk for the sake of economic value when they have

by 93po 2y ago

this is a really sad and disappointing perspective for someone to have. if you are putting people's lives at risk for the sake of economic value when they have trusted you with their lives then you don't deserve that trust.

pfdietz 2y ago
The money spent on making astronauts safer could save more lives if spent elsewhere. That's how the statistical value of a life is set: it's the marginal cost of saving a (age adjusted) life used to justify government actions, say in worker safety, pollution control, road improvements, medical spending, etc. Why do you think astronauts are so much more important than the common persons saved by these other efforts? Why do you advocate spending patterns that increase the body count for a given expenditure?
- michaelt 2y ago
  We all know that society applies almost arbitrary values to all these things. 42,000 road deaths annually? Meh. 3,000 people die in the terror attacks of 9/11? Multi-trillion-dollar, 20 year war. Politicians only fund NASA manned launches because the average voter thinks it's kinda cool and maybe it inspires some kids to work hard at school. Too many high profile, fear-inducing deaths and politicians are liable to decide the money spent on NASA could be better spent elsewhere.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    Yes, the point I'm working toward is the manned space program is not worth the money spent on it. The willingness to suspend the thing for years when a few astronauts die is a tell. If what they were doing was actually important this would not be allowed to happen.
    - HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
      Just because something is important (although I'm not saying that manned space exploration is), doesn't mean it has to be done tomorrow. e.g. It's important you save for your kids college, but you don't need to have all the money saved up by time they are 10 years old. Rushing an important task can also cause it to fail. Being overly aggressive with college savings by putting it in high-risk investments would not be conducive to meeting goals, and NASA losing public support by getting crew killed unnecessarily would not be conducive to them getting funding for future manned missions.
- 93po 2y ago
  > Why do you think astronauts are so much more important than the common persons saved by these other efforts? Because they're being asked to do something extraordinarily dangerous. I think it makes sense that the higher the risk, the more accountability (and expenditure) there should be for reducing said risk
WalterBright 2y ago
> if you are putting people's lives at risk for the sake of economic value when they have trusted you with their lives then you don't deserve that trust. That happens all the time. If you drive your car to work, you are putting your lives and those of others at risk for economic value. There's no way around it.

by 93po 2y ago

pfdietz 2y ago

The money spent on making astronauts safer could save more lives if spent elsewhere. That's how the statistical value of a life is set: it's the marginal cost of saving a (age adjusted) life used to justify government actions, say in worker safety, pollution control, road improvements, medical spending, etc. Why do you think astronauts are so much more important than the common persons saved by these other efforts? Why do you advocate spending patterns that increase the body count for a given expenditure?

michaelt 2y ago
We all know that society applies almost arbitrary values to all these things. 42,000 road deaths annually? Meh. 3,000 people die in the terror attacks of 9/11? Multi-trillion-dollar, 20 year war. Politicians only fund NASA manned launches because the average voter thinks it's kinda cool and maybe it inspires some kids to work hard at school. Too many high profile, fear-inducing deaths and politicians are liable to decide the money spent on NASA could be better spent elsewhere.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  Yes, the point I'm working toward is the manned space program is not worth the money spent on it. The willingness to suspend the thing for years when a few astronauts die is a tell. If what they were doing was actually important this would not be allowed to happen.
  - HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
    Just because something is important (although I'm not saying that manned space exploration is), doesn't mean it has to be done tomorrow. e.g. It's important you save for your kids college, but you don't need to have all the money saved up by time they are 10 years old. Rushing an important task can also cause it to fail. Being overly aggressive with college savings by putting it in high-risk investments would not be conducive to meeting goals, and NASA losing public support by getting crew killed unnecessarily would not be conducive to them getting funding for future manned missions.
93po 2y ago
> Why do you think astronauts are so much more important than the common persons saved by these other efforts? Because they're being asked to do something extraordinarily dangerous. I think it makes sense that the higher the risk, the more accountability (and expenditure) there should be for reducing said risk

WalterBright 2y ago

> if you are putting people's lives at risk for the sake of economic value when they have trusted you with their lives then you don't deserve that trust. That happens all the time. If you drive your car to work, you are putting your lives and those of others at risk for economic value. There's no way around it.