4 ms·

> We need to send a probe to Europa, like yesterday, and we need to send one that can get below the ice and look around. IMO, "need" is a strong word here and

> We need to send a probe to Europa, like yesterday, and we need to send one that can get below the ice and look around. IMO, "need" is a strong word here and if I thought that this is something we needed to do I would re-examine my priorities. We need to feed and house people, we need to stop the war machine, we need to slow consumerism to slow climate change.

lukan 2y ago
Well, I think we need to do all of it. Explore space together or in competition, instead of war. And climate change is a concern for everyone.
- arethuza 2y ago
  Worth noting that the ESA Juice mission will be at Jupiter at the same time as Clipper and the teams are already working together: https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Juice/Frequently_Asked_Questions https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Juice/...
- FollowingTheDao 2y ago
  We cannot do all of it. The money and the manpower does not exist to do all of it. We need to prioritize. Have you ever tried to survive in the wilderness? Shelter, water, fire, and food. Priorities. You would not spend your time trying to find out if there is a form of life 20 feet below you. Right now on earth there are plenty of people who do not have these basics.
  - lukan 2y ago
    "Have you ever tried to survive in the wilderness? " Often enough. Quite succesful, even though I brought most basic supplies with me. So I know about basic needs. "Right now on earth there are plenty of people who do not have these basics." And there is a possibility, that this always will be the case. And I would not wait to find out and stop with all general progress till then. My compassion is with humanity as its whole, not with every single human. I fear, I have not limitless compassion and I don't see, how we can stop all wars just like that(the main reason for famine today - can you stop the Gaza war for instance?), but I see how little effort can be spend to finance such an interesting mission. Also, space exploration is a tool to bring humanity together.
  - bastawhiz 2y ago
    > The money and the manpower does not exist to do all of it. No, they both exist. Motivation by your legislator is what doesn't exist. There's a reason some departments get almost everything they ask for and others get almost nothing: they know how to grease the political machine. That doesn't mean we should fight over scraps for science and social programs, it means you need to acknowledge that there's a game that needs playing. And yeah, it feels real bad that there are lives at stake playing that game, but that's the fault of capitalism, not science.
  - weweersdfsd 2y ago
    The money does exist, and manpower isn't a problem considering how many people this planet has. The problem is the small monority that has most of the money, and doesn't like to pay their fair share of taxes. "As of late 2022, according to Snopes, 735 billionaires collectively possessed more wealth than the bottom half of U.S. households ($4.5 trillion and $4.1 trillion respectively). The top 1% held a total of $43.45 trillion." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
  - XorNot 2y ago
    The US spends more per capita on healthcare, then similar first world nations spend providing public healthcare to all their citizens.[1] The US has the worst infant mortality, and maternal mortality rates, of any first world nation.[2] Just think of it: with the highest spend of GDP per citizen, and getting so much less you're the butt of every other country's jokes about healthcare systems. "Lack of money" has so little to do with the conditions in the US, it's essentially negligence to think it's the problem. The US doesn't want to fix any of the problems you list: it easily could, with the resources it has today. [1] https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2023/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2022 https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2... [2] https://www.ajmc.com/view/us-has-highest-infant-maternal-mortality-rates-despite-the-most-health-care-spending https://www.ajmc.com/view/us-has-highest-infant-maternal-mor...
- jajko 2y ago
  Exactly, mankind has potentially amazing capacity to move into star working trekkish utopia within 1 century (not meaning warp fantasy but how society and individuals in it work). But so many stars would have to align, starting with dropping most religions and killing on spot most dictators that it won't happen. But we should aim high, higher than we think our potential is, to actually get somewhere.
  - FollowingTheDao 2y ago
    How about if we aim our compassion higher?
    - IggleSniggle 2y ago
      Aiming higher than the desire for all people to live in harmony with each other, with the freedom to pursue their needs and interests at the top of Maslow's pyramid without fear? Aiming higher than desiring peace for all mankind, where no one wants for anything, and those that are still struggling regardless receive help and compassion from their fellow humans? That seems like a tall order.
    - jajko 2y ago
      How do you force compassion on people? Religions tried for millennia and failed miserably, despite it being consistently among top rules in all of them. If something that cuts so deep can't win on its own 'just because I say so', I'd say lets move towards rationality, progress and smartness, with right eyes there lies tons of compassion too.
selcuka 2y ago
> We need to feed and house people, we need to stop the war machine, we need to slow consumerism to slow climate change. Sure thing. We don't have to do them in a specific order, there are enough resources to tackle them all at the same time. A $5 billion project is small enough that it won't affect others, but at least someone is doing something about one of those projects.
- FollowingTheDao 2y ago
  We need to prioritize. Have you ever tried to survive in the wilderness? Shelter, water, fire, and food. Priorities. > A $5 billion project is small enough that it won't affect others, $5 billion would go a long way to providing shelter, water, fire, and food for the homeless in the United States.
  - bastawhiz 2y ago
    It's 0.1% of the annual US revenue spread out over many years. So probably more like 0.01% per year. Picking on this one project, which is good science, is silly.
    - desdenova 2y ago
      It's also only a little more than what Microsoft paid for Minecraft. Priorities.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        that's comparing shared money versus somebody else's money.
  - fastball 2y ago
    San Francisco spends that much on homelessness in a few years and doesn't make a dent. The problem is not money.
    - 2y ago
bastawhiz 2y ago
Stepping on my soapbox once again to say that putting money towards science doesn't take away money from everything else. There's no shortage of money, or corporations that can be taxes, or people who didn't pay their fair share that can be taxed. Don't get upset with the science, get upset with the politicians who don't give a shit about the programs you care about or enforcing tax law.
- ttoinou 2y ago
  Money is infinite but resources needed to send a probe outta space are quite limited
  - bastawhiz 2y ago
    You're right, we should get more kids into STEM!
  - sph 2y ago
    Then let's not spend any resources but instead spend time weeping. It's not like stockpiling plutonium, gold, iridium and other rare earths metals used in spaceships is gonna make the world any better. Should we instead force the scientists working on this to abandon space research to "fix the ills of the world" so they do "something useful" instead? I honestly don't know what people who keep complaining about scientific research, especially space exploration, want. It is not those billions spent to send a probe to Europa the cause or the solution to the world's problems. Hint: it is not money the cause nor the solution to the world's problems, nor are drive-by social media activists complaining about it.
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      A big part of why this kind of space research is worth doing is weapons development. That is a big part of why huge money goes to space research - because it's more efficient to give that cash to JPL than to Raytheon in terms of developing certain kinds of rocketry and robotics technologies. In comparison, many other branches of science work on much leaner budgets, and sending stuff to space actually does look very wasteful from a "$ per paper" perspective. If you disregard the weapons development value, there is actually very little reason to do these big-money experiments that could instead support the research of hundreds or thousands of more frugal science experiments. At the same time, there are lots of ways to do space research more cheaply, like launching small satellites. Most of the people who don't like this stuff are against the billion-dollar single missions rather than against astrophysics or against the concept of sending things to space. Many of them also are against the FCC project at CERN, for example.
sph 2y ago
I see you channelling Conner O'Malley here: "we need, we need, we need, we need" - and as coherent as one of his rants. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cBiyWlYous https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cBiyWlYous
weweersdfsd 2y ago
If we survive climate change, I would argue that conquering space should be the top priority to ensure long-term human survival. Projects like this ultimately gather knowledge that can help that goal. But sure, we also need to tax the ultra-rich more, so that we can have money for all the things that need to be done. Tax evasion is a problem, not NASA's spending.
- tirant 2y ago
  What do you mean if we survive? We are already surviving and actually doing quite well. So basically you are proposing to forcedly seize money from 0,01% of the population to fulfill your view of a multi planetary future for human kind. I don’t see that very ethical or appropriate to be honest. I’m all in for space exploration, but should be done in a way that respects individuals and their decisions on how to live their life and not by taxing them to fulfill the wishes of a few. That’s why space exploration needs to be a private endeavor or at least financed publicly but only via optional taxing.
Otek 2y ago
Why did you wrote this comment instead of spending time to fix those problems you’ve mentioned?
- Epa095 2y ago
  Yeah, don't try to convince others, go fix global climate change by yourself. Are you lazy?
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I think we would be a lot further in addressing climate change and most social problems if people did more of the later and less of the former.
    - Epa095 2y ago
      Without advocating ideas die with the first person getting them. It's obvious that we both need to act, and encourage others to act as well. We have no reason to belive OP don't act, and advocating for acting is a noble act (as it is both uncomfortable and necessary)
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I wasnt speaking about OPs action, but the statement they made. I think advocating without acting is an ignoble action, shallow, lazy, and selfish, and destructive. It is usually people refusing to do any work and pay the cost, but telling others that they should do these things. Most topics have no lack of advocating, and a large lack of people willing to take action. In short, I think most advocates are hypocrites trying to exploit others.
- FollowingTheDao 2y ago
  Assumption.
epidemian 2y ago
I don't see the causal dependency between these things. Could a probe to Europa be sent while still having housing problems in some countries? And could it be sent after having those housing problems addressed? I think the answer to both of those questions is yes. And conversely, can the housing problems be addressed while sending a probe to Europa? And can they be addressed while not sending a probe? Again, i think the answers are both affirmative. These things don't seem to depend on each other. And different people want to do different things in this world. I don't think that the people who want to help shelter homeless people would be deterred by other people wanting to send a space probe, or vice-versa. I picked housing from the problems you mentioned just because it was the first one. I think this argument would still apply for the others. The reasons we're having those problems have nothing to do with how many probes we send to space.

lukan 2y ago

Well, I think we need to do all of it. Explore space together or in competition, instead of war. And climate change is a concern for everyone.

arethuza 2y ago
Worth noting that the ESA Juice mission will be at Jupiter at the same time as Clipper and the teams are already working together: https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Juice/Frequently_Asked_Questions https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Juice/...
FollowingTheDao 2y ago
We cannot do all of it. The money and the manpower does not exist to do all of it. We need to prioritize. Have you ever tried to survive in the wilderness? Shelter, water, fire, and food. Priorities. You would not spend your time trying to find out if there is a form of life 20 feet below you. Right now on earth there are plenty of people who do not have these basics.
- lukan 2y ago
  "Have you ever tried to survive in the wilderness? " Often enough. Quite succesful, even though I brought most basic supplies with me. So I know about basic needs. "Right now on earth there are plenty of people who do not have these basics." And there is a possibility, that this always will be the case. And I would not wait to find out and stop with all general progress till then. My compassion is with humanity as its whole, not with every single human. I fear, I have not limitless compassion and I don't see, how we can stop all wars just like that(the main reason for famine today - can you stop the Gaza war for instance?), but I see how little effort can be spend to finance such an interesting mission. Also, space exploration is a tool to bring humanity together.
- bastawhiz 2y ago
  > The money and the manpower does not exist to do all of it. No, they both exist. Motivation by your legislator is what doesn't exist. There's a reason some departments get almost everything they ask for and others get almost nothing: they know how to grease the political machine. That doesn't mean we should fight over scraps for science and social programs, it means you need to acknowledge that there's a game that needs playing. And yeah, it feels real bad that there are lives at stake playing that game, but that's the fault of capitalism, not science.
- weweersdfsd 2y ago
  The money does exist, and manpower isn't a problem considering how many people this planet has. The problem is the small monority that has most of the money, and doesn't like to pay their fair share of taxes. "As of late 2022, according to Snopes, 735 billionaires collectively possessed more wealth than the bottom half of U.S. households ($4.5 trillion and $4.1 trillion respectively). The top 1% held a total of $43.45 trillion." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
- XorNot 2y ago
  The US spends more per capita on healthcare, then similar first world nations spend providing public healthcare to all their citizens.[1] The US has the worst infant mortality, and maternal mortality rates, of any first world nation.[2] Just think of it: with the highest spend of GDP per citizen, and getting so much less you're the butt of every other country's jokes about healthcare systems. "Lack of money" has so little to do with the conditions in the US, it's essentially negligence to think it's the problem. The US doesn't want to fix any of the problems you list: it easily could, with the resources it has today. [1] https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2023/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2022 https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2... [2] https://www.ajmc.com/view/us-has-highest-infant-maternal-mortality-rates-despite-the-most-health-care-spending https://www.ajmc.com/view/us-has-highest-infant-maternal-mor...
jajko 2y ago
Exactly, mankind has potentially amazing capacity to move into star working trekkish utopia within 1 century (not meaning warp fantasy but how society and individuals in it work). But so many stars would have to align, starting with dropping most religions and killing on spot most dictators that it won't happen. But we should aim high, higher than we think our potential is, to actually get somewhere.
- FollowingTheDao 2y ago
  How about if we aim our compassion higher?
  - IggleSniggle 2y ago
    Aiming higher than the desire for all people to live in harmony with each other, with the freedom to pursue their needs and interests at the top of Maslow's pyramid without fear? Aiming higher than desiring peace for all mankind, where no one wants for anything, and those that are still struggling regardless receive help and compassion from their fellow humans? That seems like a tall order.
  - jajko 2y ago
    How do you force compassion on people? Religions tried for millennia and failed miserably, despite it being consistently among top rules in all of them. If something that cuts so deep can't win on its own 'just because I say so', I'd say lets move towards rationality, progress and smartness, with right eyes there lies tons of compassion too.

selcuka 2y ago

> We need to feed and house people, we need to stop the war machine, we need to slow consumerism to slow climate change. Sure thing. We don't have to do them in a specific order, there are enough resources to tackle them all at the same time. A $5 billion project is small enough that it won't affect others, but at least someone is doing something about one of those projects.

FollowingTheDao 2y ago
We need to prioritize. Have you ever tried to survive in the wilderness? Shelter, water, fire, and food. Priorities. > A $5 billion project is small enough that it won't affect others, $5 billion would go a long way to providing shelter, water, fire, and food for the homeless in the United States.
- bastawhiz 2y ago
  It's 0.1% of the annual US revenue spread out over many years. So probably more like 0.01% per year. Picking on this one project, which is good science, is silly.
  - desdenova 2y ago
    It's also only a little more than what Microsoft paid for Minecraft. Priorities.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      that's comparing shared money versus somebody else's money.
- fastball 2y ago
  San Francisco spends that much on homelessness in a few years and doesn't make a dent. The problem is not money.
  - 2y ago

bastawhiz 2y ago

Stepping on my soapbox once again to say that putting money towards science doesn't take away money from everything else. There's no shortage of money, or corporations that can be taxes, or people who didn't pay their fair share that can be taxed. Don't get upset with the science, get upset with the politicians who don't give a shit about the programs you care about or enforcing tax law.

ttoinou 2y ago
Money is infinite but resources needed to send a probe outta space are quite limited
- bastawhiz 2y ago
  You're right, we should get more kids into STEM!
- sph 2y ago
  Then let's not spend any resources but instead spend time weeping. It's not like stockpiling plutonium, gold, iridium and other rare earths metals used in spaceships is gonna make the world any better. Should we instead force the scientists working on this to abandon space research to "fix the ills of the world" so they do "something useful" instead? I honestly don't know what people who keep complaining about scientific research, especially space exploration, want. It is not those billions spent to send a probe to Europa the cause or the solution to the world's problems. Hint: it is not money the cause nor the solution to the world's problems, nor are drive-by social media activists complaining about it.
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    A big part of why this kind of space research is worth doing is weapons development. That is a big part of why huge money goes to space research - because it's more efficient to give that cash to JPL than to Raytheon in terms of developing certain kinds of rocketry and robotics technologies. In comparison, many other branches of science work on much leaner budgets, and sending stuff to space actually does look very wasteful from a "$ per paper" perspective. If you disregard the weapons development value, there is actually very little reason to do these big-money experiments that could instead support the research of hundreds or thousands of more frugal science experiments. At the same time, there are lots of ways to do space research more cheaply, like launching small satellites. Most of the people who don't like this stuff are against the billion-dollar single missions rather than against astrophysics or against the concept of sending things to space. Many of them also are against the FCC project at CERN, for example.

sph 2y ago

I see you channelling Conner O'Malley here: "we need, we need, we need, we need" - and as coherent as one of his rants. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cBiyWlYous https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cBiyWlYous

weweersdfsd 2y ago

If we survive climate change, I would argue that conquering space should be the top priority to ensure long-term human survival. Projects like this ultimately gather knowledge that can help that goal. But sure, we also need to tax the ultra-rich more, so that we can have money for all the things that need to be done. Tax evasion is a problem, not NASA's spending.

tirant 2y ago
What do you mean if we survive? We are already surviving and actually doing quite well. So basically you are proposing to forcedly seize money from 0,01% of the population to fulfill your view of a multi planetary future for human kind. I don’t see that very ethical or appropriate to be honest. I’m all in for space exploration, but should be done in a way that respects individuals and their decisions on how to live their life and not by taxing them to fulfill the wishes of a few. That’s why space exploration needs to be a private endeavor or at least financed publicly but only via optional taxing.

Otek 2y ago

Why did you wrote this comment instead of spending time to fix those problems you’ve mentioned?

Epa095 2y ago
Yeah, don't try to convince others, go fix global climate change by yourself. Are you lazy?
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think we would be a lot further in addressing climate change and most social problems if people did more of the later and less of the former.
  - Epa095 2y ago
    Without advocating ideas die with the first person getting them. It's obvious that we both need to act, and encourage others to act as well. We have no reason to belive OP don't act, and advocating for acting is a noble act (as it is both uncomfortable and necessary)
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I wasnt speaking about OPs action, but the statement they made. I think advocating without acting is an ignoble action, shallow, lazy, and selfish, and destructive. It is usually people refusing to do any work and pay the cost, but telling others that they should do these things. Most topics have no lack of advocating, and a large lack of people willing to take action. In short, I think most advocates are hypocrites trying to exploit others.
FollowingTheDao 2y ago
Assumption.

epidemian 2y ago

I don't see the causal dependency between these things. Could a probe to Europa be sent while still having housing problems in some countries? And could it be sent after having those housing problems addressed? I think the answer to both of those questions is yes. And conversely, can the housing problems be addressed while sending a probe to Europa? And can they be addressed while not sending a probe? Again, i think the answers are both affirmative. These things don't seem to depend on each other. And different people want to do different things in this world. I don't think that the people who want to help shelter homeless people would be deterred by other people wanting to send a space probe, or vice-versa. I picked housing from the problems you mentioned just because it was the first one. I think this argument would still apply for the others. The reasons we're having those problems have nothing to do with how many probes we send to space.