3 ms·

> 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 i

> 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.
  - FredPret 2y ago
    Maybe the problem is not enough space exploration. People need to be inspired. To live for a larger purpose
    - sph 2y ago
      GP is what happens when you mix Protestantism with utilitarianism. It's no longer enough to work hard to get into heaven, you need to work hard on something useful for humanity (decided arbitrarily by whomever) to reach eternal life. Which is frankly hilarious coming from someone who's supposedly "following the Dao". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei
- ttoinou 2y ago
  Money won’t solve that problem. Or it would have been solved before
- Gooblebrai 2y ago
  You are falling into a false dichotomy of having to choose between one thing or the other. Dumping more money into one problem doesn't necessarily help solve it better. Analogous to adding more members to a team so more people can focus into the problem.
  - dools 2y ago
    > Dumping more money into one problem doesn't necessarily help solve it better I agree this is a false dichotomy, but also pretty sure dumping money into building houses and hiring every unemployed person at a socially inclusive minimum wage would eliminate both housing and unemployment. But I also think we have enough resources to both conduct space exploration, house and feed everyone. We can eliminate involuntary unemployment with a couple of keystrokes. The sum total of all of this would be to stimulate the type of innovation required to transition to a zero carbon emissions economy.
    - jwells89 2y ago
      > I agree this is a false dichotomy, but also pretty sure dumping money into building houses and hiring every unemployed person at a socially inclusive minimum wage would eliminate both housing and unemployment. It’s one of those things where the details of the implementation are critical. In the US specifically, large amounts of money have already been put towards these problems to little effect. To be clear, I staunchly support spending money on these things; clearly, they’re dire needs that should be addressed, but if something isn’t done to increase effectiveness and hold those responsible for the spending accountable, increasing spending is unlikely to move the needle. Additionally, even if the goal were to reallocate funds, space programs aren’t really the best place to look. The pile of cash that would be yielded by “just” cutting fat in the US military apparatus would likely eclipse that of shutting down NASA altogether.
- vel0city 2y ago
  It seems like so many people feel that $5 billion just evaporates after the government spends it. The government spent it, it's gone. Poof. No. That $5B paid lots of people directly in their salaries, which then got spent in their local economies which then in turn went to construction workers building houses for those employees, the grocers selling the food those people eat, etc. It also went to go buy lots of actual raw materials, which once again employed lots of people and spurred those industries and all the secondary and tertiary spending that happens and what not. So in a way, that government spending on science is investing in those towns. And ultimately does lead towards more people being able to afford a home, put groceries on the table, etc. Growing up surrounded by NASA in Clear Lake it was quite obvious to me how important government spending was to the local economy, and how negatively it would affect people if the government decided it wouldn't be worth it to fund it anymore. How many blue-collar construction workers will do better when NASA gets funding to upgrade their 1960's facilities? Won't it help them afford housing? Won't it help ensure their kids don't go hungry?
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Simply spending money is not an investment. An investment is something that provides positive return over time. It is tied to net positive productivity and economic exports. Creating a dependent local economy or industry that consumes more than it produces is not an investment, it is welfare. While government can make investments, not all spending is an investment any more than all the purchases I make are investments.
    - vel0city 2y ago
      Some percentage of that spending does turn into actual economic investments in those local towns. Infrastructure gets built because of it. Homes are built. Shops are built. Tax revenues get collected to build schools to educate new generations of citizens. New technologies are made, new industries grown, etc. So even with your specific definition of investment that spending did spur some of it. Land is improved. Positive productivity, economic exports. > An investment is something that provides positive return over time That's one definition, implying it will just continue to give a return. Like dividends. Another would be "an act of devoting time, effort, or energy to a particular undertaking with the expectation of a worthwhile result." A definition on Wikipedia is "commitment of resources to achieve later benefits". All the spending is investing in knowledge of space, material science, biology, and more, hopefully for a worthwhile result. One could say, "a student invested a lot of time studying for their sixth-grade math exam". Very much an acceptable statement to make, I don't think most would argue it is improper English. Is that strongly tied to positive productivity and economic exports? Did passing that test directly affect the GDP of the country? Either way, the people I'm replying to weren't trying to debate the semantic differences between "investing" and "spending", and that wasn't really my main point. I do agree there are differences in this, but that can often be a matter of opinion and perspective.

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.
- FredPret 2y ago
  Maybe the problem is not enough space exploration. People need to be inspired. To live for a larger purpose
  - sph 2y ago
    GP is what happens when you mix Protestantism with utilitarianism. It's no longer enough to work hard to get into heaven, you need to work hard on something useful for humanity (decided arbitrarily by whomever) to reach eternal life. Which is frankly hilarious coming from someone who's supposedly "following the Dao". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei
ttoinou 2y ago
Money won’t solve that problem. Or it would have been solved before
Gooblebrai 2y ago
You are falling into a false dichotomy of having to choose between one thing or the other. Dumping more money into one problem doesn't necessarily help solve it better. Analogous to adding more members to a team so more people can focus into the problem.
- dools 2y ago
  > Dumping more money into one problem doesn't necessarily help solve it better I agree this is a false dichotomy, but also pretty sure dumping money into building houses and hiring every unemployed person at a socially inclusive minimum wage would eliminate both housing and unemployment. But I also think we have enough resources to both conduct space exploration, house and feed everyone. We can eliminate involuntary unemployment with a couple of keystrokes. The sum total of all of this would be to stimulate the type of innovation required to transition to a zero carbon emissions economy.
  - jwells89 2y ago
    > I agree this is a false dichotomy, but also pretty sure dumping money into building houses and hiring every unemployed person at a socially inclusive minimum wage would eliminate both housing and unemployment. It’s one of those things where the details of the implementation are critical. In the US specifically, large amounts of money have already been put towards these problems to little effect. To be clear, I staunchly support spending money on these things; clearly, they’re dire needs that should be addressed, but if something isn’t done to increase effectiveness and hold those responsible for the spending accountable, increasing spending is unlikely to move the needle. Additionally, even if the goal were to reallocate funds, space programs aren’t really the best place to look. The pile of cash that would be yielded by “just” cutting fat in the US military apparatus would likely eclipse that of shutting down NASA altogether.
vel0city 2y ago
It seems like so many people feel that $5 billion just evaporates after the government spends it. The government spent it, it's gone. Poof. No. That $5B paid lots of people directly in their salaries, which then got spent in their local economies which then in turn went to construction workers building houses for those employees, the grocers selling the food those people eat, etc. It also went to go buy lots of actual raw materials, which once again employed lots of people and spurred those industries and all the secondary and tertiary spending that happens and what not. So in a way, that government spending on science is investing in those towns. And ultimately does lead towards more people being able to afford a home, put groceries on the table, etc. Growing up surrounded by NASA in Clear Lake it was quite obvious to me how important government spending was to the local economy, and how negatively it would affect people if the government decided it wouldn't be worth it to fund it anymore. How many blue-collar construction workers will do better when NASA gets funding to upgrade their 1960's facilities? Won't it help them afford housing? Won't it help ensure their kids don't go hungry?
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Simply spending money is not an investment. An investment is something that provides positive return over time. It is tied to net positive productivity and economic exports. Creating a dependent local economy or industry that consumes more than it produces is not an investment, it is welfare. While government can make investments, not all spending is an investment any more than all the purchases I make are investments.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    Some percentage of that spending does turn into actual economic investments in those local towns. Infrastructure gets built because of it. Homes are built. Shops are built. Tax revenues get collected to build schools to educate new generations of citizens. New technologies are made, new industries grown, etc. So even with your specific definition of investment that spending did spur some of it. Land is improved. Positive productivity, economic exports. > An investment is something that provides positive return over time That's one definition, implying it will just continue to give a return. Like dividends. Another would be "an act of devoting time, effort, or energy to a particular undertaking with the expectation of a worthwhile result." A definition on Wikipedia is "commitment of resources to achieve later benefits". All the spending is investing in knowledge of space, material science, biology, and more, hopefully for a worthwhile result. One could say, "a student invested a lot of time studying for their sixth-grade math exam". Very much an acceptable statement to make, I don't think most would argue it is improper English. Is that strongly tied to positive productivity and economic exports? Did passing that test directly affect the GDP of the country? Either way, the people I'm replying to weren't trying to debate the semantic differences between "investing" and "spending", and that wasn't really my main point. I do agree there are differences in this, but that can often be a matter of opinion and perspective.