8 ms·

>There was a time in the 1960s when the oceans were considered to be as important to explore as space. Arguably a lot of that was just cover for cold war milit

by bragr 2y ago

>There was a time in the 1960s when the oceans were considered to be as important to explore as space. Arguably a lot of that was just cover for cold war military submarine/anti-submarine research. Seabed hydrophones for tracking soviet subs, undersea mapping for submarine navigation, DSVs for recovering intelligence from wrecks, etc. Famously the discovery of the wreck of the Titanic was just the cover story for exploring submarine wrecks in the Atlantic. https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/13/us/titanic-discovery-classified-nuclear-sub/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/13/us/titanic-discovery-classifi...

gregschlom 2y ago
Maybe, but the 60s are also the start of recreational scuba diving and that probably played a big part in it as well. All of a sudden there was this big unknown world that became accessible.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
adastra22 2y ago
Maybe, but at least we dared to dream.
ddingus 2y ago
That is just fine with me. I realize our current national politics leave a lot to be desired. That sucks. But, as long as we are advancing and stuff bleeds out to where mere mortals can access them, game on! I am not here to wish it were better. And I do want that, hope for that and am, when life permits, an activist to those ends. We all get a free ticket to this place. It is amazing! And we only get one. I plan on loving, living, building, doing, playing and all manner of things we find ourselves willing and able to do That is why I am here. And ideally, I leave it better than I found it. Well on track for that to be true right now which means I am here to take the risks I can manage. It is by no means perfect, but it is somewhat defensible POV.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  Well it’s great… except for all the credibility the US lost abroad after claiming for several decades to not be doing many of those things under cover. Trading away what took over 200 years to build up, and will need another 200 years to regain to the same extent, isn’t smart.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - toolz 2y ago
    Do you have an objective metric that suggests the US has lost (or is losing) credibility? I don't see any signs of it.
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
      UN voting patterns. e.g. In the 1990s General Assembly it was far from certain that the US would lose most of the contenious ones involving the US, every year, except maybe the annual Cuba vote. Whereas in 2023-2024, well you can check yourself. A lot of the time even countries like Norway or Ireland or Mexico vote against the US.
      - toolz 2y ago
        Do you have a link to anything that shows the data analysis on our voting patterns having less international backing in recent times? I see the data and can plot out a trend myself, but if someone has already done better analysis I'm curious to read more about what you're talking about. edit: I did a simple chart over all the UN votes sorted by date and the amount of votes that match USA votes seems to increase over time, but the real issue is that the vote data only went through 2021. At a quick glance the only data I can find does not match what you're suggesting.
        MichaelZuo 2y ago
        Huh? I clearly see the General Assembly voting results on their website starting way before 2021?
rf15 2y ago
The moon landing was also a highly politically motivated project - spreading the dream of space exploration was just a means to an end. But it's a great dream, even with that context.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  I would have preferred a healthcare financing system, personally. But I guess we got technology instead.
  - karmonhardan 2y ago
    Indeed, the moon landing wasn't the universally-lauded come-together moment people like to portray it as. MLK had been assassinated the previous year and the Vietnam War was in full swing; there were a lot of things on people's minds (and greatly varying opinions on what the government ought to be spending money on). The common memory of the event can mostly be chalked up to a combination of propaganda and the people who tend to be able to get their writing about it published (white Baby Boomers).
  - User23 2y ago
    We spend far far more on healthcare than space or sea exploration already.
    - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
      Yea, because we have a completely ass-backwards way of funding it. Anyway what I'm referring to is the spending of political capital in the context of the 60s. The rest of the world got socialized healthcare; we got a space program. I don't really see this as a problem, frankly. Space and sea exploration has little value compared to health care.
euroderf 2y ago
Similarly, a lot of radio astronomy funding was Cold War cover for stuff like surveilling Soviet radar reflected from the moon.

by bragr 2y ago

gregschlom 2y ago

Maybe, but the 60s are also the start of recreational scuba diving and that probably played a big part in it as well. All of a sudden there was this big unknown world that became accessible.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

adastra22 2y ago

Maybe, but at least we dared to dream.

ddingus 2y ago

That is just fine with me. I realize our current national politics leave a lot to be desired. That sucks. But, as long as we are advancing and stuff bleeds out to where mere mortals can access them, game on! I am not here to wish it were better. And I do want that, hope for that and am, when life permits, an activist to those ends. We all get a free ticket to this place. It is amazing! And we only get one. I plan on loving, living, building, doing, playing and all manner of things we find ourselves willing and able to do That is why I am here. And ideally, I leave it better than I found it. Well on track for that to be true right now which means I am here to take the risks I can manage. It is by no means perfect, but it is somewhat defensible POV.

MichaelZuo 2y ago
Well it’s great… except for all the credibility the US lost abroad after claiming for several decades to not be doing many of those things under cover. Trading away what took over 200 years to build up, and will need another 200 years to regain to the same extent, isn’t smart.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- toolz 2y ago
  Do you have an objective metric that suggests the US has lost (or is losing) credibility? I don't see any signs of it.
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    UN voting patterns. e.g. In the 1990s General Assembly it was far from certain that the US would lose most of the contenious ones involving the US, every year, except maybe the annual Cuba vote. Whereas in 2023-2024, well you can check yourself. A lot of the time even countries like Norway or Ireland or Mexico vote against the US.
    - toolz 2y ago
      Do you have a link to anything that shows the data analysis on our voting patterns having less international backing in recent times? I see the data and can plot out a trend myself, but if someone has already done better analysis I'm curious to read more about what you're talking about. edit: I did a simple chart over all the UN votes sorted by date and the amount of votes that match USA votes seems to increase over time, but the real issue is that the vote data only went through 2021. At a quick glance the only data I can find does not match what you're suggesting.
      - MichaelZuo 2y ago
        Huh? I clearly see the General Assembly voting results on their website starting way before 2021?

rf15 2y ago

The moon landing was also a highly politically motivated project - spreading the dream of space exploration was just a means to an end. But it's a great dream, even with that context.

PittleyDunkin 2y ago
I would have preferred a healthcare financing system, personally. But I guess we got technology instead.
- karmonhardan 2y ago
  Indeed, the moon landing wasn't the universally-lauded come-together moment people like to portray it as. MLK had been assassinated the previous year and the Vietnam War was in full swing; there were a lot of things on people's minds (and greatly varying opinions on what the government ought to be spending money on). The common memory of the event can mostly be chalked up to a combination of propaganda and the people who tend to be able to get their writing about it published (white Baby Boomers).
- User23 2y ago
  We spend far far more on healthcare than space or sea exploration already.
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    Yea, because we have a completely ass-backwards way of funding it. Anyway what I'm referring to is the spending of political capital in the context of the 60s. The rest of the world got socialized healthcare; we got a space program. I don't really see this as a problem, frankly. Space and sea exploration has little value compared to health care.

euroderf 2y ago

Similarly, a lot of radio astronomy funding was Cold War cover for stuff like surveilling Soviet radar reflected from the moon.