4 ms·

One of those is actually an urgent need. The other one presupposes any utility at all, let alone the massive leap in technology required to solve the other prob

One of those is actually an urgent need. The other one presupposes any utility at all, let alone the massive leap in technology required to solve the other problem.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Sure, but why do you think that matters unless the two are in major competition?
- freejazz 2y ago
  Because one is an urgent need, the other isn't and also presupposes a solution to the first problem. Perhaps you can explain why this doesn't matter.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I dont see that way at all. Space exploration in no way hampers or restricts our ability to improve earth. The two can be done in parallel. Do you think that all non-urgent activities should/must be halted until the earth is improved?
    - freejazz 2y ago
      I didn't say they couldn't be done in parallel. >Do you think that all non-urgent activities should/must be halted until the earth is improved? No, I'm not sure how that follows at all.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        I asked why not do both, and you responded that "One of those is actually an urgent need". If you arent arguing against doing them in parallel, what point are you trying to make. If you agree they can both be done in parallel, and dont think we should wait, what is your objection?
    - vacuity 2y ago
      > in no way hampers or restricts Except for the logistics, such as funding, brain drain, social attention/PR. Frankly, I don't think we could "improve Earth" effectively without major restructuring of power, resources, social attitudes, etc., even if massive amounts of resources were thrown at it. People would rather work on space exploration because it's more exciting and hopeful.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        This is classic zero sum thinking. A dollar more for space is not a dollar less for the environment, and one more aerospace engineer is not one less environmentalist. You might as well argue for a global ban on dancing or fun because it is a distraction from improving the earth.
        vacuity 2y ago
        So are you saying that when random billionaire #38 puts in $5 million to space ventures, they're willing to also give $5 million to the environment? Although just throwing money at the environmental issues is a lot less effective than powerful people, like probably those billionaires, reforming industrial practices and whatnot. Like eliminating disposable plastic bags. Positive-sum games aren't always accurate either. The issue with always-upward economic and technological thinking is that, if (when?) the bubble bursts, we realize that growth can't come out of nowhere. Even if it's just a matter of psychological motivation and not money, it turns out that people can't just focus on twenty causes effectively.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > when random billionaire #38 puts in $5 million to space ventures, they're willing to also give $5 million to the environment It was never going to the environment. It was going into space ventures or into some consumer play. There is practically zero competition between space and environmental concerns. (To the extent environmental concerns compete for resources, it's with discretionary social services. Similar donor bases. Similar line items in most national budgets.) The engineers working on rockets wouldn't pivot to environmental sciences if we closed off space. Some would go to defence. Most would go to random other areas, likely those that pay well, like finance and that consumer play the aforementioned billionaire funded. > people can't just focus on twenty causes effectively We're investing more into crypto than we are into space.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> One of those is actually an urgent need We're on Hacker News. Divide a population in two, tell one of them what they have to work on and let the other fuck around with whatever they fancy. Tell me you'd have any uncertainty around which will innovate more. Like sure, it would be great if everyone dropped what they were doing to work on climate change. But we aren't and don't want to. You're never going to convince all of the engineers inspired by going to space to work on a slightly-better solar panel. But you may get a much-better panel by letting them force themselves to make one that works in deep space.
- vacuity 2y ago
  > But you may get a much-better panel by letting them force themselves to make one that works in deep space. That "may" is doing a lot of work there, to the point I find it absurd. One of the bigger, more cohesive biases on Hacker News I see (understandably) is that technical solutions trump everything. I consider it wishful thinking.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > "may" is doing a lot of work there, to the point I find it absurd Not really something you have to hypothesise about. Cordless tools, water-purification technologies, integrated circuits and all manner of imaging, navigation and battery technologies came out of the Apollo programme. > more cohesive biases on Hacker News I see (understandably) is that technical solutions trump everything Irrelevant to proving or disproving mutual exclusivity between "populat[ing] Mars and improv[ing] earth." (Also, wrong. The Outer Space Treaty and failed Moon Treaty inspired significant portions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas, including the assertion that the seabed is the common heritage of mankind.)
    - vacuity 2y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42300388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42300388 Last paragraph mainly.

One of those is actually an urgent need. The other one presupposes any utility at all, let alone the massive leap in technology required to solve the other problem.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Sure, but why do you think that matters unless the two are in major competition?

freejazz 2y ago
Because one is an urgent need, the other isn't and also presupposes a solution to the first problem. Perhaps you can explain why this doesn't matter.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I dont see that way at all. Space exploration in no way hampers or restricts our ability to improve earth. The two can be done in parallel. Do you think that all non-urgent activities should/must be halted until the earth is improved?
  - freejazz 2y ago
    I didn't say they couldn't be done in parallel. >Do you think that all non-urgent activities should/must be halted until the earth is improved? No, I'm not sure how that follows at all.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      I asked why not do both, and you responded that "One of those is actually an urgent need". If you arent arguing against doing them in parallel, what point are you trying to make. If you agree they can both be done in parallel, and dont think we should wait, what is your objection?
  - vacuity 2y ago
    > in no way hampers or restricts Except for the logistics, such as funding, brain drain, social attention/PR. Frankly, I don't think we could "improve Earth" effectively without major restructuring of power, resources, social attitudes, etc., even if massive amounts of resources were thrown at it. People would rather work on space exploration because it's more exciting and hopeful.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      This is classic zero sum thinking. A dollar more for space is not a dollar less for the environment, and one more aerospace engineer is not one less environmentalist. You might as well argue for a global ban on dancing or fun because it is a distraction from improving the earth.
      - vacuity 2y ago
        So are you saying that when random billionaire #38 puts in $5 million to space ventures, they're willing to also give $5 million to the environment? Although just throwing money at the environmental issues is a lot less effective than powerful people, like probably those billionaires, reforming industrial practices and whatnot. Like eliminating disposable plastic bags. Positive-sum games aren't always accurate either. The issue with always-upward economic and technological thinking is that, if (when?) the bubble bursts, we realize that growth can't come out of nowhere. Even if it's just a matter of psychological motivation and not money, it turns out that people can't just focus on twenty causes effectively.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > when random billionaire #38 puts in $5 million to space ventures, they're willing to also give $5 million to the environment It was never going to the environment. It was going into space ventures or into some consumer play. There is practically zero competition between space and environmental concerns. (To the extent environmental concerns compete for resources, it's with discretionary social services. Similar donor bases. Similar line items in most national budgets.) The engineers working on rockets wouldn't pivot to environmental sciences if we closed off space. Some would go to defence. Most would go to random other areas, likely those that pay well, like finance and that consumer play the aforementioned billionaire funded. > people can't just focus on twenty causes effectively We're investing more into crypto than we are into space.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> One of those is actually an urgent need We're on Hacker News. Divide a population in two, tell one of them what they have to work on and let the other fuck around with whatever they fancy. Tell me you'd have any uncertainty around which will innovate more. Like sure, it would be great if everyone dropped what they were doing to work on climate change. But we aren't and don't want to. You're never going to convince all of the engineers inspired by going to space to work on a slightly-better solar panel. But you may get a much-better panel by letting them force themselves to make one that works in deep space.

vacuity 2y ago
> But you may get a much-better panel by letting them force themselves to make one that works in deep space. That "may" is doing a lot of work there, to the point I find it absurd. One of the bigger, more cohesive biases on Hacker News I see (understandably) is that technical solutions trump everything. I consider it wishful thinking.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > "may" is doing a lot of work there, to the point I find it absurd Not really something you have to hypothesise about. Cordless tools, water-purification technologies, integrated circuits and all manner of imaging, navigation and battery technologies came out of the Apollo programme. > more cohesive biases on Hacker News I see (understandably) is that technical solutions trump everything Irrelevant to proving or disproving mutual exclusivity between "populat[ing] Mars and improv[ing] earth." (Also, wrong. The Outer Space Treaty and failed Moon Treaty inspired significant portions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas, including the assertion that the seabed is the common heritage of mankind.)
  - vacuity 2y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42300388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42300388 Last paragraph mainly.