3 ms·

I’m not sure I’m following. Do most people not care because of the environment? Because that’s certainly not the case. Most people don’t care about the environm

by Gagarin1917 7mo ago

I’m not sure I’m following. Do most people not care because of the environment? Because that’s certainly not the case. Most people don’t care about the environment either. Plus, do you not have any other interests besides the state of the world? No interest in entertainment or sports or tech news at all? I doubt that if you’re on HN. My bet is that you wouldn’t care even if the world was objectively better than ever. You’re just coming up with excuses for why you don’t care. It’s fine if you don’t care, but it’s certainly not because of the state of the world. Otherwise you wouldn’t have any interests at all, including HackerNews.

tonyedgecombe 7mo ago
>Most people don’t care about the environment either. They will start caring when it stops feeding them.
- orwin 7mo ago
  By then it will be a bit late.
palata 7mo ago
> You’re just coming up with excuses for why you don’t care. I do care, as in "it's really cool" and I wish I could do it, too. I grew up being passionate about Apollo and the ISS. But then I realised that the ISS is extraordinarily expensive and really doesn't bring much (still I would love to go!). Worse even: the more popular space programs get, the more likely it is that SpaceX and the likes succeed in commercialising space and polluting more and more while doing it. And another thing I have realised is that other people passionate about human spaceflights usually either don't give a shit about the fact that we are destroying the conditions of our survival or don't understand how bad the situation is. Look at the comments here on this topic: when someone questions the fact that manned space missions are scientifically useful (nobody ever denies that they are super cool), they get downvoted very fast. Nobody ever engages in a constructive discussion of "why they may, actually, be useful", other than by saying "but look, a fraction of the money we put into space programs helped develop some things that we could have developed without the space program, but I want to believe that we may have not developed them or much slower". I do have hobbies indeed, but they don't involve throwing away billions of taxpayer money.
ghighi7878 7mo ago
A big difference from 1960s and 70s in US is that 60s and 70s were a time of hope. Today that hope is not there. I am a scientist and I am stoked about moon missions. But I can see why todays people won't care about it much. Today mesaaging around space feels like rich peoples hobby and war weapns more than science. Just see how stoked people were about JWST
- expedition32 7mo ago
  There's no scientific reason to go back to the moon though. It's just American chest thumping. I am interested in space, I would prefer we are spamming drones to explore the solar system. But science is boring.
  - ghighi7878 7mo ago
    Artemis is chest thumping. Sending robots on the other hand, very cool and interesting.
    - dtagames 7mo ago
      I thought the same thing. School kids would be interested if there were a space drone they could see and control from the classroom. This is definitely possible and far cheaper than Artemis. If we wanted kids to embrace STEM, you could have these available to every classroom year round.
- npilk 7mo ago
  The 1960s and 70s were extremely turbulent, chaotic times in the US - the Civil Rights era, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, multiple high-profile assassinations, etc. Apollo 8 launched at the end of 1968, which was a famously challenging year with many disruptive events. Of course we have many challenges today as well, but I don't think the political environment is unprecedented. One could easily have argued in the 60s that we should be focusing on civil rights, ending the Vietnam War, etc. instead of going to the moon. In fact, much of the messaging around space in the 60s that allowed those missions to happen was based around "war weapons" and the Space Race with the Soviets. One could argue the Apollo program itself was responsible for creating a lot of the hope you mention.

tonyedgecombe 7mo ago

>Most people don’t care about the environment either. They will start caring when it stops feeding them.

orwin 7mo ago
By then it will be a bit late.

palata 7mo ago

> You’re just coming up with excuses for why you don’t care. I do care, as in "it's really cool" and I wish I could do it, too. I grew up being passionate about Apollo and the ISS. But then I realised that the ISS is extraordinarily expensive and really doesn't bring much (still I would love to go!). Worse even: the more popular space programs get, the more likely it is that SpaceX and the likes succeed in commercialising space and polluting more and more while doing it. And another thing I have realised is that other people passionate about human spaceflights usually either don't give a shit about the fact that we are destroying the conditions of our survival or don't understand how bad the situation is. Look at the comments here on this topic: when someone questions the fact that manned space missions are scientifically useful (nobody ever denies that they are super cool), they get downvoted very fast. Nobody ever engages in a constructive discussion of "why they may, actually, be useful", other than by saying "but look, a fraction of the money we put into space programs helped develop some things that we could have developed without the space program, but I want to believe that we may have not developed them or much slower". I do have hobbies indeed, but they don't involve throwing away billions of taxpayer money.

ghighi7878 7mo ago

A big difference from 1960s and 70s in US is that 60s and 70s were a time of hope. Today that hope is not there. I am a scientist and I am stoked about moon missions. But I can see why todays people won't care about it much. Today mesaaging around space feels like rich peoples hobby and war weapns more than science. Just see how stoked people were about JWST

expedition32 7mo ago
There's no scientific reason to go back to the moon though. It's just American chest thumping. I am interested in space, I would prefer we are spamming drones to explore the solar system. But science is boring.
- ghighi7878 7mo ago
  Artemis is chest thumping. Sending robots on the other hand, very cool and interesting.
  - dtagames 7mo ago
    I thought the same thing. School kids would be interested if there were a space drone they could see and control from the classroom. This is definitely possible and far cheaper than Artemis. If we wanted kids to embrace STEM, you could have these available to every classroom year round.
npilk 7mo ago
The 1960s and 70s were extremely turbulent, chaotic times in the US - the Civil Rights era, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, multiple high-profile assassinations, etc. Apollo 8 launched at the end of 1968, which was a famously challenging year with many disruptive events. Of course we have many challenges today as well, but I don't think the political environment is unprecedented. One could easily have argued in the 60s that we should be focusing on civil rights, ending the Vietnam War, etc. instead of going to the moon. In fact, much of the messaging around space in the 60s that allowed those missions to happen was based around "war weapons" and the Space Race with the Soviets. One could argue the Apollo program itself was responsible for creating a lot of the hope you mention.