3 ms·
There's a lot of different "big science" investments humanity could make. In space alone, there's space stations, moon missions, Mars missions, cheaper Earth-NE
by timdierks 12y ago
There's a lot of different "big science" investments humanity could make. In space alone, there's space stations, moon missions, Mars missions, cheaper Earth-NEO transport, etc., etc.; then there's particle accelerators, telescopes, and every other big science project under the sun (or beyond it).
Two questions: first, in a zero-sum model, why is human exploration of the moon more worthy than other similar unfunded projects? In an non zero-sum model, why is it worthy enough to justify growing the funding pie for science projects?
How many billions of dollars are there in "a little more effort", in your estimation?
- AndrewKemendo 12y agoTwo questions: first, in a zero-sum model, why is human exploration of the moon more worthy than other similar unfunded projects? In an non zero-sum model, why is it worthy enough to justify growing the funding pie for science projects? It's not in either case in my opinion, and I would argue is it significantly less worth than those other projects.
- maaku 12y agoYour mistake was assuming a zero sum model.
- maaku 12y agoWhy the downvotes? Expanding Earth's economic sphere to all of cislunar space necessarily expands the resources and energy available to human industry. There will be returns, and the economy will expand. It's not zero-sum.
- timdierks 12y agoEven in a non-zero sum model, each investment needs to justify itself vs. alternatives at the time. I may have a wealth of investments that can have guaranteed positive returns, but I must choose which to invest in at any time with limited resources. Even if I can expand available resources because of the promise of these alternatives, or through reinvestment of gains, I still must choose what to do at any time, until I have enough resources to pursue all promising avenues simultaneously.