3 ms·

"That money and our presence there hasn't worked" - I don't agree. It is valid if you are naive and believe US went around the world twice to spread goodwill a

"That money and our presence there hasn't worked" - I don't agree. It is valid if you are naive and believe US went around the world twice to spread goodwill and western values to those who despised them anyway, by blasting hundrets of thousands of civilians (and few armed guys along) to pieces. But, if you look at those adventures from economical perspective of those who have huge influence in US politics all the way to white house and can profit nicely from any war effort, there are no big mysteries. Or, just "follow the money" works nicely. - completely agree on that cash spending point. in fact, my personal opinion is that we shouldn't try to reach the stars/other planets until we solve our massive issues here, ie no person should die from hunger, all children should get proper education/health care, minimize polluting/raping our own ecosystem etc. You know, the basics of fabric of any sustainable advanced society that we sometimes claim to be/aspire to be. - multiculturalism has largely not worked, at least not for europe's immigration. the issue is lack of any proper integration, accepting european values etc. People here are well aware, and incidents like these will play nicely in hands of terrorists. Further polarization of society, meaning more jihad recruits, more attacks and so on. It doesn't matter that maybe 98% of muslims here are nice people that don't cause any issues (apart from that integration, but if I were living in muslim country, I wouldn't accept their values neither). US fares much better in this aspect.

gambiting 12y ago
>>my personal opinion is that we shouldn't try to reach the stars/other planets until we solve our massive issues here, ie no person should die from hunger, all children should get proper education/health care, minimize polluting/raping our own ecosystem etc. You know, the basics of fabric of any sustainable advanced society that we sometimes claim to be/aspire to be. So how do you suggest to achieve that? A person grows up and wants to go and study rocket science, and you come up and go "sorry kid, come back once kids stop starving in Nigeria"? You can't just assume that if we halt progress in one area then magically the production capacities will transfer to other areas. World hunger would not be solved by stopping space exploration, it's a result of many different political problems, it's not a simple issue.
- saiya-jin 12y ago
  I am not at all talking about stopping all space exploration, banning rocket science or similar nonsense. Only specifically about manned mission to mars and huge amount of cash that will cost it. Be it a noble cause, there are more noble and pressing ones that will have much more positive impact on our society. And just because something ain't easy it shouldn't be aspired to be done? Or do you really feel internally perfectly OK throwing away stale food knowing there are kids starving out there? (seen those first hand, not in africa but in india, and to say it's a touching and saddening experience is a gross understatement).
  - gambiting 12y ago
    Sure, and that's probably why spending on Nasa is a fraction of spending on Education or Healthcare. The only thing you could change right now is stop that spending altogether. As a society we are already spending much more on helping others than we are spending on space exploration - and the idea that we literally shouldn't do X unless Y happens first strikes me as quite radical - if you are qualified engineer you are free to commit your resources to whatever cause you like. If you want to make water purifiers for poor people in Africa - cool. But if you want to build rockets with your knowledge - also cool. What we can do is provide incentives for people to do the first thing not the other, but I wouldn't take anyone's freedom of choice. >>Or do you really feel internally perfectly OK throwing away stale food knowing there are kids starving out there? The answer is yes - because I avoid buying too much food and if there is any left that I am not going to use, then it's the only reasonable option(well, I would use it for compost if I had a garden, but I don't). North Koreans are not going to get any more food on the table even if I stop eating altogether. And as a society we are already spending billions sending food aid there - but there is only so much you can do without getting rid of the regime there. Your argument is the same as someone saying to a child "finish your soup, there are kids in India starving" - but apart from making the child feel bad, it's not achieving anything.

gambiting 12y ago

>>my personal opinion is that we shouldn't try to reach the stars/other planets until we solve our massive issues here, ie no person should die from hunger, all children should get proper education/health care, minimize polluting/raping our own ecosystem etc. You know, the basics of fabric of any sustainable advanced society that we sometimes claim to be/aspire to be. So how do you suggest to achieve that? A person grows up and wants to go and study rocket science, and you come up and go "sorry kid, come back once kids stop starving in Nigeria"? You can't just assume that if we halt progress in one area then magically the production capacities will transfer to other areas. World hunger would not be solved by stopping space exploration, it's a result of many different political problems, it's not a simple issue.

saiya-jin 12y ago
I am not at all talking about stopping all space exploration, banning rocket science or similar nonsense. Only specifically about manned mission to mars and huge amount of cash that will cost it. Be it a noble cause, there are more noble and pressing ones that will have much more positive impact on our society. And just because something ain't easy it shouldn't be aspired to be done? Or do you really feel internally perfectly OK throwing away stale food knowing there are kids starving out there? (seen those first hand, not in africa but in india, and to say it's a touching and saddening experience is a gross understatement).
- gambiting 12y ago
  Sure, and that's probably why spending on Nasa is a fraction of spending on Education or Healthcare. The only thing you could change right now is stop that spending altogether. As a society we are already spending much more on helping others than we are spending on space exploration - and the idea that we literally shouldn't do X unless Y happens first strikes me as quite radical - if you are qualified engineer you are free to commit your resources to whatever cause you like. If you want to make water purifiers for poor people in Africa - cool. But if you want to build rockets with your knowledge - also cool. What we can do is provide incentives for people to do the first thing not the other, but I wouldn't take anyone's freedom of choice. >>Or do you really feel internally perfectly OK throwing away stale food knowing there are kids starving out there? The answer is yes - because I avoid buying too much food and if there is any left that I am not going to use, then it's the only reasonable option(well, I would use it for compost if I had a garden, but I don't). North Koreans are not going to get any more food on the table even if I stop eating altogether. And as a society we are already spending billions sending food aid there - but there is only so much you can do without getting rid of the regime there. Your argument is the same as someone saying to a child "finish your soup, there are kids in India starving" - but apart from making the child feel bad, it's not achieving anything.