The Second Apocalypse
Miscellaneous Chatter => Philosophy & Science => Topic started by: sciborg2 on November 22, 2013, 12:27:36 am
-
Here's Neil deGrasse Tyson's argument for space exploration funding. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc)
As far as I can tell, this seems like a man trying to demand public funding for his personal hobby.
Let's say I don't want my taxes to go toward space programs unless there is a considerable surplus.
What's the argument that justifies funding space exploration when that money might be better spent on some other program that creates jobs? What justifies spending that money on space exploration rather something more terrestrial that might yield more immediate benefits?
-
they took his jrrb!
dey turk hirs jrrrb!
derkersjrrb!
jrrb!
-
Hey, my hobby is comics.
I'm sure I can come up with a youtube video about dreams and demand public funding to support one of the few American born art mediums.
eta: On a more serious note, why not put the money into urban farming research?
-
I'd suspect because urban farming is already perfectly well understood. They down wanna doow eeyt.
I actually have a fond spot for space exploration - I remember being stuck in a car with someone who didn't see the point of it/wanted the funds to go elsewher and being flabergasted.
I think it'd be sad to simply stop it - yet yes, so much else is - well, not ignored, because that would imply if they paid attention to it, it'd be something that matters to them. Space is more the warlords new frontier (paid for by governments to begin with atleast, of course)
-
Firstly, it's not as if money given to NASA is sucked into a black hole never to be seen again. It is spent in various industries, and contractors from many fields are hired to do various tasks related to the NASA projects. Secondly, just like with spending money on any other endeavour, there are often unintended technological innovations that benefit the public at large that fall out of NASA projects. See here for some examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies
Third, while Neil likes to wax poetic about the exploration of space (doing so is part of his job, after all. He is, first and foremost, the director of a planetarium.), there is something to be said about the value that comes from inspiring the masses, which space exploration does for many.
It all depends on what results one values. If pure job numbers are the ultimate goal, then the money can certainly be better spent elsewhere.
-
they took his jrrb!
dey turk hirs jrrrb!
derkersjrrb!
jrrb!
Lol - Detukrrrjrrrbbs! Seeing two South Park references here today makes me happy.
Here's Neil deGrasse Tyson's argument for space exploration funding. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc)
As far as I can tell, this seems like a man trying to demand public funding for his personal hobby.
Let's say I don't want my taxes to go toward space programs unless there is a considerable surplus.
What's the argument that justifies funding space exploration when that money might be better spent on some other program that creates jobs? What justifies spending that money on space exploration rather something more terrestrial that might yield more immediate benefits?
Is this to be our discussion on idealizing research spending :D?
For starters:
Secondly, just like with spending money on any other endeavour, there are often unintended technological innovations that benefit the public at large that fall out of NASA projects. See here for some examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies
Contextually specific, I think this is the best argument to be made for keeping an institution like NASA around.
Also, sci, you don't think Tyson has, or at least implies, strong arguments in the video with 'war as motivating factor x' (and by extension, replacing that with a healthy and consistent motivation) or 'one penny on the tax dollar' (whereas military spending is probably half that dollar)?
eta: On a more serious note, why not put the money into urban farming research?
Fine - not at the expense of the penny on the dollar but at the expense of the two quarters of the dollar (as far as 'Merican context goes). Though, I think I agree with Callan but that permaculture-culture is riff with misinformation moreso than coordinated effort of denying knowledge by 'them.'
It is spent in various industries, If pure job numbers are the ultimate goal, then the money can certainly be better spent elsewhere.
That's not my ultimate goal with research. The only aspects of university institutions that specifically seem to create more jobs (at their institutions, contributing to total job numbers, rather than in number of graduates produced, which also contributes to total job numbers) is in administrators and professors when accommodating an influx of students to specific schools or when specific disciplines experience the high-ground of employable mystique (and thus, there are more jobs for practicing scientists to then research with and train students for future careers in research at university institutions).
If Tyson's argument about 'one penny on the tax dollar' is backed by evidence, then there are bigger pieces of the pie to be divided.
-
Sure, you can boil anything down to "personal hobby". What is the Affordable Care Act but Obama's personal hobby of helping people? Everything is someone's hobby, that doesn't make it unimportant. Think of any achievement in history and see if you can say that is wasn't someone's personal hobby. Rockefeller and his oil, Carnegie and his steel, Ford and his cars, to name a few.
they took his jrrb!
dey turk hirs jrrrb!
derkersjrrb!
jrrb!
Common misunderstanding about what happened to NASA. ;)
But really, to answer your question, because I believe his speeches have a lot of truth. See:
Secondly, just like with spending money on any other endeavour, there are often unintended technological innovations that benefit the public at large that fall out of NASA projects. See here for some examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies
Do you really deny that space exploration and research has been a major contribute to the economic success of America after glancing at the above link?
Where would you put research money if not in NASA? Or do you think ALL research is a waste of money?
Because honestly if you think scientific research is useless this conversation is pointless lol.
If you think there are better ways to put research money to work, I'd be interested to hear it.
I think NASA is a good catch-all research fund because it requires so much collaboration. Space exploration is, to say it lamely, really hard, and solving hard problems requires a lot of people to come together. I also worry that by defunding NASA, which is not what Obama did btw, will cause an over all decrease in important research.
To me, research drives innovation which drives new products to market which drives the economy which drives the world. Yeah there is a massive wait time between research and manufactured products for sale, but without doing to research you'd never get anything new.
edit:
If Tyson's argument about 'one penny on the tax dollar' is backed by evidence, then there are bigger pieces of the pie to be divided.
This. Taking money from scientific research and putting it into military spending or wellfare or medicade or whatever, would essentially cause no effect. 100 million added to 1 trillion still gets you 1 trillion. 1,000,000 + 1,000,000,000,000 or 1*10^6 + 1*10^12 = 1*10^12.
-
More to say later, but I'm disappointed Solo didn't quote Whitey on the Moon. (http://www.gilscottheron.com/lywhitey.html)
Maybe he really is a rich liberal masquerading as a principled communist for fun? ;)
eta: Humor aside, I do want to thank people for giving actual answers. There's a reason I posted this here rather than elsewhere - you can actually have a conversation here about "fringe" or supposedly "conservative" ideas.
-
eta: Humor aside, I do want to thank people for giving actual answers. There's a reason I posted this here rather than elsewhere - you can actually have a conversation here about "fringe" or supposedly "conservative" ideas.
Making me tear up a little ;). Thanks to everyone for making SA what it is.
-
Making me tear up a little ;). Thanks to everyone for making SA what it is.
Heh. I should explain "supposedly 'conservative'" - my questioning of space funding is from what I think is a more "lefty" perspective as I see those funds helping people who may not have the economic means to care about cosmological facts.
I realize most people see someone advocating such cuts and thinks of Tea Party shenanigans.
Why I mentioned urban farming as I actually have met one of the PhDs researching this and working to make it viable as a path to urban renewal in Philadelphia. It's a possibly promising approach, with jobs provided to those who are probably in more need of a career path than engineers at NASA who can find work elsewhere.
But it's all very devil's advocate-y. I don't have a strong stance, I just think we need to pick at assumptions at something about the space program smells wasteful to me.
-
Making me tear up a little ;). Thanks to everyone for making SA what it is.
Heh. I should explain "supposedly 'conservative'" - my questioning of space funding is from what I think is a more "lefty" perspective as I see those funds helping people who may not have the economic means to care about cosmological facts.
How can "political orientation X" seriously argue that those funds to help those socioeconomically impoverished shouldn't come first from the two quarter on the dollar military budget?
-
Making me tear up a little ;). Thanks to everyone for making SA what it is.
Heh. I should explain "supposedly 'conservative'" - my questioning of space funding is from what I think is a more "lefty" perspective as I see those funds helping people who may not have the economic means to care about cosmological facts.
How can "political orientation X" seriously argue that those funds to help those socioeconomically impoverished shouldn't come first from the two quarter on the dollar military budget?
How? Well keep in mind this is all off the top (no writtens!).... but strategy I suppose.
I think it'll be easier to get liberals to abandon their desire to fund space programs and shift it to something more worthwhile than it will be to convince conservatives to reduce military spending.
-
Party dichotomy fucking boggles me. We're such a bunch of monkeys - sometimes (and really that's an insult and a stereotype - sorry, chimpanzees, bonobos, macacas, some great apes and others...).
Ok, strategy. We could argue that inadvertent innovation (like point two of Meyna's NASA argument) resulting from planned innovation does more to cement a country as a world power (especially, with America's existing position) than 'strategy spending' by the military.
I'm willing to accept that if we cut back on military spending that "the terrorists would win" (by which, I mean, that there would be an increase in violence worldwide because the existence and presence of a world-policing force probably does deter some bad people from doing violent things to justify their beliefs).
BUT...
To take the strategy argument, compels me to suggest that all of that spending is not justified. And until there is coherent and legible documentation justifying all military tax spending than they should be operating at a strategically reduced capacity.
But as far as I understand Congress is often bought or deceived, whereas the Canadian Senate is just bought and paid for...
-
But it's all very devil's advocate-y. I don't have a strong stance, I just think we need to pick at assumptions at something about the space program smells wasteful to me.
Can you say why? Which part of their spending is wasteful? Not to be offensive, but so far there have been multiple posts for specific reason why space spending is important (or why some feel that it is), and you haven't really disagreed with them or offered your on thoughts as to why you feel differently, other than its "how you feel".
Take a look at this picture and and the page regarding NASA's actual spending:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
Lets assume these wiki links are somewhat factual. This puts NASA's total budget at .48% of the national budget. It doesn't even show up on the pie graph.
Department of Defense - 19%
Social Security - 22%
Medicare & Medicaid - 23%
So I ask you again, which part of the .48% NASA budget is the waste?
There are a million different ways you can suggest what would be a "more ideal" way to spend tax dollars. Like I said before, if you take ALL of the NASA budget and put it to any other program, they wouldn't even notice. The US bank bailout was more than the entire 50 year running budget for NASA. That means all the trips to the moon, all the stalites, all the space walks, all the ISS stuff, all the Mars stuff, for 50 years, was eclipsed by the US buying bankrupt banks in 1 day.
And NASA is wasteful? Sorry but I never heard of anyone wanting to because a scientist, someone who wants to contribute to the betterment of society, because they saw a bunch of rich bankers get a free pass.
Next, military spending. Please see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
When I see that list I am embarrassed by how much money the US wastes on military power. We spend more than the next 10 countries combined, and most of them are our allies. We spend almost 6x more than China. The other countries we are engaged with arn't even on the list.
And then to say that NASA's budget is a waste? No one even knows where all that military spending goes to. We arn't even at war with anyone (ok thats arguable).
Sorry I get a bit passionate with this subject. I just find it irritating that people think NASA is a waste of money without knowing any facts at all (not suggesting that you don't, just mean in general). I've also yet to hear a good argument, from anyone, as to why its a waste. But I'm pretty biased so you know :P.
-
No one even knows where all that military spending goes to
Check out what they do at DARPA. It is fucking scary as hell. Those drone dogs must be the creepiest shit out there. Imagine thousands of those running a wild attack on a village full of poor brown people. DARPA is a evil playground for war hungry eggheads.
I do agree with you completely, to cut space exploration(which is a cool thing to do) and continue to build drone dogs, seems silly. I also think that to have some kind of control on meteors that threaten the planet, should be worth spending some money on.
Space exploration is a natural thing for humans to do. We always explore everything, and our planet is almost fully explored.
-
I do agree with you completely, to cut space exploration(which is a cool thing to do) and continue to build drone dogs, seems silly. I also think that to have some kind of control on meteors that threaten the planet, should be worth spending some money on.
Space exploration is a natural thing for humans to do. We always explore everything, and our planet is almost fully explored.
Have you heard of Apophis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis
Its a asteroid that will pass close to earth twice. In 2029 it won't hit us but will pass underneath our communication satellites. If it passes though a region of space known as 'the keyhole', when it comes back around in 2036 it will hit us and wipe out life as we know it.
This is not one of those silly doomsday predictions like 2012 or any of that nostradomis crap, its a legitimate scientific end of world scenario. Granted, its still a pretty small chance that it will hit us, but if it does pass though the keyhole in 2029, it will probably be a bit late to start figuring out how to stop it by 2036.
Well maybe not, we went to the moon in 10 years, but still who wants to take that chance? Might as well not bankrupt the economy to rush a production on some hurried last ditch effort since we could spend the next 20 years methodically researching, funding, and building the best solution.
-
No one even knows where all that military spending goes to
Check out what they do at DARPA. It is fucking scary as hell. Those drone dogs must be the creepiest shit out there. Imagine thousands of those running a wild attack on a village full of poor brown people. DARPA is a evil playground for war hungry eggheads.
My friends and I used to refer to it as the 20/80 split? What is publicly disseminated by private corporations or government/military projects is probably about 20% of what they are actually researching.
-
I'm willing to accept that if we cut back on military spending that "the terrorists would win" (by which, I mean, that there would be an increase in violence worldwide because the existence and presence of a world-policing force probably does deter some bad people from doing violent things to justify their beliefs).
That one set of terrorists would win over another set of terrorists.
-
My friends and I used to refer to it as the 20/80 split? What is publicly disseminated by private corporations or government/military projects is probably about 20% of what they are actually researching.
Yeah, I should not jump to conclusions about DARPA, but those drone dogs are nasty though :)
-
I still need to go through some replies, but let me fire off some points.
DARPA actually funds a lot of linguistics projects IIRC.
The asteroid detection seems like the best justification so far, though I'm still not convinced that money shouldn't be better spent on things like urban farming.
As for the side effect of beneficial technology, I'm not convinced this is a real point. We know the technologies or programs that might help more people so why not study that stuff directly?
Regarding the comparison to military spending, that only seems like an argument if your only goal is cutting out "wasteful" spending. There's also the moral argument as to whether or not progressives can justify spending money to learning varied factoids about space given the opportunity cost of where NASA funding could've gone. Saying Y is worse does not make X better.
Inspiring future engineers - I've seen more urban farming projects in high schools than anything space related. Not convinced NASA is inspiring that many people.
-
As for the side effect of beneficial technology, I'm not convinced this is a real point. We know the technologies or programs that might help more people so why not study that stuff directly?
Its an extraordinarily valid point, because its shows how "science" really works. If you took 15 seconds to actually look at the link provided you might see that. Why do you think all those discoveries came about? Its because you don't get meaningful leaps in technological advancements by placing a bunch of brains in a room and telling them to stare at a problem. All of those discoveries, that you didn't look at, happened because people where looking at something completely unrelated.
Look if you stuck a bunch of thermodynamic engineers in a room and told them to make the best oven they could think of, they might make an oven thats 10% more efficient. Great. But no matter how long those people sat and thought, they'd never get to microwave ovens, becuase it has almost nothing to do with that field.
If you're determined not to believe in space study, that's cool, but "I'm not convinced" isn't really a counter point. Could you try to make it a conversational? I'm not saying to write an annotated scientific article, but its kind of a dead end when the response boils down to "Nope".
About urban farming: I've never heard a kid, or an adult in retrospect, say "I want to be an urban farmer when I grow up". Space is more inspirational in ways that farming never could be (biased opinion, sorry). By the time you get to high school, for most kids its too late. Being smart in high school is not cool, and if you are not interested in any type of science study before then, I'd argue that its typically far to late to begin. The kids that enter into science fairs do it because they like it. I'm not saying urban farming is a bad idea, but I doubt those kids where initially inspired by it.
-
Its because you don't get meaningful leaps in technological advancements by placing a bunch of brains in a room and telling them to stare at a problem. All of those discoveries, that you didn't look at, happened because people where looking at something completely unrelated.
Maybe I'm not understanding this argument, but it seems to me companies with R&D divisions would likely disagree.
The argument seems to be, "Well learning about factoids relating to space is worth spending public money on because we'll get all these other technologies indirectly."
That comes across as a faith based argument to me.
I'm not saying to write an annotated scientific article, but its kind of a dead end when the response boils down to "Nope".
I've already given an argument about opportunity cost and the only good refutation for IMO is the asteroid detection.
What's the moral justification for learning about space when you can put that money into terrestrial research projects that can directly benefit people?
About urban farming: I've never heard a kid, or an adult in retrospect, say "I want to be an urban farmer when I grow up". Space is more inspirational in ways that farming never could be (biased opinion, sorry).
I don't think this is a real argument either, unless there's some survey out there about present engineers and others who were directly convinced to enter STEM b/c of NASA.
In any case, it doesn't have to be urban farming. There are likely many, many projects that would have greater benefits toward a variety of purported progressive goals than learning about cosmic mysteries or getting admittedly cool photos of space.
Note I'm not saying there's anything inherently problematic about private sector space exploration. I mean, there's nothing stopping people from crowdfunding space research.
-
Well alright then the real issue here is that you believe the government could take NASA's budget, and put it somewhere else, and get results more relevant to life here on earth. Right?
(Even though there are clear implication of "space" research that have indelibly changed life on this planet for the better that you like to ignore.)
How about the fact that through this space research there have come benefits to not just 1 sector of science/technology, but pretty much everything. Biology, chemistry, infrastructure, communication, green technology, recycling, etc. etc?
Do you think that congress could be given the NASA budget, and come up with some other program that could make similar contributions?
Urban farming is great sure, but how can you justify taking away something that benefits just about every scientific discipline, and replace it with something so limited?
Do you think taking NASA's minuscule budget, and creating 5 or 10 separate scientific entities that research 1 thing, will create the same multi-faceted benefits?
Because to me, taking something as proven as space research, and hoping congress can agree to make something from nothing, is far more faith based.
Not to mention that if you pull the NASA budget, odds are that money won't go back into anything science related. It will just be absorbed into the other categories, or used to give raises to the idiots in Washington. By removing a successful program in order to hopefully create something you think you might like better, you'd end up with nothing. Again, a faith based argument.
EDIT
To me, creating disparate special interest groups who all clamor for their own funding, would be a disaster. Taking a small budget and splitting it up will not solve anything. Instead of 1 group that people see as useless, you would have 5 groups or 10 groups, with 1/5th or 1/10th of the budget doing even less.
Now, if you were saying, hey if we have NASA, why not take some more money and make other groups dedicated to other scientific endeavors, I'd probably agree. Raising scientific funding in any way should way more important than it is. I don't really care if it goes to existing groups or new ones. Its the idea that you could transfer the .48% budget elsewhere and get better results that I don't agree with.
-
Sorry double post:
It occurred to me that you might be looking at space/NASA 'wrong'. What is space research to you?
Because to me, its a massive collaboration of nearly every conceivable scientific discipline bent towards a specific goal. Its not a bunch of astrophysicists sitting in a room looking at a telescope. I am not aware of any endeavors that require such integration of different disciplines, other than the Manhattan project.
This is why there are so many "spin-off" technologies. Not because there is some oblique connection between looking at stars and having good ideas, but because through NASA, these things ARE directly funded. The space research is looking at hundreds of problems, thousands, and funding research to solve them all. To me, NASA is basically the government agency responsible for funding every sector of research. The thing that most people get hung up on is that they don't realize what this whole space thing is about.
Sure, they have a common goal to figure out new ways to traverse the Void, but why is that a bad thing?
I've never heard of anyone who thinks that the best scientific works come from isolation, single mindedness, and limited vision. By creating an environment where people from different backgrounds, and with different expertise, can interact, NASA creates an engine of creativity and solution that can scarcely be replicated.
Maybe if you could convince me that this isn't what space research is, then you could more easily show me why defunding it is a great idea.
-
Forgive me for jumping in and ineffectually responding to both of you, especially as responding to your individual posts rather than the unfolding discussion, doesn't do it justice. I've tried to parse down the couple salient posts into something I can respond to.
So in no particularly coherent order:
The asteroid detection seems like the best justification so far, though I'm still not convinced that money shouldn't be better spent on things like urban farming.
As for the side effect of beneficial technology, I'm not convinced this is a real point. We know the technologies or programs that might help more people so why not study that stuff directly?
Regarding the comparison to military spending, that only seems like an argument if your only goal is cutting out "wasteful" spending. There's also the moral argument as to whether or not progressives can justify spending money to learning varied factoids about space given the opportunity cost of where NASA funding could've gone. Saying Y is worse does not make X better.
Recap
- 1. Asteroid detection (which isn't necessarily NASA specific) is the only worthwhile aim of spending tax-dollars (which is "crowd-funding," by the way, people shouldn't have to trust in cheap imitations of what is essentially supposed to be "crowd-funding" writ social funding large).
- 1a. NASA's interdisciplinary context inherently manifests secondary (rather than purpose of research) knowledge and technology (which may or may not have been discovered contemporaneously with directed and intended research).
- 2. Military funding is necessitated by threats, rather than promises, and non-essential to the discussion of funding NASA.
Momentary reflection
- 2. I will withdraw my points about military spending and focus on what we should alternatively do with NASA's 1/100th of the tax-paying pie; however, I think this constraints the discussion in a manner that leaves Wilshire and I, inherently, unable to respond. For this post, I'll continue writing under the assumption that re-purposing the whole pie is up for debate.
Look if you stuck a bunch of thermodynamic engineers in a room and told them to make the best oven they could think of, they might make an oven thats 10% more efficient. Great. But no matter how long those people sat and thought, they'd never get to microwave ovens, becuase it has almost nothing to do with that field.
Recap and additive
- 1. Successful directed research only accounts for a small percentage of discoveries. If we reframe this conversation in terms of ignoring all the accidental or secondary discoveries (and ignoring even how the lack of those secondary discoveries allow purposeful research to build upon it), the history of scientific discovery would not be as prodigious as it is.
Maybe I'm not understanding this argument, but it seems to me companies with R&D divisions would likely disagree.
The argument seems to be, "Well learning about factoids relating to space is worth spending public money on because we'll get all these other technologies indirectly."
It is actually difficult for me to take you seriously, sci, because I just can't imagine why you'd get so up in arms about NASA's 1/100th of the pie. Is that really the only piece of public spending up to debate by informed citizens?
I've already given an argument about opportunity cost and the only good refutation for IMO is the asteroid detection.
What's the moral justification for learning about space when you can put that money into terrestrial research projects that can directly benefit people?
Can't we ask this about any, but especially, military spending? Isn't that far more relevant?
Also, I feel your argument is predicated on the idea that NASA isn't successful enough. Well, this is obviously the case when their contemporaries who share public expenditure get 50 times more funding. For instance, should NASA ever experience proportionate spending, I feel, by the nature of their organization's interdisciplinary context, which Wilshire succintly describes, they would experience exponentially more advancements than other directed R&D departments, neh?
I mean, there's nothing stopping people from crowdfunding space research.
sci, really? For serious?
You are crowdfunding the military over space research. Tax-dollars is crowdfunding...
Well alright then the real issue here is that you believe the government could take NASA's budget, and put it somewhere else, and get results more relevant to life here on earth. Right?
I hazard so, though I'm still hoping the conversation can extend to justifying any and all publically funded research...
Because to me, its a massive collaboration of nearly every conceivable scientific discipline bent towards a specific goal. Its not a bunch of astrophysicists sitting in a room looking at a telescope. I am not aware of any endeavors that require such integration of different disciplines, other than the Manhattan project.
This is why there are so many "spin-off" technologies. Not because there is some oblique connection between looking at stars and having good ideas, but because through NASA, these things ARE directly funded. The space research is looking at hundreds of problems, thousands, and funding research to solve them all. To me, NASA is basically the government agency responsible for funding every sector of research. The thing that most people get hung up on is that they don't realize what this whole space thing is about.
...
Maybe if you could convince me that this isn't what space research is, then you could more easily show me why defunding it is a great idea.
Again, this seems like such a minute discussion to be having if it really is about what we should do with one penny out of a dollar...
-
Momentary reflection
- 2. I will withdraw my points about military spending and focus on what we should alternatively do with NASA's 1/100th of the tax-paying pie; however, I think this constraints the discussion in a manner that leaves Wilshire and I, inherently, unable to respond. For this post, I'll continue writing under the assumption that re-purposing the whole pie is up for debate.
Wait. I'm not trying to say what other people should or should not talk about.
I just wanted to clarify what I'm talking about. My focus is X, where X is "Can space monies be spent on things that deliver more benefits to the society being taxed?"
So yeah, military spending vs space spending is Y. Which is cool, just not an argument about X as far as I can tell.
-
It's cool - my points in this thread just aren't capable of addressing your argument X nor will I waste more words trying as I think it's not a terribly important battle to pick.
-
It's cool - my points in this thread just aren't capable of addressing your argument X nor will I waste more words trying as I think it's not a terribly important battle to pick.
Yeah, I don't know if it's terribly important but then I think most philosophical questions are largely worthless in the grand scheme. So asking about space monies is only as important as anything on Bakker's blog.
If you want to expand X to include any research that provides interesting factoids at the expense of public funds directly benefiting the taxed be my guest.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afzmwAKUppU
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afzmwAKUppU
Love that film. Bell is totally my waifu! ;)
Seriously though, is there anyone here strongly objecting to the idea that defense spending is almost certainly bloated and rife with waste? That in comparison NASA is a far better investment than handing out pork to defense contractors?
Defense spending being wasteful is definitely the higher priority question, but it's also the less interesting one for a self appointed Contrarian Wanker because there's no contention around these parts on that.
Ah well, I suppose I can start the "Materialist Skeptics' promise of a Moral Future is an offering of Snake Oil" thread a little earlier than scheduled...
-
Ah well, I suppose I can start the "Materialist Skeptics' promise of a Moral Future is an offering of Snake Oil" thread a little earlier than scheduled...
Lol. I think we should invite Sheldrake to participate :)
Sam Harris wrote a good book about this called "the moral landscape" by the way, it might be worth your time.
-
Seriously though, is there anyone here strongly objecting to the idea that defense spending is almost certainly bloated and rife with waste? That in comparison NASA is a far better investment than handing out pork to defense contractors?
I had hoped you were simply honouring your namesake but you were so convincing :P.
Defense spending being wasteful is definitely the higher priority question, but it's also the less interesting one for a self appointed Contrarian Wanker because there's no contention around these parts on that.
Lol.
EDIT: I still think that, even if it's just a forum on the internet that never has any impact outside it's pages o'Web, it is important to articulate how we might do better with spending our collective human time (in research expenditures). We can do better.
-
Wish I could have found a better clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqs9DYisSsg
[EDIT: I replaced it with a better clip ;) - Madness]
-
Ah well, I suppose I can start the "Materialist Skeptics' promise of a Moral Future is an offering of Snake Oil" thread a little earlier than scheduled...
Lol. I think we should invite Sheldrake to participate :)
Sam Harris wrote a good book about this called "the moral landscape" by the way, it might be worth your time.
I'm familiar with Harris's sad attempts to claim materialism solves the is-ought dilemma.
:P
-
I'm familiar with Harris's sad attempts to claim materialism solves the is-ought dilemma.
If I recall correctly he was arguing against the notion that "good moral" is something we can thank religion for. He tries to give some credit to humans
instead of the supernatural, and I agree with that.
That atheism will save the world, is something I am somewhat skeptical about :)
-
I'm familiar with Harris's sad attempts to claim materialism solves the is-ought dilemma.
If I recall correctly he was arguing against the notion that "good moral" is something we can thank religion for. He tries to give some credit to humans
instead of the supernatural, and I agree with that.
That atheism will save the world, is something I am somewhat skeptical about :)
Heh, let's save this for the other soon to be born thread.
I still have to prepare a rebuttal to the idea that unpredictable side effect innovations justify expenditure into NASA's trekkie wish fullfilment.
Though not sure I can find enough clever Youtube videos to match what I guess is Wilshire's argument via cartoons.
-
I've just fully encapsulated your arguments into 10 second clips. No need to get depressed. Maybe eventually you can have an idea that isn't so reducible. ;)
-
I've just fully encapsulated your arguments into 10 second clips. No need to get depressed. Maybe eventually you can have an idea that isn't so reducible. ;)
I don't think you've encapsulated my arguments so much as tried to reduce the moral question to a caricature you can use to rationalize your arguments as having addressed what I previously qualified as X.
Alternatively, part of me thinks a rebuttal to everything you've said can be captured by "Whitey on the Moon", but I'll do you the courtesy of formalizing my thoughts. ;)
So:
Perhaps you just didn't understand my point, or maybe you can't see how weak your arguments are from an investor standpoint. (Except for the asteroid detection.)
As someone who's done grant writing for living, I can tell you that trying to procure government funds by making promises about beneficial side effects rather than addressing the benefits of the actual project is very unlikely to be successful.
How do you even measure the benefits, or try to produce a reliable strategy for return on investment?
So far your argument seems to hinge on past technologies born of the space program that turned out to be helpful to society at large, though a lot of that seems incidental to the original purpose.
After a point that's just luck then right, and if your argument relies so much side effects then it seems to me you are already agreeing research into space exploration is largely worthless to the public at large if those benefits don't manifest.
As for the idea the Tyson's Star Trek wish fulfillment fantasy justifies the expenditure because it is interdisciplinary, I think green technologies can also bring in multiple disciplines but also benefit far more people in a more immediate fashion.
Heck, I was reading about the innovations in computer science that game production brought about. I'm guessing using NASA's budget to fund some education program relating to game development would inspire far more kids at the apparently critical early age in a far more reliable manner than pictures of rockets and planets.
Or just use the money for research in terrestrial fields. But space monies seems like one of the lowest ranking options compared to so many other things.
-
Apologies double posting, but seems cleaner to separate responses.
I had hoped you were simply honouring your namesake but you were so convincing :P.
Lol.
EDIT: I still think that, even if it's just a forum on the internet that never has any impact outside it's pages o'Web, it is important to articulate how we might do better with spending our collective human time (in research expenditures). We can do better.
I think the question about the opportunity cost of space monies is in itself worthwhile, because it asks us to surrender something we hold dear. If we're just nodding our heads in agreement about a topic this place loses the charm of Bakker's own gadfly nature.
The very fact Tyson's argument relies on an appeal to our dreams shows how silly materialists can be even after they renounce/denounce the dualists. What makes him so confident the upcoming generations' neuronal wiring that controls inspiration will stimulated by pictures from space?
My proposal for an interdisciplinary game development education program seems like a far more reliable investment.
Heck, I'd love for private money to go into space exploration, but from the standpoint of being loyal to the investor - in this case the public - I can't help but feel like NASA's space exploration research isn't going to benefit the tax payer.
I suppose the caveat is the need to leave Earth behind, but that only further suggests shifting the funds toward green tech research.
-
As someone who's done grant writing for living, I can tell you that trying to procure government funds by making promises about beneficial side effects rather than addressing the benefits of the actual project is very unlikely to be successful.
How do you even measure the benefits, or try to produce a reliable strategy for return on investment?
+1 - however, in applying for/distributing grant money, it is still absolutely necessary to justify/arbitrate the "possible benefits," aside the strict, and directed, purpose of research.
Alternatively, part of me thinks a rebuttal to everything you've said can be captured by "Whitey on the Moon", but I'll do you the courtesy of formalizing my thoughts. ;)
I thought, in context, that "Whitey on the Moon" stood well enough on its own but...
Apologies double posting, but seems cleaner to separate responses.
It's cool, though unnecessary because...
Heck, I'd love for private money to go into space exploration, but from the standpoint of being loyal to the investor - in this case the public - I can't help but feel like NASA's space exploration research isn't going to benefit the tax payer.
With statements like this, I simply can't respond to you and take this discussion seriously (though, I'm a self-loathing philosophy student as this is my exact problem with my second degree) - I can't commit to or condone flat out ignoring so many distinctive variables (in my mind, not everyone perceives it like I do) just to consider your argument X. In my mind, it can't be considered, or even exist, separate from my argument Y.
However, as I'm incited by your contrarian efforts and I feel compelled to argue otherwise...
The very fact Tyson's argument relies on an appeal to our dreams shows how silly materialists can be even after they renounce/denounce the dualists. What makes him so confident the upcoming generations' neuronal wiring that controls inspiration will stimulated by pictures from space?
Well, yes and no... I don't think that was his argument and I highlighted why in my initial post.
Also, sci, you don't think Tyson has, or at least implies, strong arguments in the video with 'war as motivating factor x' (and by extension, replacing that with a healthy and consistent motivation) or 'one penny on the tax dollar' (whereas military spending is probably half that dollar)?
(Though, I guess, oddly enough, these are the exact extraneous variables you seem content to ignore...)
My proposal for an interdisciplinary game development education program seems like a far more reliable investment.
Maybe. Does it really seem likely to you that it would produce anywhere near same results that NASA has with their 1/100th of the pie in fifty years?
-
but I'll do you the courtesy of formalizing my thoughts. ;)
That would be really awesome, because you've said little more than "More to say later", "I still need to go through some replies", and "I'm not convinced".
I'm super excited to read some of your actual thoughts instead of just reading about how you're going to dodge every question and ignore every point!
So:
Perhaps you just didn't understand my point, or maybe you can't see how weak your arguments are from an investor standpoint. (Except for the asteroid detection.)
As someone who's done grant writing for living, I can tell you that trying to procure government funds by making promises about beneficial side effects rather than addressing the benefits of the actual project is very unlikely to be successful.
I understand your points rather well. I've even made articulate responses to everything you've said and ask you to clarify your statements a vast number of times. However, you don't seem capable. I guess its not fair to make you vocalize your thoughts? Sorry for making it so hard.
btw: How do you justify taking money for anything you do at all? You would have to be pretty full of yourself to think that any grant money you receive will provide any real lasting benefit to anything, outside of your own little personal hobby.
[/quote]
How do you even measure the benefits, or try to produce a reliable strategy for return on investment?
Measure it by refusing to use any technology that had to do with space research for a day. I'm not on any comittees that measure research "value" and offer grant money, so I can't give you some kind of monetary estimate :(.
So far your argument seems to hinge on past technologies born of the space program that turned out to be helpful to society at large, though a lot of that seems incidental to the original purpose.
After a point that's just luck then right, and if your argument relies so much side effects then it seems to me you are already agreeing research into space exploration is largely worthless to the public at large if those benefits don't manifest.
As for the idea the Tyson's Star Trek wish fulfillment fantasy justifies the expenditure because it is interdisciplinary, I think green technologies can also bring in multiple disciplines but also benefit far more people in a more immediate fashion.
Heck, I was reading about the innovations in computer science that game production brought about. I'm guessing using NASA's budget to fund some education program relating to game development would inspire far more kids at the apparently critical early age in a far more reliable manner than pictures of rockets and planets.
Or just use the money for research in terrestrial fields. But space monies seems like one of the lowest ranking options compared to so many other things.
Basically all this is a poor attempt to attain some kind of moral high ground. You seem confused and thats understandable, go back and reread some of the past posts and formulate some thoughts. Go ahead and raise your hand to ask a question about the parts you don't understand.
I suppose the caveat is the need to leave Earth behind, but that only further suggests shifting the funds toward green tech research.
Dear sweet heavenly lord Jesus almighty!! You actually tried to make a point! Unfortunately green energy isn't the X we are talking about, so I'm going to have to disregard it.
-
Yeah, I think the way we perceive argument structure is vastly different. You think I'm ignoring/derailing, I think you're doing the same.
So let's back up a step and try to get back to a logical framework devoid of emotion or it's just an ouroboros of borderline ad hominem.
Give me a point you think I've ignored, and I'll either concede it or present a rebuttal as my neuronal wiring dictates.
-
Lets start again at the beginning.
What is your actual question?
The topic sentence "why should we spend public funds to learn about space?" isn't really your question is it? To me "learn about space" doesn't mean anything. I don't know what you want to discuss.
Are you asking about funding NASA?
Are you asking about something like Hubble that just takes pictures, or are you saying that ANYTHING in space is in question here?
You say "argument X" but I feel like you have never actually adequately defined it in a way that makes it easy to discuss.
-
Sorry, I exacerbated miscommunication with my shorthand.
But:
My focus is X, where X is "Can space monies be spent on things that deliver more benefits to the society being taxed?"
So yeah, military spending vs space spending is Y. Which is cool, just not an argument about X as far as I can tell.
My understanding is that Sci strictly wants to debate where the 1/100th of taxpayer dollars that funds NASA could be better or differently spent to achieve more...
And so I shall henceforth limit my engagement in this context to:
My proposal for an interdisciplinary game development education program seems like a far more reliable investment.
Maybe. Does it really seem likely to you that it would produce anywhere near same results that NASA has with their 1/100th of the pie in fifty years?
[Insert research other than NASA here]; same question...
-
I'll wait to see what sci says. He's been very particular so far about whats fair and whats cheating so I think it would be prudent to know exactly what all the rules are before we move forward.
No one likes to play when 1 kid gets to change the rules during the game.
"I shot you!"
"No you didn't! I'm wearing class 4 bullet proof armor and your guns can't shoot through it."
"That's not fair"
"Well I made up the game so I get to make the rules"
I just want to know what can be used so I know before we start if its worth playing. If all I get is a rock and a stick and Sci gets plasma armor, I'll just play somewhere else.
-
Sorry, I exacerbated miscommunication with my shorthand.
But:
My focus is X, where X is "Can space monies be spent on things that deliver more benefits to the society being taxed?"
So yeah, military spending vs space spending is Y. Which is cool, just not an argument about X as far as I can tell.
My understanding is that Sci strictly wants to debate where the 1/100th of taxpayer dollars that funds NASA could be better or differently spent to achieve more...
And so I shall henceforth limit my engagement in this context to:
My proposal for an interdisciplinary game development education program seems like a far more reliable investment.
Maybe. Does it really seem likely to you that it would produce anywhere near same results that NASA has with their 1/100th of the pie in fifty years?
[Insert research other than NASA here]; same question...
Well that's the question I proposed though I'm not emotionally invested enough to demand everything focus on that. It just seems like everyone here is in agreement about the military vs space monies question, so examining the worthiness of space monies compared to something more beneficial to the tax payer is the only point of contention left.
By the way, I don't think I've ever changed my stance, though I'm willing to accept I didn't make things clear. AFAICT I've never changed the rules, but as the purpose of this is to reexamine our own reasoning it's good to know I need to be clearer.
Anyway I'll write a new post clarifying things at a later date. I'll spend some time on it so as to ideally remove any miscommunication.
-
I await with bated breath, but only because I think you have used that phrase 3 times now. You always promise to come back with something later as if you have nothing to say, but at the same time you have juuuust enough time to quote 1 thing and wholesale disagree with it without hardly any justification.
Thus the 10 second youtube clips. I'll keep waiting though, since this is a forum and its here for as long as it takes.
Its just going to be a slog if it takes you weeks to formulate a response to 1/10 of the conversation that ensued in the meantime.
No time limit. Don't feel obligated to give 1 sentence "but wait there's more" speeches.
-
It just seems like everyone here is in agreement about the military vs space monies question, so examining the worthiness of space monies compared to something more beneficial to the tax payer is the only point of contention left.
Don't feel compelled to respond, especially if you don't feel up to it, but I'm wondering after the distinction here. If the first portion of your sentence is true, then why isn't "examining the worthiness of [military spending] compared to something more beneficial to the tax payer ... the only point of contention left?"
-
Don't feel compelled to respond, especially if you don't feel up to it, but I'm wondering after the distinction here. If the first portion of your sentence is true, then why isn't "examining the worthiness of [military spending] compared to something more beneficial to the tax payer ... the only point of contention left?"
Oh, the bolded is a perfectly legitimate topic. I just figured this particular thread is about space monies.
Like I said earlier though, I'm not demanding people in the thread stick to X. If people want to move on and discuss NASA spending in relation to the budget at large that's fine with me.
-
I await with bated breath, but only because I think you have used that phrase 3 times now. You always promise to come back with something later as if you have nothing to say, but at the same time you have juuuust enough time to quote 1 thing and wholesale disagree with it without hardly any justification.
Thus the 10 second youtube clips. I'll keep waiting though, since this is a forum and its here for as long as it takes.
Its just going to be a slog if it takes you weeks to formulate a response to 1/10 of the conversation that ensued in the meantime.
No time limit. Don't feel obligated to give 1 sentence "but wait there's more" speeches.
Perhaps you can tell me what points you feel I've failed addressed, since I'm actually confused by the idea I've ignored any point you've raised.
Clearly you're more emotionally invested in this topic than I am, given your amusing descent into derisive condescension, so for your sake I'll refrain from posting piecemeal in the future.
-
lol I'll keep waiting for you to actually say something. I haven't counted how many direct questions I've ask. You know, the ones that end with a "?". If you could attempt to answer 1 or 2 out of every 5 or 10 that would be sweet. Otherwise we're done here I think.
-
That semi-famous article "Put Whitey Back On the Moon" floated around on teh intrawebz for a while, and it's pretty much a counterargument to the OP in this thread:
(It's a bit long-winded, but definitely worth the read. The author's a bit overly optimistic about space travel, but I agree with much of his argument - human curiosity about the unknown is an important thing, and the insane amount of money spent on the military should go to better goals. I've bolded the more interesting parts.)
PUT WHITEY BACK ON THE MOON
by Leigh Phillips
Capitalism isn’t just killing the planet. Capitalism is keeping us stuck on the planet.
The death of the first man on the moon, Neil Armstrong, has unleashed wistful, “Where is my jetpack?” lamentation in some parts of the press, shocked into a realization that it’s been over 40 years since one of the greatest achievements of mankind – a bold feat of engineering in the service of irrepressible human curiosity and wanderlust. There’s been little advance out into the solar system since.
Martin Robbins in the Guardian issued a brilliant polemic attacking our abandonment of space, reminding us: “Nobody born since 1935 has stepped on another world,” and, sadder still: “The first men on the Moon will never meet the first men on Mars.”
Similar regret can found in the words of the second man on the moon, Buzz Aldrin, on the passing of his friend: “I had truly hoped that on July 20th, 2019, Neil, Mike and I would be standing together to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of our moon landing, as we also anticipated the continued expansion of humanity into space, that our small mission helped make possible. Regrettably, this is not to be.”
But that’s all it is: crying and lament. Nobody is asking why it is that the highest point of manned spaceflight was reached at the end of the 1960s, wondering whether there might be a reason for this deep drop in ambition, this retreat from humanity’s destiny in space. It’s not as if the planet has abandoned its love of space. The international excitement over the landing of the Mars Science Laboratory hints at a yearning to be thrilled about the possibility of life on other planets.
At the same time, a kind of left-wing cynicism about space exploration has bubbled up. Wasn’t this simply a distraction from the crisis? How can we be spending money on space while the Earth is suffering? How can we care about the improbable chance that we find possible evidence of the conditions for microbes having aeons ago existed on Mars when thousands of Americans are losing their homes?
This is nothing new.
The otherwise first-rate Gil Scott Heron put out the dreadful song “Whitey on the Moon” after the moon landing, complaining that he can’t pay the doctor’s bill after a rat bit and infected his sister, “But Whitey’s on the moon.”
Was all that money I made las’ year
(for Whitey on the moon?)
How come there ain’t no money here?
(Hmm! Whitey’s on the moon)
The anger might have come from a good place. The same country that placed Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the moon was massacring Vietnamese women, children and the elderly at My Lai at the same time.
But the target was wrong then, just as it is today.
Because these questioners might as well be asking: “Why bother exploring at all? What has curiosity ever done for us?” And this way of thinking is itself unwittingly framed by a capitalist set of metrics, demanding immediate return on investment, and accepting the falsehood that we have an extremely limited reserve of public revenues, the greatest share of which must be directed to those areas with the highest priority.
The first point is obvious. We don’t know what economic benefits will be achieved when one sets off to investigate a distant terrain. The adventure of exploration of the unknown is its own reward.
The demand that space exploration tell us what it will discover before it discovers it is identical to the capitalist preference for applied rather than basic research; and of venture capital (contrary to legend) for low technological complexity, low-risk and high potential growth endeavors at the last moment of the development process (where evidence of market viability is essentially already proven) rather than at the high-risk early exploratory phase.
But for those who still remain sceptical of blue-sky thinking, here in any case are some practical metrics, measurements, league tables and return-on-investment data for what space exploration achieves and why it’s necessary for us:
1. Today, as a result of the space race, over a thousand satellites orbit the planet. Satellite technology has transformed human lives overwhelmingly for the better, with thousands of uses and applications. Meteorological tracking has allowed farmers to better plan, thereby boosting yields. Satellites have saved thousands of lives every year through storm and hurricane prediction. GPS allows for better vehicle navigation and search-and-rescue, in addition to wider consumer application.
2. There has been a range of unexpected and innovative technology spin-offs, producing whole new industries and transforming existing ones – an effect that always come from such endeavors. The Apollo program, for example, gave us the cooling suits whose technology is now used by many shipyard workers, nuclear reactor technicians, people with multiple sclerosis and other sicknesses that stop their ability to cool themselves. Technology used to recycle fluids for space missions led to the development of critical-care dialysis machines in hospitals. Astronaut conditioning equipment is now commonly used by professional athletes, sports clinics and medical rehabilitation centers.
How your running shoes are constructed owes a great deal to space suit design. Apollo also gave us improved housing insulation, reflective clothing, water purification technology, extended food preservation, hazardous-gas detectors, better roofing technology, and a whole bunch of fire-retardant shit.
3. As we are undergoing radical climate change from increased presence of greenhouse gases, we need to know more about both Venus, which underwent its own runaway greenhouse effect, and Mars, whose atmosphere is pretty thin, in order to understand more about our own planet, what we’re doing to it and what the future might be like. There are many other examples of how exploration of other planets and moons is as much about understanding our own world as understanding distant worlds.
And there is something of a false dichotomy in the robotic versus manned missions: we need both. Robots can’t do everything. Here’s Seth Shostak of the SETI Institute: “A human explorer could survey that world’s rusty landscape at least 10 times faster than a rover. If we want to know if life is a miracle or merely a cosmic commonplace, human exploration may be essential.”
4. We need to understand more about asteroids, how to land on them and mine them, but also what we can do to respond to civilization destroying asteroids. This is one of the most vital tasks, given that, for example, there is a slim but real chance that the 450m diameter Apophis near-Earth object may hit the planet in 2036. Not going extinct would be pretty high on my list of Important Space Program Achievements.
5. Humanity has spread to (and exhausted) almost every possible ecosystem on our own planet. From the Antarctic to the bottom of the sea to the air above the clouds, even though essentially we’re just designed for tropical climates. We’ve gone everywhere on our own planet. So I’m confident that we are going to go many places on other planets too. If we’re going to study other planets involving both robotic and manned missions, we needed to start somewhere – and the Moon was closest.
Of course, space exploration is very expensive, risky and it is difficult to say at the outset what specific benefits it will deliver. All of which makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for the capitalist market to enter into this area.
Apart from a handful of billionaires, a serious space exploration can only be done by the public sector. Virgin Galactic space tourism and out-sourcing cargo payload traffic to SpaceX are not the same as a serious, properly funded search for organic life on Enceladus, Europa, Mars, Titan and Io – the five best bets for extraterrestrial life in the solar system.
The Western world only got as far into space as we did as the result of a competition with the Soviet Union, which obviously was a monstrous system, but which did have a clear understanding of why space exploration is vital for our species. Once the Thatcherite-Reaganite neoliberal capitalism took hold in the eighties and as soon as the Soviet competition vanished in 1991, America lost most of its interest.
And yet however expensive it is, what we’re spending at the moment is a pittance compared to what we spend on the military (or, one might add, on bank bailouts). According to astrophysicist Neil de Grasse Tyson, the annual US military budget is equivalent to NASA’s entire 50-year running budget. “I think if you double the budget, to a penny on the dollar, that’s enough to take us in bold visions in a shorter time scale to Mars, visit asteroids, to study the status of all the planets.”.
There was some excitement last week when NASA announced another Mars mission to launch in 2016 as part of its Discovery Program, this time to listen for “marsquakes” and determine whether Mars has a solid or liquid core and why its crust is not composed of tectonic plates as Earth’s crust is. But the Discovery Program, established in 1992, aims to provide in the era of budget restraint a series of lower-cost planetary missions. In the words of then NASA chief Daniel Goldin: “faster, better, cheaper.”
And it was not widely reported that the Marsquake mission (InSight is its name), was the winner out of a trio of finalist projects that included a mission to Saturnian moon Titan, for the first nautical exploration of an extra-terrestrial sea, floating on its hydrocarbon lakes. The cost? Just $425 million. But why can’t we have both? And with the funding that’s needed, not capped at an arbitrary sum? As wiseacre astronomer friend of mine told me, they have a joke: “Faster, better, cheaper: pick two.”
Of course, if there were a limited pie of public resources, then a prioritization of other areas would be legitimate – Gil Scott Heron would be right. At the moment, there are other areas in more dire need. But money can be found.
The UK’s Tax Justice Network in July published research showing that revenues lost to public coffers by the super-rich hiding these sums in tax havens amounted to $21 trillion as of 2010 – as much as the US and Japanese economies combined, and the figure could be as high as $32 trillion.
There is more than enough money out there to have social services – and new ones, guaranteed incomes, well-funded pensions, a transformation to a low-carbon (or even a carbon-negative) economy, and investment in space exploration. The choice is actually between the current crop of political ideologies clustered around the capitalist center, and something genuinely transformative on a global scale.
But we should admit that space is indeed vastly expensive and requires the kind of state-led economy coordination that the near-sighted and risk-averse market will never be able to deliver. The Apollo programme cost $109 billion in 2010 dollars, $18 billion per each of its six landings.
Contrary to what we are commonly told, market actors are lumbering elephants of conservatism. In almost every major new society-transforming technological development, it is the public, not the private sector that has done all the heavy lifting in terms of investment and shepherding them through to commercialization.
Computers, the internet, biotech, nanotech, telecoms, electric power infrastructure, containerization – all would not be possible without the resolute role of the public sector. As Mariana Mazzucato, an economist specialising in innovation policy, asks in a recent pamphlet for Demos, a UK think-tank: “How many people know that the algorithm that led to Google’s success was funded by a public-sector National Science Foundation grant?”
A commitment to any full-blooded exploration and colonization of the solar system will not be achievable until we supersede the current primitive economic system that isn’t only unjust, but also retards exploration and technological development.
Capitalism isn’t just killing the planet. Capitalism is keeping us stuck on the planet. Historically, there were two arguments for socialism: Capitalism is unjust and prone to crisis, exploiting the working majority of humanity. And the profit-obsession retards and distorts scientific and technological advance, retarding human progress.
For some reason, somewhere in the 1960s, the leftists stopped making the second argument. We need to reclaim it.
Occupy … space?
To liberally paraphrase Billy Bragg: Capitalism is killing space exploration.
-
Thanks for that, Auriga.
Big +1.
-
Yeah thanks for the post.
btw I feel like I've excluded others from posting as Sci and myself bicker like school children. Anyone can/should jump in if they would like to participate :)
EDIT:
Lol it was like reading all the pro-space points brought up in this thread, though more articulate.
Unfortunately someone here thinks that most of those points arn't fair to talk about, but for everyone else pondering "The question" I think this is a good read. A bit heavy handed on the whole socialism/capitalism thing, but its still thought provoking and raises valid points.
Any idea where this was first published?
-
Looks like Sep, 2012 (http://jacobinmag.com/2012/09/put-whitey-back-on-the-moon/)?
-
I've personally never heard of the site. Just making sure it wasn't posted on something like The Onion, or some similar satirical site.
-
Quarterly mag put out from New York since 1789? (according to the press copyright on the bottom of their page.)
Probably as reputable as anything else.
-
I got to hear Neil deGrasse Tyson read Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" at OSU. It was awesome.
btw here is the "second half" of the video sci originally posted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFO2usVjfQc
Still love it. He makes a lot more pro space arguments in this one. The other video is mostly just a passionate speech, this is has a couple more facts (or vague observations) thrown in with the passion.
EDIT:
If any have been so moved:
http://www.penny4nasa.org/
Click 'Take Action', fill out the tiny form, and have a letter sent to you congressman. Passionate messages may be included ;)
-
I got to hear Neil deGrasse Tyson read Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" at OSU. It was awesome.
Was he pimping Cosmos?
-
Not really. He just goes around and talks about whatever is happening in the world of science. Its how most of his stuff goes. Since I'm a huge geek and have listened to almost every interview he's ever done, a lot of the 'material' wasn't new to me, but still worth the drive (I got free tickets). He's just a really passionate and charismatic person, and there just aren't that many scientist that are like that.
-
Pretty kewl. You see him speak before?
-
Only on the internet. This was the first time I've actually seen him, you know, IRL.
-
Congratulations. 'Tis pretty cool.