Nasa

[Thorne]

I’d just say: Leave the astronauts on the ground for the time being, just because sending them up is extremely expensive and not really necessary, care about other problems first, and if and when they are solved, think about it all again.

A lot of the current research into interplanetary travel is involved in sending robotic missions to establish viable bases and begin the task of creating a man-usable habitation, then sending the men (and women) up to run things. True, a lot can be done without the use of astronauts, but right now we have at least one rover on Mars which is stuck in sand, probably forever, when all it really needs is for someone to walk up and give it a good swift kick in the wheels.

But a lot of your concern over space travel seems to be the tired old complaint of where to spend the money. Give it to these people, help those people, throw it down yet another rat-hole. Yet the very fact that you are here and able to complain about it is evidence that you don't practice what you preach. How much better could the world be if you would just donate the money you waste on internet access to charity, where it would be put to virtually no good at all?

I think what bothers people most about the frontier of space is that, like virtually every frontier mankind has faced, the best and the brightest will flock to it, leaving the homelands to stagnate. Unfortunately, once the frontier has been tamed, all those nay-sayers will drag their preconceived notions along and try to make the new world exactly the same as the old, thus destroying whatever good there might have been.

So just sit there at home bemoaning how other people choose to spend their money. Let those who really care about the human race push back the frontiers, making a better world, and a better solar system, for themselves. After all, it's not costing you anything.

[SadisticNature]

A lot of the current research into interplanetary travel is involved in sending robotic missions to establish viable bases and begin the task of creating a man-usable habitation, then sending the men (and women) up to run things. True, a lot can be done without the use of astronauts, but right now we have at least one rover on Mars which is stuck in sand, probably forever, when all it really needs is for someone to walk up and give it a good swift kick in the wheels.

But a lot of your concern over space travel seems to be the tired old complaint of where to spend the money. Give it to these people, help those people, throw it down yet another rat-hole. Yet the very fact that you are here and able to complain about it is evidence that you don't practice what you preach. How much better could the world be if you would just donate the money you waste on internet access to charity, where it would be put to virtually no good at all?

I think what bothers people most about the frontier of space is that, like virtually every frontier mankind has faced, the best and the brightest will flock to it, leaving the homelands to stagnate. Unfortunately, once the frontier has been tamed, all those nay-sayers will drag their preconceived notions along and try to make the new world exactly the same as the old, thus destroying whatever good there might have been.

So just sit there at home bemoaning how other people choose to spend their money. Let those who really care about the human race push back the frontiers, making a better world, and a better solar system, for themselves. After all, it's not costing you anything.

Perhaps I feel the marginal utility of getting internet access is very high, while the marginal utility of money spent on the space program is very low. I might also feel that many charities have better marginal utility than the space program. So its certainly consistent for someone to have internet and not support expensive space programs because they have other priorities for the money.

I think this is awfully close to a personal attack. Someone can't advocate having charities get money over space programs without being told they personally shouldn't buy internet and should instead donate the money to charity? Or being told by implication they don't care about the human race?

A similar vein would be suggesting you think its a good thing to let the starving children in Africa die because you'd rather spend money on the space program than feeding them. I haven't brought this up before because I don't think its constructive, and its not the type of argument I'd normally make. However, you are making the equivalent argument in the opposite direction so now it becomes relevant.

I also disagree strongly with your view of how the new world evolved but that is a whole thread of its own.

[Thorne]

Perhaps I feel the marginal utility of getting internet access is very high, while the marginal utility of money spent on the space program is very low. I might also feel that many charities have better marginal utility than the space program. So its certainly consistent for someone to have internet and not support expensive space programs because they have other priorities for the money.

This is my point exactly. You, and others, feel one way about this, I feel a different way. Neither of us is necessarily right or wrong. The only thing that would be wrong is for one group to force the others to follow their agenda. So if a group wishes to give money to charity, they should be free to do so, and if another group prefers to give money to space exploration, they should be accorded the same freedom.

I think this is awfully close to a personal attack. Someone can't advocate having charities get money over space programs without being told they personally shouldn't buy internet and should instead donate the money to charity? Or being told by implication they don't care about the human race?

It was not meant as a personal attack, and I do apologize if anyone took it as such. It just bothers me when people try to tell me that I'm not doing something right because I want to spend my own money, or use my own resources, as I see fit. If anything, I was berating that kind of personality, without meaning to point any fingers.

A similar vein would be suggesting you think its a good thing to let the starving children in Africa die because you'd rather spend money on the space program than feeding them. I haven't brought this up before because I don't think its constructive, and its not the type of argument I'd normally make. However, you are making the equivalent argument in the opposite direction so now it becomes relevant.

I see your point, I honestly do, I just reject the logic of it. There have been starving children all over the world throughout history, and no amount of charity or breast-beating has done a bit of good in the end. It's just that I believe all of the off-shoots of the space program, such as medical advances, communications advances, etc., have done more to ameliorate the suffering in the world than all the charities in the world combined. Charities, for the most part, only remedy the symptoms of poverty and disease: science fights the causes, or at least the physical causes. The political causes are more endemic and entrenched, and harder still to overcome. But ultimately, throwing money at them is not the answer.

For example, suppose we could develop a sustainable habitat on a planet as hostile as Mars. Don't you think that would have a significant impact on survival at the fringes of the Sahara? And, once the initial habitat has been constructed, the resources to sustain it would come from Mars itself, or from the asteroids. There would not need to be a constant drain of resources, and in all likelihood those initial expenditures would be recovered a hundredfold, or more, once the habitat became established.

[SadisticNature]

This is my point exactly. You, and others, feel one way about this, I feel a different way. Neither of us is necessarily right or wrong. The only thing that would be wrong is for one group to force the others to follow their agenda. So if a group wishes to give money to charity, they should be free to do so, and if another group prefers to give money to space exploration, they should be accorded the same freedom.


It was not meant as a personal attack, and I do apologize if anyone took it as such. It just bothers me when people try to tell me that I'm not doing something right because I want to spend my own money, or use my own resources, as I see fit. If anything, I was berating that kind of personality, without meaning to point any fingers.


I see your point, I honestly do, I just reject the logic of it. There have been starving children all over the world throughout history, and no amount of charity or breast-beating has done a bit of good in the end. It's just that I believe all of the off-shoots of the space program, such as medical advances, communications advances, etc., have done more to ameliorate the suffering in the world than all the charities in the world combined. Charities, for the most part, only remedy the symptoms of poverty and disease: science fights the causes, or at least the physical causes. The political causes are more endemic and entrenched, and harder still to overcome. But ultimately, throwing money at them is not the answer.

For example, suppose we could develop a sustainable habitat on a planet as hostile as Mars. Don't you think that would have a significant impact on survival at the fringes of the Sahara? And, once the initial habitat has been constructed, the resources to sustain it would come from Mars itself, or from the asteroids. There would not need to be a constant drain of resources, and in all likelihood those initial expenditures would be recovered a hundredfold, or more, once the habitat became established.

You are allowed to use your own money as you see fit. But once taxes are collected by the government those taxes are no longer "your" money but the governments money. You aren't arguing about personal donations you're arguing about government spending. And your argument seems to be "I pay taxes" the government can only spend money in ways I like. Well there are people who pay taxes and don't support the military, so by that argument the US shouldn't pay for one.

[Thorne]

And your argument seems to be "I pay taxes" the government can only spend money in ways I like. Well there are people who pay taxes and don't support the military, so by that argument the US shouldn't pay for one.

No, I'm arguing that the government should spend the money in a manner which is representative of the taxpayers. Granted, certain funding must be maintained, regardless, for purposes of national security. Others, however, are discretionary, and can be handled differently. Actually, I would think that NASA would fall into both of these.

But what I would really like to see is an optional tax form, which the taxpayer can fill out if he wishes, allowing him to request where the discretionary portion of his tax money is spent. So if we assume that, say 30% of my taxes are considered (by the government) to be discretionary, I can select maybe 50% of it goes to NASA and 50% to general science funding. This could even be just guidelines, not binding in any way but giving me at least some sense that some of my tax dollars are being used as I want them to be. Probably a silly idea, and extremely doubtful that it would be implemented, but hell, I can fantasize, can't I?

[steelish]

You are allowed to use your own money as you see fit. But once taxes are collected by the government those taxes are no longer "your" money but the governments money.

Wrong. That's the current viewpoint of people who do not understand how America is really supposed to work. The government works FOR the people, and if they pass a new tax code or say $$ will be spent on a specific thing, then they are beholden to the people who elected them to spend the money in the manner they said it would be spent. It is "OUR" money because it is "OUR" government. Unfortunately, education has been twisted to the point where the true American Government process has been taught incorrectly for so long now, that even adults have a skewed view of it.

The American Government now keeps 70¢ of every $1 collected for themselves, to spend on their own expenses. Only 30¢ of each $1 collected gets distributed to the various programs.

[SadisticNature]

Wrong. That's the current viewpoint of people who do not understand how America is really supposed to work. The government works FOR the people, and if they pass a new tax code or say $$ will be spent on a specific thing, then they are beholden to the people who elected them to spend the money in the manner they said it would be spent. It is "OUR" money because it is "OUR" government. Unfortunately, education has been twisted to the point where the true American Government process has been taught incorrectly for so long now, that even adults have a skewed view of it.

The American Government now keeps 70¢ of every $1 collected for themselves, to spend on their own expenses. Only 30¢ of each $1 collected gets distributed to the various programs.

The government works for the people. That means everyone, not just you. It's a republic not a democracy, so they are allowed to vote for unpopular things once elected.

Also you keep $0.70 cents of every $1 collected is rather misleading. Do you count military expenses as keeping for itself? What about medicare? What about medicaid? What about social security?

The government actually spends far more than it takes in, and the overhead of the government itself is small compared to programs.

[steelish]

The government works for the people. That means everyone, not just you. It's a republic not a democracy, so they are allowed to vote for unpopular things once elected.

It means all American citizens, yes. It also means that if a program is voted into existence, and they say they will do "X", they should do "X" and not do "Y"...that is what I am trying to say.

Also you keep $0.70 cents of every $1 collected is rather misleading. Do you count military expenses as keeping for itself?

No, that comes out of the 30¢

What about medicare?

No, that comes out of the 30¢

What about medicaid?

No, that comes out of the 30¢

What about social security?

No, that comes out of the 30¢

The government actually spends far more than it takes in, and the overhead of the government itself is small compared to programs.

Exactly, therefore you can understand the frustration and the reason the deficit is so high. The government officials have their own fleet of planes, their own healthcare system, and very high salaries. Once voted out or retired, they (and their families) retain that healthcare and they continue to earn their salaries until death. Is it any wonder why they consume so much of our taxpaying monies?

[lucy]

So just sit there at home bemoaning how other people choose to spend their money. Let those who really care about the human race push back the frontiers, making a better world, and a better solar system, for themselves. After all, it's not costing you anything.

Yup, that's why i said i don't care too much either way as you might recall.

Whether if those who push the boundaries are those who really care about the human race or whether they're just satisfying their egos is of course a totally different question. Who cares about the human race more, the general who leads his army into war, or the nurse who stays behind to tend to the injured and dying?
Who cares about the human race more, the pioneer who takes land that doesn't belong to him or the farmer's wife who stays behind and raises her children?

Btw, the one that flocked into America when it was still a 'frontier' (to white Europeans only, of course, native Americans probably didn't think of it as that, but again, a whole different topic) weren't exactly the brightest but the poorest and those who didn't have much of another choice left.

C) The species that develops the technology to do this before the others will have a great advantage over the species that stays planet bound and squanders their rescources on hedonist pursuits over interplanetary expansion.

Then I hope it's not us, but some life form that proves to live up to the term 'intelligent'.

Do you want to be the spannish conquistadors or the mayans in the above enevitable scenario?

Yes, let's prepare for war!!! Yippeeeee, intergalactic war, and we're in on it!!!
That's what we humans are really good at, aren't we? Killingmaimingenslaving each other and everything else that lives. So why not other, extraterrestrial lifeforms too? It's high time to let the rest of the universe know that they better not mess with us.
Wait, we shouldn't even stop for a second to try and communicate with them, that might screw the moment of surprise. Better nuke (we'll probably have much better weapons by then, tho) them first and not ask questions later.

[Thorne]

Yup, that's why i said i don't care too much either way as you might recall.

Yes you did. I caught that when I read back through the thread. And as I stated above, my comments were not intended as a personal attack against anyone, and I apologize if I made it seem so.

Who cares about the human race more, the general who leads his army into war, or the nurse who stays behind to tend to the injured and dying?

It would depend on the circumstances, of course. If the general is trying to destroy a threat to his nation, his culture, his people, isn't he doing better than the pacifist who advocates paying tribute to the enemy to keep him at bay? The nurse is concerned with relieving the suffering of individuals. The general wants to stop the causes of that suffering.

But basically this is the old argument of giving a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach him to fish and he can feed his family forever.

[SadisticNature]

Yes you did. I caught that when I read back through the thread. And as I stated above, my comments were not intended as a personal attack against anyone, and I apologize if I made it seem so.


It would depend on the circumstances, of course. If the general is trying to destroy a threat to his nation, his culture, his people, isn't he doing better than the pacifist who advocates paying tribute to the enemy to keep him at bay? The nurse is concerned with relieving the suffering of individuals. The general wants to stop the causes of that suffering.

But basically this is the old argument of giving a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach him to fish and he can feed his family forever.

If the enemy is a country completely incapable of being a threat to a superpower and the superpower attacks it anyways and then trades food for oil (at a bad rate) in a closed market where other countries can't make better bids, then it seems to me the general is perpetuating that suffering. Particularly since the government was involved in installing the dictator its now removing in the first place.

But we digress.

[steelish]

Then I hope it's not us, but some life form that proves to live up to the term 'intelligent'.

I believe you're confusing intelligence with mercifulness. They do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. A "higher" species might view us along the same lines as we view a cockroach. I bet you would kill a cockroach that's in your home. You've probably even sprayed for bugs.

[steelish]

Yes, let's prepare for war!!! Yippeeeee, intergalactic war, and we're in on it!!!
That's what we humans are really good at, aren't we? Killingmaimingenslaving each other and everything else that lives. So why not other, extraterrestrial lifeforms too? It's high time to let the rest of the universe know that they better not mess with us.
Wait, we shouldn't even stop for a second to try and communicate with them, that might screw the moment of surprise. Better nuke (we'll probably have much better weapons by then, tho) them first and not ask questions later.

Not necessarily. What we should prepare for is the possible need to communicate with another species and the likely only way to be able to do that is to understand as much as we possibly can of space and our surroundings. We cannot hope to communicate "intelligently" with an interplanetary species if we have a narrow view of the universe.

Yes, there is a lot of bloodshed amongst humans. There will always be as long as we do not attempt to understand each other. By the same token, if we do not attempt to understand the universe and the hardships that face an interplanetary species, aren't we responsible for any misunderstandings we bring to the table?