|
On April 20 2012 06:12 Cattivik wrote:
They should fix things on earth first.
Projects like this are like skyscrapers built on sand.The guys on top will touch the sky and those below will get buried.
More money spent for the wealth of few.
Here's an answer to you and everyone else who is like "why do we spend money up there, when we have problems down here?".
I'm pretty much quoting Neil DeGrasse Tyson here, when I say that:
#1: The return on investment into the frontier of science can take decades. History has shown that it takes 50-80 or even more years from someone discovering stuff that is later down the road the basis for our daily lives. This stuff takes longer than an election period, yes. But it's usefull in the long run.
#2: We don't spend a lot of money "up there". How much do you think, in %, does for example the NASA get from the total US budget? 10%? 5%? ... It is 6/10th of 0.01$ per $ taxes paid. The gouvernments today are reluctant to spend money when it's about the frontier of science and discovery because it won't show up in the next quarterly report.
tl;dr: This project is awesome. We're lucky as hell if some rich people go for this.
|
On April 20 2012 07:10 Ramong wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:05 Xeiph wrote:
I don't understand all the 'fix the earth first' comments here...this is a private company looking to find a new market. We don't expect other huge companies to stop what they are doing and focus on 'fixing' the earth, why should this one? This exactly. Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:08 Dali. wrote:
Well Cameron is quoted as saying the company is "to help ensure humanity's prosperity." People are trying to gauge what is actually meant by that statement. Helping humanity means what it says, helping humanity... That can be done in more ways than just saving starving people.
I think what people are getting at is that there are other ventures which don't require the extreme inconvenience of leaving the planet. Major investments in renewable energies for future energy security seem like better investments to me.
Though considering the amount of money involved, I'm sure there is good reasons behind their focuses, whatever they may be.
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
It sounds cool, but there's this little skeptic inside of me that says "Illuminati's grand plan to take over all of us"!.
Hope this isn't that...
|
On April 20 2012 07:07 xeo1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 06:59 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 06:38 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 03:53 sirachman wrote:On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote:
Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis... Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance. My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money. Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you! Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit.
History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
|
On April 20 2012 07:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:00 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 06:26 Gummy wrote:On April 20 2012 06:12 Cattivik wrote:
They should fix things on earth first.
Projects like this are like skyscrapers built on sand.The guys on top will touch the sky and those below will get buried.
More money spent for the wealth of few. Most of the problems on earth have technical solutions. We produce enough food to end world hunger easily, yet those living in extreme poverty typically do not have access to infrastructure or distribution of that food. The lack of that infrastructure is not the result of a lack of funds or technology but rather the result of corrupt regimes and war. You can't throw money at those kinds of problems and make them go away. Compared to solving the problems caused by human wickedness and frailty, expanding into space is much more cost effective. On April 20 2012 06:13 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote:
Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making every sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Edit: typo I'd prefer a socioeconomic system where people get rich for having better ideas than you. You can implement all your wonderful ideas in the system we have. Automate away, make products for cheaper than your competitors, save people money, make the world a better place, and get rich doing it. What's stopping you? What's stopping him is what's stopping most potentially world-changing initiatives: 1.) Lack of capital 2.) Lack of know-how 3.) Lack of a market. Exactly.. And these technical solutions aren't put into place because the main incentive is profit. It wouldn't be profitable to build an infrastructure in a place where the people have no purchasing power. How do you explain the unyielding growth and massive foreign investment in third world countries then? Derp.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
Read this and then honestly tell me whether you think the current profit based system can solve these problems in the near future or ever.
|
On April 20 2012 07:23 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:07 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 06:59 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 06:38 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 03:53 sirachman wrote:On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote:
Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis... Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance. My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money. Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you! Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit. History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
What shit has been done before that I'm advocating? Are u referring to communism?
|
On April 20 2012 07:23 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:07 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 06:59 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 06:38 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 03:53 sirachman wrote:On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote:
Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis... Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance. My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money. Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you! Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit. History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run.
The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context.
|
On April 20 2012 07:29 Dali. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:23 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:07 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 06:59 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 06:38 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 03:53 sirachman wrote:On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote:
Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis... Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance. My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money. Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you! Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit. History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run. The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context.
Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive?
Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare?
|
On April 20 2012 07:25 xeo1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:00 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 06:26 Gummy wrote:On April 20 2012 06:12 Cattivik wrote:
They should fix things on earth first.
Projects like this are like skyscrapers built on sand.The guys on top will touch the sky and those below will get buried.
More money spent for the wealth of few. Most of the problems on earth have technical solutions. We produce enough food to end world hunger easily, yet those living in extreme poverty typically do not have access to infrastructure or distribution of that food. The lack of that infrastructure is not the result of a lack of funds or technology but rather the result of corrupt regimes and war. You can't throw money at those kinds of problems and make them go away. Compared to solving the problems caused by human wickedness and frailty, expanding into space is much more cost effective. On April 20 2012 06:13 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote:
Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making every sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis...
Edit: typo I'd prefer a socioeconomic system where people get rich for having better ideas than you. You can implement all your wonderful ideas in the system we have. Automate away, make products for cheaper than your competitors, save people money, make the world a better place, and get rich doing it. What's stopping you? What's stopping him is what's stopping most potentially world-changing initiatives: 1.) Lack of capital 2.) Lack of know-how 3.) Lack of a market. Exactly.. And these technical solutions aren't put into place because the main incentive is profit. It wouldn't be profitable to build an infrastructure in a place where the people have no purchasing power. How do you explain the unyielding growth and massive foreign investment in third world countries then? Derp. http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-statsRead this and then honestly tell me whether you think the current profit based system can solve these problems in the near future or ever.
Yes, the current profit based system IS solving those problems. South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong were all impoverished places 50 years ago. 30 years ago people talked about how terrible the sweat shops there were despite them being a catalyst for growth and prosperity (sweat shops where people voluntarily work that is). China, India, countries in southeast asia, and countries in latin america are undergoing this process today. Lots of wealth is pouring into oil rich countries enabling them to make other investments into infrastructure, education, etc. Restricting people from freely trading with one another inhibits growth, and is simply morally wrong to begin with. When people are allowed to rule over themselves and see to their own future, good things happen. History proves this.
|
On April 20 2012 07:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:29 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:23 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:07 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 06:59 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 06:38 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 03:53 sirachman wrote:On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote:
Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis... Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance. My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money. Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you! Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit. History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run. The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context. Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive? Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare?
No.
Considering humanity as a whole, shortages in food and energy are common in the sense that they are localised to underdeveloped countries which account for a large portion of the population.
P.S. Straw man much.
|
On April 20 2012 07:27 xeo1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:23 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:07 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 06:59 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 06:38 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 03:53 sirachman wrote:On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote:
Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis... Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance. My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money. Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you! Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit. History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run. What shit has been done before that I'm advocating? Are u referring to communism?
Its cute that you think your systems different.
|
Humanity desperately needs anything to look out for its long term interest, politicians are too shortsighted to look beyond anything apart from their re-election. Hope this grows into something big, like, REALLY big.
|
On April 20 2012 07:29 Dali. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:23 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:07 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 06:59 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 06:38 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 03:53 sirachman wrote:On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote:
Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis... Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance. My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money. Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you! Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit. History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run. The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context.
Resourcess are give to whoever pays for them thereby increasing the wealth of a private minority.. I still don't get how someone can claim ownership over natural resources, especially precious ones like oil that took millions of years to form and ends up being wasted on more unsustainable practices.
|
On April 20 2012 07:50 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:27 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 07:23 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:07 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 06:59 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 06:38 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 03:53 sirachman wrote:On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote:
Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis... Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance. My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money. Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you! Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit. History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run. What shit has been done before that I'm advocating? Are u referring to communism? Its cute that you think your systems different.
First of all communism never occured anywhere in the world, but I doubt you even know what it is. And that isn't "my system" although if done the right way it would still be better than anything preceding it. When in the world was there ever a moneyless, classless, stateless social system where technology provided for people without a price and life's necessities were common property?
|
Anyway I am optimistic about this project because the ones involved seem like decent human beings. Hopefully they will initiate a change to a more sustainable infrastructure on a global scale and make space travel accessible to the common man~
|
On April 20 2012 07:51 xeo1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:29 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:23 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:07 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 06:59 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 06:38 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 03:53 sirachman wrote:On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote:
Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis... Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance. My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money. Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you! Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit. History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run. The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context. Resourcess are give to whoever pays for them thereby increasing the wealth of a private minority.. I still don't get how someone can claim ownership over natural resources, especially precious ones like oil that took millions of years to form and ends up being wasted on more unsustainable practices.
The justification for owning land is mixing your labor with it. If someone establishes a mining operation and begins producing from an asteroid, that asteroid ought to be considered theirs. Saying the asteroid is collectively everyone's is simply a clever and evil way of saying it belongs to the state, and that everyone is a slave that shouldn't be allowed to see towards their own well-being.
|
On April 20 2012 07:48 Dali. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:40 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:29 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:23 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:07 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 06:59 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 06:38 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 03:53 sirachman wrote:On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote:
Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis... Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance. My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money. Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you! Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit. History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run. The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context. Are you dismissing the hundreds of millions of people in Asia that have, in the past two decades alone, been lifted out of horrible poverty by profit motive? Or are you complaining that through the market system (and profit motive!) shortages in food and energy are rare? No. Considering humanity as a whole, shortages in food and energy are common in the sense that they are localised to underdeveloped countries which account for a large portion of the population. P.S. Straw man much.
Shortages in energy and food are rare in the parts of the world that use the market system currently and have done so for years.
Shortages are common where market forces are absent due to things like war or governments that have completely failed (ex. Somalia).
So it's not a problem of markets improperly allocating resources, it's much more complicated than that.
|
On April 20 2012 08:07 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:51 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 07:29 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:23 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:07 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 06:59 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 06:38 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 03:53 sirachman wrote:On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote:
Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis... Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance. My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money. Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you! Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit. History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run. The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context. Resourcess are give to whoever pays for them thereby increasing the wealth of a private minority.. I still don't get how someone can claim ownership over natural resources, especially precious ones like oil that took millions of years to form and ends up being wasted on more unsustainable practices. The justification for owning land is mixing your labor with it. If someone establishes a mining operation and begins producing from an asteroid, that asteroid ought to be considered theirs. Saying the asteroid is collectively everyone's is simply a clever and evil way of saying it belongs to the state, and that everyone is a slave that shouldn't be allowed to see towards their own well-being.
Funny how most of the labor is done by the so called slaves while the supposed owner takes the big chunk of the pie just because he "owns" it and then proceeds to buy a house that could shelter a small city and costs more than they will make in their lifetime :p
|
On April 20 2012 08:02 xeo1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 07:50 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:27 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 07:23 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:07 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 06:59 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 06:38 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 03:53 sirachman wrote:On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote:
Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis... Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance. My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money. Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you! Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit. History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run. What shit has been done before that I'm advocating? Are u referring to communism? Its cute that you think your systems different. First of all communism never occured anywhere in the world, but I doubt you even know what it is. And that isn't "my system" although if done the right way it would still be better than anything preceding it. When in the world was there ever a moneyless, classless, stateless social system where technology provided for people without a price and life's necessities were common property?
You can start a commune bro, what part of free market don't you understand? You live in the only system in which your dream can be fulfilled and you can't stop bashing it. Maybe because you don't have the courage to do it. I keep saying do it and you won't listen.
|
On April 20 2012 08:17 xeo1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 08:07 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:51 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 07:29 Dali. wrote:On April 20 2012 07:23 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 07:07 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 06:59 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On April 20 2012 06:38 xeo1 wrote:On April 20 2012 03:53 sirachman wrote:On April 20 2012 03:49 xeo1 wrote:
Good concept but first the socioeconomic system here on earth should be redesigned so pointless jobs are automated and people are given the abundant necessities of life meanwhile making sector self sustainable so no one has to rely on corporations anymore on a monthly basis... Humanity is capable of more than one venture at once. There will always be ways to improve culture and socioeconomic conditions. Staring at the ground under us until we reach some far off utopia will only lead us to the same end as the dinosaurs as the far unknowns destroy us with what lies in our ignorance. My point is we should eliminate the profit system before dealing with space as everything is going to end up being privatized just like here on earth. In the system I advocate (resource based economy), we would have way more involvement in space as projects wouldn't be limited by money. Maybe you should study economics before falling hook, line, and sinker into that nonsense. Limited by money? Yes, its money, and not resources, that limits projects, of course. Resources (and don't restrict that to mean physical resources) are limited, and if you think you and a bunch of bureaucrats can distribute and implement them more efficiently than successful businessmen then you're simply arrogant. If you think you can do it better then prove it! Nothing is stopping you! Economics is flawed at its very core.. The perfect example is planned obscolecence. And yes I do think scientific decisions undistubed by the desire to profit would result in more efficient distribution and implementation than a businessman whose sheer motive is to profit. History begs to differ. Your shits been done, and millions were condemned to poverty for it. Science isn't outside the realm of business. I shouldn't have just said businessmen, but innovators, inventors, researchers, scientists, etc as well. If you think you're better than them, do it. Study economics before you bash it. The profit motive is extremely important and plays a central role in the efficient distribution of resources. Planned obsolescence is usually just a company making low quality products for those who can't afford higher quality. Companies can abuse this with the strength of their brand name, and charge more for a shit product sure, but this weakens the strength of their brand name. People wise up after a while so its bad business practice in the long run. The bolded part is a pretty, well, bold claim. Maybe within the entity of a single state (though inequalities are typically growing), but resources are hardly efficiently or fairly distributed in a planetary context. Resourcess are give to whoever pays for them thereby increasing the wealth of a private minority.. I still don't get how someone can claim ownership over natural resources, especially precious ones like oil that took millions of years to form and ends up being wasted on more unsustainable practices. The justification for owning land is mixing your labor with it. If someone establishes a mining operation and begins producing from an asteroid, that asteroid ought to be considered theirs. Saying the asteroid is collectively everyone's is simply a clever and evil way of saying it belongs to the state, and that everyone is a slave that shouldn't be allowed to see towards their own well-being. Funny how most of the labor is done by the so called slaves while the supposed owner takes the big chunk of the pie just because he "owns" it and then proceeds to buy a house that could shelter a small city and costs more than they will make in their lifetime :p
Are you suggesting people should not be able to trade their labor? Or that mining should be illegal because not everyone can afford to do it? Or both? Stone age sounds wonderful.
But what actually happens is that there are millions of asteroids, and mine owners compete for laborers by outbidding with higher wages, and compete for consumers by driving down prices. This squeezes profit margins down. Those who are successful at managing their operation and squeezing out efficiency become rich. Why did they become rich? Because they made other people rich. They saved consumers money and paid higher wages than others. This is because its not a zero-sum game. Becoming rich doesn't make others poor. In fact its quite the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
