On Space Funding - Page 3

On October 19 2012 01:35 oneofthem wrote:

i don't know what reardon metal is.

but in general technology has two effects. increased capital productivity, which means additional labor input has a scaling effect of more value generated, and also a displacement effect, where machines displace tasks done by humans. it is not a rule that the scaling effect is greater than the displacement effect particularly in resource limited situations, which we are indeed confronting shortly. with unlimited resources, the same labor force can be employed at better machines and turn out greater wealth. however, with resource limitations, you'll get displacement of the labor force and capital owners having much more of the product.

the current problem is obviously not mechanization of farming, or even industrial production. it's mostly white collar automation of the administrative and IT kind.

btw, it is not automatic that greater production leads to quality of life improvements for everyone. circulation has to occur. an increase in the production of nigerian oil fields does not necessarily improve life for nigerians.

On October 19 2012 01:45 oneofthem wrote:
seems like you are at some sort of youtube economics 101 stage i'll say this is pointless.

On October 19 2012 02:07 oneofthem wrote:
i merely pointed out very uncontroversial problems associated with automation. it's not arguing against anything.

when you stop doodling with simplistic models and look at more complex, real world situations not everything is BAD or GOOD.

On October 19 2012 01:40 nam nam wrote:

Yes, by example in the video you are throwing money away by destroying windows but it doesn't consider any other factors. In an analogy to a space program, if someone started to break a lot of glass, eventually someone would get the idea to create glass that can't be broken by a rock which you wouldn't have otherwise and in the long run that could actually save you the amount of glass broken. By the same line of thought we could potentially gain a lot of technology and knowledge from a space program that we wouldn't have otherwise. How you value that compared to the amount of money spent will decide whether or not you think it's worth the cost.

On October 19 2012 02:23 oneofthem wrote:
sigh. what? the guy should be worried for further wage erosion unless he finds a career that's automation proof (or immigrant proof)

you think he should be looking forward to losing his job to robots or competing against workers with no rights?

On October 18 2012 22:53 Twinkle Toes wrote:
But wouldn't missions be more efficient if we wait longer when we already have the advanced technology (like better combustion, navigation system, materials) so that we waste less?

On October 19 2012 02:46 revy wrote:
Why NASA? Several reasons:

1) Motivates kids into STEM. Kids think space is cool (lets be honest, so do I) which encourages them into the sciences.

2) The challenges presented by space are unlike the challenges on earth. When designing things that go into space, there are many differences between designing things for earth. The stringent requirements encourage unique solutions, which are ultimately shown to have useful applications on earth. In this regard it's not a lot different that military spending. Military requirements are strict, engineering around the requirements helps improve the work performed on commercial systems.

3) Space is a laboratory on a whole different scale. Think for a minute how useful GPS is -- so much of our lives are now dependent on GPS. GPS falls flat on its face if you don't apply General Relativistic corrections. GPS would be out of our reach without knowledge of GR. GR was proven by astronomers, and hints to the theory of GR were provided by astronomers. As strange as it may sound, someday the things which impact your life will be made possible because someone made precise measurements of the accretion disc of a black hole.

Investment in basic research is very rarely a bad idea.

On October 19 2012 02:49 EatThePath wrote:
@OP:

Your framework is fundamentally incompatible with an answer that will satisfy you, or even mollify you. Science proponents are in the habit of having to tell people constantly why it's a "good investment" to fund research. There are so many ways you can slice this it doesn't really matter, and I'm sure you've heard a lot of good ones, and you are probably partially persuaded that funding research can have a lot of great payoffs that result in improved economic wellbeing or quality of life.

But that's not the point of science. I think this is where the root of the problem is for you? You don't understand why people are doing something "pointless" off of your back. You don't value understanding the universe.

If you feel like that last statement rings true, you need to evaluate your perspective in multiple ways. First of all, your amazing life in the 21st century is made possible only by scientific inquiry. Literally everything around you in your everyday life is made possible by countless discoveries that were made in the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake without precondition of practical application. But of course if you know more you can do more, so even if the discovery wasn't motivated by materialistic ambition it still fulfills it. Do the fruits of scientific inquiry always change people's lives? No, not all of them. Some of them may not ever have much practical effect. But some of them empower huge leaps forward. And everything in between. It usually takes time for new knowledge to become new comfort. Perhaps it rankles that right now part of your money essentially just disappears. Nothing comes of it. But how do you know? If you wanted you could trace percentages of your pennies that go to various research programs, and inevitably you'd find out that you contributed to some breakthrough that you value. It might take time, though, to see something tangible, to hold progress in your hand. Though indeed, do you buy seeds and plant an orchard expecting to eat fruit that afternoon? Later that week? You won't be eating or selling that fruit for years, but you still plant orchards.

So, from a practical standpoint, science is useful to you. But perhaps more importantly, there is something else to consider.

What does your time here on Earth mean to you? You mention that there are better causes than science that need your money. Why do you care about these things? Say you want a comfortable life, okay. But then why pay for the education of children? So you obviously care about other people, and the future. Science is a part of this. A huge part of this! And it only gets a smidgen of our budget. Our federal spending on healthcare dwarfs our spending on research. How much good is that doing? (It's a tough question, let's not dwell on it. I won't even bring up defense spending.) Certainly we should fund scientific research, and a host of other things. You can quibble about how much in proportion but almost everyone would agree that the answer should be something roughly like "enough so that we're making progress in all areas". Even with the limited funding we provide, science has great success. In part, this is because knowledge multiplies. The history of science is littered with unforeseen connections and unexplored roads crisscrossed at the horizon. The whole point is that you can't know what you might find out until you start trying to find stuff out. The universe is quite literally filled with endless surprises. + Show Spoiler [the couch] +

Back to what you're going to do with your life. That's a heavy question, sure. Even if you don't take it too seriously though, you can think about "well I'll hang out for a while, try to make a difference maybe, check on out at some point". I don't think anyone reasonable would hold that against you; most people would say right on man. Most of us relate in this way. Depending on your perspective, you'll have a different idea of making a difference. I invite you to push the boundary of your perspective, even just a little, and see if it changes how you look at it. I'm thinking of questions like, "Okay let's say we solve world hunger. Great. What now?" I think you'll find that you quickly reach a point where you say, "Hmm. I dunno." Maybe with an attached "I need to know more, I should look that up." And then it gets to the point where it's "Huh no clear answer, we should find out about that."

On October 19 2012 02:45 smokeyhoodoo wrote:


Is the OP in some sort of situation in which this kind of drastic effect would take place? If we're speaking of the general population then I think wages will keep going up, in spite of the factors you outlined, but perhaps more slowly, while in the meantime there will be an unprecedented drop in the cost of living more than compensating for it. Yes, a small number of people would be hit hard, have to reeducate themselves and completely change their career. So what? Should they be protected at the expense of others? No one owes them anything. In the long run it could still end up making even those people better off. What is wrong with a foreigner having a job, and why should consumers pay more for goods, just so someone can be protected from competition they've never had in their lives?

Edit: But really I shouldn't be condoning your characterization of this as something new, that only now the world is facing. These things have always been around. Its called economic growth.