| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
NASA's space and planetary exploration programs get the most public exposure because thats what everyone knows NASA best for. But I mean, you need to develop rockets to the launch those aforementioned satellites, for example. You should never think of it as "$18 billion to fly to the moon", but rather $18 billion invested into america's scientific workforce and technology backbone. | ||
|
Callynn
Netherlands917 Posts
On October 18 2012 11:43 Twinkle Toes wrote: We should end all planet-finding research and transfer the fund to healthcare. So more humans can survive, reproduce and overpopulate the planet - ultimately leading to a faster rate of exhausting our planet's resources which in turn causes more people to die (of famine, disease, you name it). Short-sighted ftw. Just took it from the Alpha Centauri thread since you seem to be avoiding this obvious problem in your logic. It's not about healthcare or even education - it's about keeping our population in check one way or another. There are only two ways to prevent a population crisis on earth: 1. We colonize other planets, either by terraforming biospheres on them or by finding suitable planets that can sustain us. (and for the record, the fastest travel time to Alpha Centauri is less than 130 years with nuclear propulsion, not 5.5 million years...) 2. We launch birth control on earth, with a maximum of two children per couple and legal abortion world-wide. I can tell you that you won't need to invest any more in healthcare or education that way, since the amount of people in need of it will significantly reduce over time. But you fail to see the big picture, that technological advancements bent on colonizing space are in the way of your precious healthcare while instead they are the indirect solution to an imminent world population problem. | ||
|
archonOOid
1983 Posts
| ||
|
Startyr
Scotland188 Posts
Although not specifically astronomy I have to mention Cern. I suggest looking up the history of the internet, it was initially used to help scientists share data, it may not be what it is today if Cern had not been set up. Another random search http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1248908 They needed to set up a control room and came up with the touch screen. There is no simple connection between spending a certain amount and getting some innovative new technology. Also there was going to be a US superconducting super collider, however it got cancelled. There may well have been flaws in its development however think of all the discoveries that have yet to be made or the people it could have employed. People that may well have then gone and worked in the financial industry instead. this supercollider may have cost around 12 billion(but was cancelled) the Op mentioned Nasa cost around 18 billion. To put some things into perspective estimates for the cost of the financial crisis of recent years seem to be around 12.8 TRILLION for the US alone. In fact more has been spent on the financial industry in the last few years than has been spent on science in the whole of human history. Just think about that for a moment, imagine the kind of society we could have if those numbers were the other way round?… | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
Is it more of a waste than military spending? Cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: At least $4 trillion http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-12-15/general/30778140_1_iraq-war-iraq-and-afghanistan-veterans-budgetary-assessments Annual NASA budget: $18.4 billion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA tl;dr if all the money spent in Afghanistan and Iraq had gone to NASA, it could fund the agency for over 200 years. And thousands of people would still be alive. | ||
|
JeanLuc
Canada377 Posts
On October 19 2012 09:51 Millitron wrote: To all the people saying its a waste of money: Is it more of a waste than military spending? Cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: At least $4 trillion http://articles.marketwatch.com/2011-12-15/general/30778140_1_iraq-war-iraq-and-afghanistan-veterans-budgetary-assessments Annual NASA budget: $18.4 billion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA tl;dr if all the money spent in Afghanistan and Iraq had gone to NASA, it could fund the agency for over 200 years. And thousands of people would still be alive. Agree with this. Why, OP, are you attacking NASA which brings good, and takes up such a small fraction of the budget? We spend 4 trillion on dubious foreign policy actions that don't even help America whatsoever. Remember Saddam Hussein? Did you know he was a friend of the Bush family. Remember Iran-Contra? Osama Bin Laden trained by the CIA? Do you honestly think we are spending that 4 trillion to make America safer or to serve the interests of a few. With such a huge mountain of wastefulness to ponder, I wonder why you attack NASA. Sorry man, I think you are not only wrong but you are damnably wrong about this. Shame on you!!!! | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On-topic: NASA isn't nearly as big an issue as people think it is, but it's a nice scapegoat. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
having collective, aspirational objectives is actually a worthwhile end in itself. it takes a lower form of life to disagree. | ||
|
MadProbe
United States269 Posts
it'd never happen -- but damn technology would be insaaaaaaaaaane. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11926 Posts
Getting really new things is not something you can plan ahead of time, it is something that happens when people research something, usually without a specific goal except trying to understand it. Just look at any slightly technological object around you and look up how it was discovered. It is basically always based in "useless" research, and then someone notices that you can use that "pointless" research to make a better monitor or a faster car. A short look at the first thing in front of me grants: LCD Display: People studied Liquid crystals with no clear goal for about a hundred years until someone noticed that some of them change color when exposed to electricity. On that premisse, it is very hard to argue against basic research, which is not driven by a direct tangible goal except trying to understand things, and would thus qualify as "wasted" money for the op since there is no direct tangible benefit in it But actually it is pretty much the only way to invent really new things. | ||
|
NadaSound
United States227 Posts
I feel to many believe we simply exist in the universe. We are apart of the universe!!! The very atoms that compose our bodies were forged at the center of long dead ancient stars. To learn about the universe is to learn about ourselves and what great goal is there in life then to understand who we are? | ||
|
Ianuus
Australia349 Posts
On October 19 2012 02:18 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Don't patronize me, I acknowledged that some are hurt but on average it is beneficial. That's objective fact. If it resulted in increased income disparity, which is basically the extent of the social problem you outlined and somewhat doubtful as I think new jobs would come into existence based off of history, it still doesn't matter because of our redistributive society. It would result in increased prosperity under all scenarios. Saying you weren't arguing against anything is false. You told someone to worry about it and that people would have trouble paying their rent, when in reality people should only look forward to it. Why don't I patronise you for a bit instead? For someone who seems to enjoy the "objective facts", perhaps you should go try finding some for yourself first? Based off actual history, not the strange version you have, all periods of technological advance in recent years have been marked with large increases in inequality. The only time when they have fallen is at the hands of interventionalist government policy, like the new deal and the Bismarckian reforms, not because of deflation's effect on real income. Yes, in your little econ101 model, where markets are perfect and everyone has the same amount of bargaining power, trickling down reganomics work. But, as much as we all would like to live in our little sheltered world, real life isn't i.i.d. nor homoskedastic - the people who can take advantage of improved capital productivity are the ones with overwhelming bargaining power: capital by its nature has high fixed costs compared to labour, and shifts towards capital in the production process has monopolistic effects, in our already oligopolised economy. At the other end, the people who are being replaced have no power at all, and even worse, little economic mobility. They have poor access to education, healthcare and face increasing competition due to globalisation. They are in no position to bargain for a slice of the surplus pie. Some quick googling yielded the following (government sourced) statistics: For manufacturing, productivity (output per labour hour) has increased in the united states by around 3.2% per year for the period 1973 - 2000. For their compensation, the real income level (so taking into account already any changes in price due to improved efficiency) of the bottom 40% (where you'd expect to find people working as labourers in manufacturing) has risen by around 13%, from 1979-2004. So, while total productivity has risen by around 128%, the actual return from work to the labourers has risen by 13%. Subtract from that increases in productivity due to the labourers themselves, and you have pretty much jack all increase to real wages due to increases in technology. And as for a "redistributive society", http://www.economist.com/node/21564407 So guess what? There are winners and losers when technology improves, and you can sure as hell expect the winners to keep it all to themselves. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On October 19 2012 12:00 Ianuus wrote: Why don't I patronise you for a bit instead? For someone who seems to enjoy the "objective facts", perhaps you should go try finding some for yourself first? Based off actual history, not the strange version you have, all periods of technological advance in recent years have been marked with large increases in inequality. The only time when they have fallen is at the hands of interventionalist government policy, like the new deal and the Bismarckian reforms, not because of deflation's effect on real income. Yes, in your little econ101 model, where markets are perfect and everyone has the same amount of bargaining power, trickling down reganomics work. But, as much as we all would like to live in our little sheltered world, real life isn't i.i.d. nor homoskedastic - the people who can take advantage of improved capital productivity are the ones with overwhelming bargaining power: capital by its nature has high fixed costs compared to labour, and shifts towards capital in the production process has monopolistic effects, in our already oligopolised economy. At the other end, the people who are being replaced have no power at all, and even worse, little economic mobility. They have poor access to education, healthcare and face increasing competition due to globalisation. They are in no position to bargain for a slice of the surplus pie. Some quick googling yielded the following (government sourced) statistics: For manufacturing, productivity (output per labour hour) has increased in the united states by around 3.2% per year for the period 1973 - 2000. For their compensation, the real income level (so taking into account already any changes in price due to improved efficiency) of the bottom 40% (where you'd expect to find people working as labourers in manufacturing) has risen by around 13%, from 1979-2004. So, while total productivity has risen by around 128%, the actual return from work to the labourers has risen by 13%. Subtract from that increases in productivity due to the labourers themselves, and you have pretty much jack all increase to real wages due to increases in technology. And as for a "redistributive society", http://www.economist.com/node/21564407 So guess what? There are winners and losers when technology improves, and you can sure as hell expect the winners to keep it all to themselves. However, it would be ridiculous to conclude that a luddite course is most favourable. Society reforms along with technological advance. | ||
|
Ra`s Al Ghul
41 Posts
On October 19 2012 08:42 archonOOid wrote: I would like to see space foundation funds as a logical choice for people who are interested in charitable organisation and on the same level as cancer funds, environmental causes and social programs. The Planetary Society (See link) is a very good example but there need to be more of them with different means and goals. This is a great idea. We should collectivize private efforts into space missions so we have bigger better projects. | ||
|
Ianuus
Australia349 Posts
On October 19 2012 12:26 EatThePath wrote: However, it would be ridiculous to conclude that a luddite course is most favourable. Society reforms along with technological advance. Oh no doubt. But I want technological progress for its own sake and for the sake of the human race as an entity, but that is part of my own utility function, and not necessarily anyone else's; I don't seek to pretend that somehow technology will have a positive impact on the lives of the people it makes redundant. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On October 19 2012 12:00 Ianuus wrote: Why don't I patronise you for a bit instead? For someone who seems to enjoy the "objective facts", perhaps you should go try finding some for yourself first? Based off actual history, not the strange version you have, all periods of technological advance in recent years have been marked with large increases in inequality. The only time when they have fallen is at the hands of interventionalist government policy, like the new deal and the Bismarckian reforms, not because of deflation's effect on real income. Yes, in your little econ101 model, where markets are perfect and everyone has the same amount of bargaining power, trickling down reganomics work. But, as much as we all would like to live in our little sheltered world, real life isn't i.i.d. nor homoskedastic - the people who can take advantage of improved capital productivity are the ones with overwhelming bargaining power: capital by its nature has high fixed costs compared to labour, and shifts towards capital in the production process has monopolistic effects, in our already oligopolised economy. At the other end, the people who are being replaced have no power at all, and even worse, little economic mobility. They have poor access to education, healthcare and face increasing competition due to globalisation. They are in no position to bargain for a slice of the surplus pie. Some quick googling yielded the following (government sourced) statistics: For manufacturing, productivity (output per labour hour) has increased in the united states by around 3.2% per year for the period 1973 - 2000. For their compensation, the real income level (so taking into account already any changes in price due to improved efficiency) of the bottom 40% (where you'd expect to find people working as labourers in manufacturing) has risen by around 13%, from 1979-2004. So, while total productivity has risen by around 128%, the actual return from work to the labourers has risen by 13%. Subtract from that increases in productivity due to the labourers themselves, and you have pretty much jack all increase to real wages due to increases in technology. And as for a "redistributive society", http://www.economist.com/node/21564407 So guess what? There are winners and losers when technology improves, and you can sure as hell expect the winners to keep it all to themselves. So you're saying that technological advancements cause all this suffering? Would you prefer to go back to before there was any automation at all; all the way back to before the printing press? Because that's basically what you're saying. The printing press put those monks who wrote illuminated manuscripts out of work. Water-wheel driven textile mills killed off cottage industry. As soon as the technology advanced, these laborers were doomed, and no amount of social engineering could save them. Even if it wasn't some oligarchy hoarding the power, they simply can't compete. But this isn't bad, for society anyways; competition breeds progress, and in order for it to be meaningful, somebody's gotta lose. Edit: Ninja'd my post, we don't actually disagree. Not gonna erase it though cause I think I made a good point. | ||
|
calderon
95 Posts
On October 19 2012 00:07 Twinkle Toes wrote: The choice to "attack" space is accidental, and is only a product of the recent astronomy threads. I would also attack military and other senseless stuff our government is wasting its money on if I had the time. I just want to focus the discussion on space for now. This is where you are so wrong, so much is wasted in other areas yet you are hell bent on making sure in your mind that money put in towards the space system is justified... prioritise your concerns perhaps.. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On October 19 2012 12:43 Ianuus wrote: Oh no doubt. But I want technological progress for its own sake and for the sake of the human race as an entity, but that is part of my own utility function, and not necessarily anyone else's; I don't seek to pretend that somehow technology will have a positive impact on the lives of the people it makes redundant. But I think most people so inclined this way also have in their utility function that they want to uplift everyone to a certain standard; moreover the mature cultures of privilege tend to migrate to this viewpoint. And just to be clear that I'm not leaning purely on optimism, I don't think it's any accident that this is the case. If your measuring stick is "not being overpayed for skilled labor to keep up with overall wealth", then some people lose out on a certain timescale. But that's hard to disentangle from the rapid transformation of society, the forces that push it, the people who try to guide it, and the buoy of conscientiousness that increasingly makes provision in a myriad of indirect ways for those that fall behind as things change. The overall tendency is towards the better, though of course there are dangerous pitfalls to be minded while disparities and obsolete systems persist. If you could do the calculus that incorporated deep interactions between social, cultural, psychological and economic forces, all tied to the state of human knowhow, I think it'd show a semi-stable tendency towards behaviors and systems we want. Can't do that calculus quite yet. So it's just my speculation. But I think history and a general evolutionary perspective backs me up. ^^ [edit] In other words I'm banking on the fact that you and I aren't anomalies. | ||
|
tryummm
774 Posts
On October 18 2012 22:53 Twinkle Toes wrote: - US budget is limited, and there are urgent areas in education, healthcare, and food production that needs all the money we have. How do you know the idea that government funding in education, healthcare, and food production increase the general welfare of society? Maybe government subsidies and laws on food production cause economic inefficiencies to markets that produce food and to consumers, as a whole. The same generalization can be made to education and health care. For instance with healthcare, perhaps decreasing one's incentive to earn more money for improved healthcare (Money earned is reward for service rendered. Hence the more money one earns, the more service to society they are rendering, hence these individuals are increasing societies happiness...aka utility) as a conjugate is actually not a benefit to society. Maybe economic reality is people can earn as much money as they choose to earn. This premise also operates under the premise that the ability to earn money can be learned and consequently developed. But as you can see, your entire argument is built on a social science. There are not really any statistically significant research papers and/or data analysis attributing government funding to the general economic welfare of society. Therefore, any individual has the right to discount your main point as meaningless which reduces your entire argument to almost little significance. | ||
|
anycolourfloyd
Australia524 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
WardiTV Qualifier
Epic.LAN
Big Brain Bouts
SHIN vs Elazer
Percival vs Nicoract
Reynor vs Lambo
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Clem vs Lambo
Scarlett vs Cure
CranKy Ducklings
Epic.LAN
IPSL
Dragon vs Hawk
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
