TL General is often home to random threads about space missions, new galaxies, new stars, planets with 5 moons, new space lander, Mars, and other things pertaining to Astronomy. In most of these threads, I often end up being the "enemy of science" as I point out that we are spending needlessly on non-urgent, if not completely irrelevant, things when there are urgent and more pressing issues to tackle, especially by the US.
I am starting this thread to have an enlightening discussion with my fellow TLers, some of whom I encounter in these thread who I'm sure hate me now, and some of whom manage to change my ideas on certain things regarding the issue.
The US government according to wiki is spending $18B, or 0.48% of its annual budget, on NASA in 2012, and this will remain the same until 2015. I don't know the actual figure (maybe someone does, if so please post here), but certainly not all of this goes specifically to space mission. Moreover, outside NASA, the US also allocates budget for science research that goes to astronomy (again, statistics needed).
I used to be absolutely closed to this idea, thinking that all astronomy missions are a waste of time and money. But fellow TLers like Craton enlightened me that space missions have indirect and direct contributions to technology, such as MRI, xrays, etc. For these reasons, I can understand why we need to spend in order to send people or robots in space.
I am saying this with no background whatsoever in science but merely as a hardworking 20ish American who is trying to understand where tax money is going and how it should be prioritized. I wonder, given all we have achieved, is there anything really drastic that we hope to achieve in these missions that will impact us now? Let's leave out Mars or Moon because I believe they are relevant enough that what we learn there might be useful. What I'm thinking more are studies in finding planets, black holes, quasars, star systems, sending satellites outside the solar system, etc. 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?
People say people like me have a shortsighted view on science, but let me address the specific defense on things I argue against.
- Looking for planets make us understand the origin of the universe better My main problem against this is that do we need this information now? Or more precisely, is it proper to spend money on this now knowing fully well that this money could be better spent on more urgent things like healthcare, education, food production, etc.
- Looking for planets will give us a roadmap for space colonization Ok. As in the recent Alpha thread, I learned that we would need 5.5 million years to get there with present technology and even if we travel at the speed of light, it will take us more than 4 years. And this is the closest star to the sun. Certainly, I would gladly redirect 1 million dollars to build schools or buy books or pay teachers than use it to gain a knowledge that is not even possible in my lifetime, or not even after 10 generations.
- Astronomy is exploration, the basic human drive Joblessness, hunger, disease, education, food are urgent things that need to be faced today. If our resources is unlimited, I have no problem with exploration. But as it stands, this exploration eats from the fund that could improve lives at the practical level.
- Entropy clock This is one of the most recent things, and I admit, I really like the idea and spend the whole day yesterday reading on it. But in my ignorant understanding of it, entropy is not even estimated to happen in the next billion years. So why are we wasting money on things like this.
TLDR (and please, let us limit the arguments to these issues):
- US budget is limited, and there are urgent areas in education, healthcare, and food production that needs all the money we have. If we have unlimited, or even just a lot of money such that we can stabilize these problems, then spending some on space is ok. - Astronomy is a good endeavor, but only if it contributes to useful practical technology. - No military budget talk. That is a separate issue. If you ask me though, I'd scrap all funding from the military and direct it to education, healthcare, food production, and even some to astronomy and science that will have significant practical contribution to society. - No Niel deGrass Tyson youtube video PLEASE, we have all seen it at least a hundred times - supertldr: resources and time is limited, there are more urgent need for resources than learning about the universe, unless it results to important technologies like MRI, etc. etc.
Wow, you changed your mind. I thought you were never going to budge haha. Anyways, I think it is crucial. First off, people become inspired to study STEM subjects if they have a chance to work towards a new frontier. History shows that innovation amps up when government invests into another frontier. How many ingeniously smart people have become lawyers and businessmen? Imagine if a larger percentage decided to study physics, math, and engineering. A fully funded space program that progresses leaps and bounds is a good way to motivate a new generation to do so.
Also as you mentioned, indirect contributions from the scientific research. Also, the amount of profit possible from space mining and other things. Or the helium 3 on the moon that would provide for cleaner nuclear energy for centuries. Last but not least, the chance to explore and get off this rock for the next generations. We are curious creatures, we are only at our best when we are stretching our capacity of knowledge and exploration at its fullest.
there would have not been an usa to spend money on a space program without the exploration of the unknown, no one profited from discovering america for ages lol
if we don't spend money trying to reach the stars (or at least other planets for now), no one will in the future
With 1.1 trillion being spent on health care and 900 billion being spent on education per year in the US I think investing 18 billion for possible payoffs is a good deal. You asked us not to talk about the major money waster, so let's just say there are many areas of spending which could cut back which offer no benefit or are actually harmful, why not focus on them?
On October 18 2012 23:58 Nallen wrote: With 1.1 trillion being spent on health care and 900 billion being spent on education per year in the US I think investing 18 billion for possible payoffs is a good deal. You asked us not to talk about the major money waster, so let's just say there are many areas of spending which could cut back which offer no benefit or are actually harmful, why not focus on them?
Thanks for the numbers. Still, I'm sure there would be a large amount from that 18B which goes to these "look for planet" projects that I'm referring to that could add to education etc.
- supertldr: resources and time is limited, there are more urgent need for resources than learning about the universe, unless it results to important technologies like MRI, etc. etc.
You realize NASA helped progress the MRI like crazy, right?
wtf.
Scientific research related to astronomy will always contribute to practical science, one way or another.
I argued on specific point, could you do that same? Spending money on the research to discover there is a planet in Alpha Century and god know where else somewhere in the universe leads to what practical benefits?
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.
I think space exploration is really important. Right now, we as a species stand to be wiped out by a single catastrophe; a large enough asteroid impact or even a really unlucky gamma ray burst could just kill everyone. The more we spread out to other planets, and eventually other solar systems, the safer we are.
It's not purely idealism, either. There are practical gains, the most critical to my eyes being asteroid mining. Gaining access to those valuable materials in large quantities would be a serious aid to modern industry.
Also, I have a hard time being proud of my country. It doesn't really do anything that inspires me as a human being. I'd much rather be on the forefront of space colonization than the forefront of military spending.
Edit: Oh, and you'd also attack military spending if you had the time? Look up the US budget next time you have time. If you want to be practical in the short term, cut spending on something other than NASA. It's the single most important human endeavor of our lifetimes, and it receives the neighborhood of one half of one percent of the budget.
The OP, with his bleeding heart, has never engaged in an action that didn't help to end the plight of the poor. He has never played a game, or watched a movie. He has never engaged in recreational activities of any kind. He labors tirelessly at his 4 jobs, does not live in a home, and eats nothing but ramen. His total expenditures for food is less than $500 a year, and he selflessly gives the rest of his income towards those who need it. Bless him and his saintly ways.
The time may come in the not too distant future when we need to use our technology to protect the entirety of Earth from a mass extinction event. It could be in a form we are already familiar with (such as an asteroid crossing the Earth's orbit) or something we have not witnessed in our own solar system. By studying far off solar systems, as well as our own, we are more likely to encounter evidence of actions that could one day affect us. For example, by studying black holes from other parts of the galaxy we have learned things such as the approximate time limit on our own sun.
As others have said, areas of exploration (in this case deep space via observational equipment and analysis) pay dividends which will more than compensate for what was originally invested. There is no way to look at alternate timelines, but I'd bet, if you could go back in time and prevent certain research teams from studying things like other solar systems, the negative impacts it would have on today compared to our normal timeline would be far beyond anything you could imagine. Studying the origin of the universe is also helping us to unify physics, which is a very important goal that is not limited to long distance theoretical studies.
There are really many reasons why these seemingly unnecessary efforts by NASA and other funded programs are actually very helpful. That's not to say 100% of the budget can go towards space research, either.
On October 19 2012 00:13 nkr wrote: spend 660 billions on military; question the 18 billion invested in enhancing the human race
mericuh
Are they doing some sort of experimentation for enhancing the human body? Increased endurance for long space flights perhaps? Advanced prosthetics so we can be awesome cyborgs?
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.
It seems like the only things you're actually complaining about is observatories and telescopes looking at objects far away, even if they have a couple of then, that isnt exactly NASA's main field and heavy spending points.
However i also disagree that putting money into that is a waste. Stuff like hubble deep field is fascinating.
Slightly offtopic, but would you know if Hubble can point its lenses to the moon?
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.
It seems like the only things you're actually complaining about is observatories and telescopes looking at objects far away, even if they have a couple of then, that isnt exactly NASA's main field and heavy spending points.
However i also disagree that putting money into that is a waste. Stuff like hubble deep field is fascinating.
Slightly offtopic, but would you know if Hubble can point its lenses to the moon?
Here is a picture taken by the Hubble of the moon, along with an explanation of why they did it:
The problem is to be perfectly blunt that you are uninformed. I mean, the original thread described a result by a European group, getting no funding at all from the US.
Even beyond that, you say you want to understand where your tax money is going. Ok, so where is it going? How does the US federal budget (and state budgets) look like? How is social security and medicare spent exactly? Have you really put work into understanding this or are you merely thinking: "I wish we had better health care and I don't care about space so we should use the space science money for health care."
On a less antagonistic note, if you really try to understand these issues you'll realize that more resources don't necessarily lead to better results. A lot of the problems in health care and education are organizational. How do we incentivise doctors to prescribe the most cost effective medicines, tests and procedures?
Are standardized tests a good way to estimate teacher performance or are they just hindering good teachers. If we get rid of them how do we know which teachers and teaching methods are effective and which ones are ineffective?
When we have a decent idea of what should be done what can we do as citizens?
I understand the idea of having an opinion and changing it based on new information. But why not go a step further and only form an opinion after you already know the most basic facts?
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.
It seems like the only things you're actually complaining about is observatories and telescopes looking at objects far away, even if they have a couple of then, that isnt exactly NASA's main field and heavy spending points.
However i also disagree that putting money into that is a waste. Stuff like hubble deep field is fascinating.
Slightly offtopic, but would you know if Hubble can point its lenses to the moon?
Here is a picture taken by the Hubble of the moon, along with an explanation of why they did it:
On October 19 2012 00:34 hypercube wrote: The problem is to be perfectly blunt that you are uninformed. I mean, the original thread described a result by a European group, getting no funding at all from the US.
Even beyond that, you say you want to understand where your tax money is going. Ok, so where is it going? How does the US federal budget (and state budgets) look like? How is social security and medicare spent exactly? Have you really put work into understanding this or are you merely thinking: "I wish we had better health care and I don't care about space so we should use the space science money for health care."
On a less antagonistic note, if you really try to understand these issues you'll realize that more resources don't necessarily lead to better results. A lot of the problems in health care and education are organizational. How do we incentivise doctors to prescribe the most cost effective medicines, tests and procedures?
Are standardized tests a good way to estimate teacher performance or are they just hindering good teachers. If we get rid of them how do we know which teachers and teaching methods are effective and which ones are ineffective?
When we have a decent idea of what should be done what can we do as citizens?
I understand the idea of having an opinion and changing it based on new information. But why not go a step further and only form an opinion after you already know the most basic facts?
I agree with your post and might change some of my stand based on what you said, but it is normal to have an opinion. I am not some Buddhist monk who operates on emptiness. Posts like yours are the reason I created this thread.
But I disagree on some points. Mainly, I just used the Alpha Centaury is just an example, I am sure that hundreds of labs are silently at work now receiving funding from the US whose purpose it is is to look for planets or some chemical signature in outer space. We hear only about them once the make some "discoveries". But honestly, they are pure mineral drains.
you should be more concerned about technology displacing labor. sure, you've got a job now, but what's that worth when you'll be struggling to pay rent and food in a couple decades
How do you expect technology to advance to a point where space missions are less wasteful, dangerous, and more rewarding without investing money to get there? Nobody's going to do the work/research if they don't get paid.
I want to add that scientific research is perhaps the only thing that my tax dollars could be used on that I feel 100% comfortable with.
Since you're never done science, let me explain how it actually works.
Most scientists aren't making a lot of money, but some of these people are the brightest minds on this planet. Moreover if we are speaking about fundamental sciences like fundamental space research, most of the results that these really smart people are getting are utterly useless and irrelevant to real life. So why are these people with so much potential doing something that doesn't pay well and doesn't even solve any earthly problems?
Because it's fun! This is the main driver of science! For some people it's tremendous amount of fun to spend their lives unraveling mysteries of the universe, searching for the answer on existential questions such as "are we alone?", studying galaxies billions of light years away...
And when some of the smartest people are working together, excited by a grand useless fun idea, their genius gets multiplied by quadrillion times, and amassing things happen! ! Some of these amassing things end up as extremely useful technologies that benefit the rest of humanity immensely. This is how real fundamental silence works.
On October 19 2012 00:43 oneofthem wrote: you should be more concerned about technology displacing labor. sure, you've got a job now, but what's that worth when you'll be struggling to pay rent and food in a couple decades
Damn tractor took all those farming jobs away. Did you know that 90% of people used to be farmers? Now its less than 1%. All those lost jobs, its damn criminal if you ask me.
that's not what i meant. technology shifts can be good long term but still have severe short term costs, as well as distributive shifts.
a big problem right now is looking at the economy some years down the road and wonder where the low skilled and automata replaceable worker will be. there's no mass industrialization right now that can absorb the workforce.
On October 19 2012 00:43 oneofthem wrote: you should be more concerned about technology displacing labor. sure, you've got a job now, but what's that worth when you'll be struggling to pay rent and food in a couple decades
The thing about science is that most of the important uses for certain technological advancements weren't even dreamed of by the first person who discovered the scientific principles behind it. So to ask what benefit we're going to get from research is a question where the only true answer is "I don't know, but I'm sure it will be important later". Granted there are exceptions, like biomed research etc. but even then some innovator can always take your scientific technique and apply it to something so outrageous it changes humanity.
When Ben Franklin flew his kite he wasn't thinking about the light bulb edison (or tesla depending on who you want to believe) would power from that same electricity.
overpopulation? migrate to another planet.or even to space stations. Energy cirisiss? do you know what star is? foor problems? we can grow food in space. resources? in Solar system alone you have recources for thousand of years. heathcare? Yes space is actualy great place to treat various illness. not enought job(more like not enough money in fright place)? well space industry could create bilions of job positions.
problems solved.
But tell me, how are you going to fight hunger,poverty,heatlhcare,lack of education and unemploynment?i told you how i am going to solve it.Tell me how you are going to solve it.
On October 19 2012 00:43 oneofthem wrote: you should be more concerned about technology displacing labor. sure, you've got a job now, but what's that worth when you'll be struggling to pay rent and food in a couple decades
that's why you get a job in technology...
and thus invest in technology. hence basic research and stuff.
On October 19 2012 00:58 oneofthem wrote: that's not what i meant. technology shifts can be good long term but still have severe short term costs, as well as distributive shifts.
a big problem right now is looking at the economy some years down the road and wonder where the low skilled and automata replaceable worker will be. there's no mass industrialization right now that can absorb the workforce.
There are severe short term costs for certain individuals, there is still a net gain averaged across everyone in both the short and long term. The low skilled worker who lost his manufacturing job can still get a minimum wage services job, make less money, but have an increased standard of living because the machines that took the jobs of him and his buddies reduced costs so drastically. Just admit reardon metal is good.
On October 19 2012 00:34 hypercube wrote: The problem is to be perfectly blunt that you are uninformed. I mean, the original thread described a result by a European group, getting no funding at all from the US.
Even beyond that, you say you want to understand where your tax money is going. Ok, so where is it going? How does the US federal budget (and state budgets) look like? How is social security and medicare spent exactly? Have you really put work into understanding this or are you merely thinking: "I wish we had better health care and I don't care about space so we should use the space science money for health care."
On a less antagonistic note, if you really try to understand these issues you'll realize that more resources don't necessarily lead to better results. A lot of the problems in health care and education are organizational. How do we incentivise doctors to prescribe the most cost effective medicines, tests and procedures?
Are standardized tests a good way to estimate teacher performance or are they just hindering good teachers. If we get rid of them how do we know which teachers and teaching methods are effective and which ones are ineffective?
When we have a decent idea of what should be done what can we do as citizens?
I understand the idea of having an opinion and changing it based on new information. But why not go a step further and only form an opinion after you already know the most basic facts?
I agree with your post and might change some of my stand based on what you said, but it is normal to have an opinion. I am not some Buddhist monk who operates on emptiness. Posts like yours are the reason I created this thread.
But I disagree on some points. Mainly, I just used the Alpha Centaury is just an example, I am sure that hundreds of labs are silently at work now receiving funding from the US whose purpose it is is to look for planets or some chemical signature in outer space. We hear only about them once the make some "discoveries". But honestly, they are pure mineral drains.
The main problem I have with your position is that you seem to be operating under the impression that we are just literally throwing our money into space. NASA provides good middle class jobs. Even in missions with not immediately apparent benefits, we are still paying people to develop technology, and produce equipment which also is good for the economy, especially if it's local. We are attracting smart people to work in our country. In congress there was a discussion about spending billions to repair unused tanks which the army didn't want because it would help keep parts suppliers etc in good business. I don't really see the difference, except that scientific research produces all of the great things alread listed.
If you wanted to be really frugal, you could I after expenditures on art etc too. Who does that help? (Somewhat rhetorical question)
On October 19 2012 00:39 Twinkle Toes wrote: But I disagree on some points. Mainly, I just used the Alpha Centaury is just an example, I am sure that hundreds of labs are silently at work now receiving funding from the US whose purpose it is is to look for planets or some chemical signature in outer space. We hear only about them once the make some "discoveries". But honestly, they are pure mineral drains.
I was just using it as an example of forming opinions without having all the relevant facts. For the record, I doubt there are hundreds of teams receiving US tax money for this kind of purpose.
Extrasolar planets is just a small part of space science. Most of it is done either part time on general purpose telescopes or on low budget purpose built telescopes.
I could give you an estimate of how much is spent yearly on this kind of research in the US but I don't feel comfortable doing that without a significant amount of research. Just as an example though, the Kepler Space Telescope, which is by far the largest extrasolar planet program, cost $600 million for its 4 year nominal program.
Space science as a whole costs much more than that. NASA's yearly budget is $18bn, although a large part of it is Earth observation, human spaceflight (which I wouldn't consider space science, though some do) or general purpose development. There's some money spent through NSF grants and possibly other sources too. But most of the money comes through NASA or private universities.
Sapce science is huge though. It includes stuff with direct benefits like asteroid tracking or space weather. Also fundamental science like cosmology and the searches for dark matter. And of course "traditional" astronomy topics like the study of stars and galxies.
I don't think it's fair to describe the whole of space science as "mineral drains". Some of it has direct benefits, some of it promises benefits in the mid or long term (like asteroid mining), while some is "only" useful in increasing our understing of the universe as a whole.
I think even those parts that promise no immediate benefits are ultimately useful. But to start debating that we'd need to have a decent idea of what kind of money we're talking about.
On October 19 2012 00:34 hypercube wrote: The problem is to be perfectly blunt that you are uninformed. I mean, the original thread described a result by a European group, getting no funding at all from the US.
Even beyond that, you say you want to understand where your tax money is going. Ok, so where is it going? How does the US federal budget (and state budgets) look like? How is social security and medicare spent exactly? Have you really put work into understanding this or are you merely thinking: "I wish we had better health care and I don't care about space so we should use the space science money for health care."
On a less antagonistic note, if you really try to understand these issues you'll realize that more resources don't necessarily lead to better results. A lot of the problems in health care and education are organizational. How do we incentivise doctors to prescribe the most cost effective medicines, tests and procedures?
Are standardized tests a good way to estimate teacher performance or are they just hindering good teachers. If we get rid of them how do we know which teachers and teaching methods are effective and which ones are ineffective?
When we have a decent idea of what should be done what can we do as citizens?
I understand the idea of having an opinion and changing it based on new information. But why not go a step further and only form an opinion after you already know the most basic facts?
I agree with your post and might change some of my stand based on what you said, but it is normal to have an opinion. I am not some Buddhist monk who operates on emptiness. Posts like yours are the reason I created this thread.
But I disagree on some points. Mainly, I just used the Alpha Centaury is just an example, I am sure that hundreds of labs are silently at work now receiving funding from the US whose purpose it is is to look for planets or some chemical signature in outer space. We hear only about them once the make some "discoveries". But honestly, they are pure mineral drains.
The main problem I have with your position is that you seem to be operating under the impression that we are just literally throwing our money into space. NASA provides good middle class jobs. Even in missions with not immediately apparent benefits, we are still paying people to develop technology, and produce equipment which also is good for the economy, especially if it's local. We are attracting smart people to work in our country. In congress there was a discussion about spending billions to repair unused tanks which the army didn't want because it would help keep parts suppliers etc in good business. I don't really see the difference, except that scientific research produces all of the great things alread listed.
If you wanted to be really frugal, you could I after expenditures on art etc too. Who does that help? (Somewhat rhetorical question)
Edit: Seeing government agencies as jobs programs rather than existing to fulfill their intended purpose sets a dangerous and wasteful precedent. Space exploration is for learning about space. Nothing else. It is not for giving people jobs. It is not for stumbling upon technologies with practical purposes. It is for learning about space. You need to persuade him that that end in and of itself is worthy.
May I ask the OP a question: why are you questioning where your goverment is spending 0.5% of its budget, and not where is it spending the remaining 99.5%? Also, planet finding is not a very expensive endeavour, after all all you need is a good telescope and a PhD student.
The benefits to planet searching are NOT only the planets that are found, but for instance all the software developed to track a 50 cm (20 inch for you americans) displacement of a star located 4 light yeras away. It could probably be used for improving things as diverse as autopiloted planes or tunnel building techniques.
I'd be much more worried about why do the US need to have TWICE as many aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined.
On October 19 2012 00:58 oneofthem wrote: that's not what i meant. technology shifts can be good long term but still have severe short term costs, as well as distributive shifts.
a big problem right now is looking at the economy some years down the road and wonder where the low skilled and automata replaceable worker will be. there's no mass industrialization right now that can absorb the workforce.
There are severe short term costs for certain individuals, there is still a net gain averaged across everyone in both the short and long term. The low skilled worker who lost his manufacturing job can still get a minimum wage services job, make less money, but have an increased standard of living because the machines that took the jobs of him and his buddies reduced costs so drastically. Just admit reardon metal is good.
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.
- supertldr: resources and time is limited, there are more urgent need for resources than learning about the universe, unless it results to important technologies like MRI, etc. etc.
You realize NASA helped progress the MRI like crazy, right?
Scientific research related to astronomy will always contribute to practical science, one way or another.
I argued on specific point, could you do that same? Spending money on the research to discover there is a planet in Alpha Century and god know where else somewhere in the universe leads to what practical benefits?
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.
Well don't need to go that far...just terraforming our neighbor planets will suffice. And terraforming technology will be useful in ecosystem and environmental control or something similar...
On October 19 2012 00:34 hypercube wrote: The problem is to be perfectly blunt that you are uninformed. I mean, the original thread described a result by a European group, getting no funding at all from the US.
Even beyond that, you say you want to understand where your tax money is going. Ok, so where is it going? How does the US federal budget (and state budgets) look like? How is social security and medicare spent exactly? Have you really put work into understanding this or are you merely thinking: "I wish we had better health care and I don't care about space so we should use the space science money for health care."
On a less antagonistic note, if you really try to understand these issues you'll realize that more resources don't necessarily lead to better results. A lot of the problems in health care and education are organizational. How do we incentivise doctors to prescribe the most cost effective medicines, tests and procedures?
Are standardized tests a good way to estimate teacher performance or are they just hindering good teachers. If we get rid of them how do we know which teachers and teaching methods are effective and which ones are ineffective?
When we have a decent idea of what should be done what can we do as citizens?
I understand the idea of having an opinion and changing it based on new information. But why not go a step further and only form an opinion after you already know the most basic facts?
I agree with your post and might change some of my stand based on what you said, but it is normal to have an opinion. I am not some Buddhist monk who operates on emptiness. Posts like yours are the reason I created this thread.
But I disagree on some points. Mainly, I just used the Alpha Centaury is just an example, I am sure that hundreds of labs are silently at work now receiving funding from the US whose purpose it is is to look for planets or some chemical signature in outer space. We hear only about them once the make some "discoveries". But honestly, they are pure mineral drains.
The main problem I have with your position is that you seem to be operating under the impression that we are just literally throwing our money into space. NASA provides good middle class jobs. Even in missions with not immediately apparent benefits, we are still paying people to develop technology, and produce equipment which also is good for the economy, especially if it's local. We are attracting smart people to work in our country. In congress there was a discussion about spending billions to repair unused tanks which the army didn't want because it would help keep parts suppliers etc in good business. I don't really see the difference, except that scientific research produces all of the great things alread listed.
If you wanted to be really frugal, you could I after expenditures on art etc too. Who does that help? (Somewhat rhetorical question)
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 00:58 oneofthem wrote: that's not what i meant. technology shifts can be good long term but still have severe short term costs, as well as distributive shifts.
a big problem right now is looking at the economy some years down the road and wonder where the low skilled and automata replaceable worker will be. there's no mass industrialization right now that can absorb the workforce.
There are severe short term costs for certain individuals, there is still a net gain averaged across everyone in both the short and long term. The low skilled worker who lost his manufacturing job can still get a minimum wage services job, make less money, but have an increased standard of living because the machines that took the jobs of him and his buddies reduced costs so drastically. Just admit reardon metal is good.
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.
None of that really matters. You're still just outlining problems that are outweighed by the benefits. Its not even a matter of opinion as we live in a welfare society. Even the jobless live comfortably. Stuff being produced more efficiently and at less cost is objectively good, regardless of social ramifications.
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.
You're arguing against technological progress. Think about that for a moment. No matter how much you try to complicate the issue that's all you're doing at the end of the day.
Edit: And you're arguing against economic growth. You're quite the economist.
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.
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.
On October 19 2012 00:34 hypercube wrote: The problem is to be perfectly blunt that you are uninformed. I mean, the original thread described a result by a European group, getting no funding at all from the US.
Even beyond that, you say you want to understand where your tax money is going. Ok, so where is it going? How does the US federal budget (and state budgets) look like? How is social security and medicare spent exactly? Have you really put work into understanding this or are you merely thinking: "I wish we had better health care and I don't care about space so we should use the space science money for health care."
On a less antagonistic note, if you really try to understand these issues you'll realize that more resources don't necessarily lead to better results. A lot of the problems in health care and education are organizational. How do we incentivise doctors to prescribe the most cost effective medicines, tests and procedures?
Are standardized tests a good way to estimate teacher performance or are they just hindering good teachers. If we get rid of them how do we know which teachers and teaching methods are effective and which ones are ineffective?
When we have a decent idea of what should be done what can we do as citizens?
I understand the idea of having an opinion and changing it based on new information. But why not go a step further and only form an opinion after you already know the most basic facts?
I agree with your post and might change some of my stand based on what you said, but it is normal to have an opinion. I am not some Buddhist monk who operates on emptiness. Posts like yours are the reason I created this thread.
But I disagree on some points. Mainly, I just used the Alpha Centaury is just an example, I am sure that hundreds of labs are silently at work now receiving funding from the US whose purpose it is is to look for planets or some chemical signature in outer space. We hear only about them once the make some "discoveries". But honestly, they are pure mineral drains.
The main problem I have with your position is that you seem to be operating under the impression that we are just literally throwing our money into space. NASA provides good middle class jobs. Even in missions with not immediately apparent benefits, we are still paying people to develop technology, and produce equipment which also is good for the economy, especially if it's local. We are attracting smart people to work in our country. In congress there was a discussion about spending billions to repair unused tanks which the army didn't want because it would help keep parts suppliers etc in good business. I don't really see the difference, except that scientific research produces all of the great things alread listed.
If you wanted to be really frugal, you could I after expenditures on art etc too. Who does that help? (Somewhat rhetorical question)
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.
That is not the sole consideration. A straight investment into research of practical technologies would lead to greater results for less money than relying on the space program to hit them by chance, or at least it is overwhelmingly likely. By some fluke the space program could produce something utterly revolutionary, but so could investment in other things. That's the point. The space program needs to be justified according to its own merit. Learning about space. Its not for anything else. I agree with the OP that we're simply launching money into space. I don't agree with him that that's not worth it, at least not necessarily. The ISS was a massive waste of money as its academic value is severely limited yet it cost a fortune.
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?
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.
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.
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] +
It's like digging under your couch cushions, except it's not your couch, it's a couch you've never seen before in a place you've never been. Anything could be in there. Sometimes you find lint, or a hairclip. Sometimes you find a nickel. Sometimes you find $1000. Sometimes you find a battery, except you've never seen a battery before and you don't know what it is or does. Sometimes you find a flashlight. At some point you realize "holy shit the battery fits in the flashlight" and you fumble into turning it on and "HOLY SHIT it makes light". Whether you found the battery or the flashlight first, you wouldn't have any idea you should be looking for the other object. A REALLY smart person might see some clues but that wouldn't even help you dig in the couch any better. A working flashlight might come in handy though, needless say it's awesome and will be nice to have anyway. And having made that first great find, of course you're going to go couch diving some more.
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 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?
We have to make challanges today so discoveries are made. These discoveries will enable the technologic advancement in the future not the other way around. You don't advance technology just by mere chance. You have to have some challange to tackle and you need time and money to work things out. If we don't give our scientist something to make they scratch their heads, if we don't give them work conditions, if we don't give them money so they can try crazy theories, the future WILL be late to the party.
I keep referring 'we' but I'm not even from NA. But I understand that what NASA and other scientific associations do are way ahead of a flag or a country. It's Mankind's future that is at stake.
I didnt read every post in the thread but wanted to adress the issue that "the money could be spent on education". A apparently very little known fact about the US is that they, in fact do spent (speaking in relative amounts here) the same amount as european countries on education. You may find this completely unbelievable because of a more well known fact: The american education system sucks(apart from universities that is). Both can however be explained by looking at where the money goes. If I am not completely misinformed - which I rarely am - the money goes to a few people in high positions, one example being (and this is taken from memory) the head teacher from a school in NY, who recieves more than 700.000 $ each year. Another example being one state that introduced iPads instead of Books, a desicion that probably already wasted amounts of money that would make you feint.
PS: While this is probably quite off topic, just keep in mind that the problem may not be the amount of money spent but rather the distribution of it. Just look at the US army.
I find it rather... selfish.. of people to discuss current needs as urgent, and therefore deserving, but the advancement of technology, physics, and related fields is something that can just wait. Believe it or not, in 500 years your very existence will not matter. The fact that you posted on Team Liquid will not matter. The fact that you had adequate health care will not matter. The fact that you didn't starve to death yesterday will not matter.
What about 1000 years?
10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000,000?
What will matter more then: that we learned to terraform other planetary bodies, or that you got proper medical attention given to your broken arm?
And why should education get any budget if we are just going to be educating people who will work in positions that require no extensive education? If you want education to mean something, there must be places for the educated to collect, combine their efforts, and produce something totally new to the world. One such example of a place is NASA.
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.
3 things proven to grow an econ is, investments into infrastructure, investments in education and investments into scientific research. Nasa is really great at doing scientific research, nasa's pr is really poor at least in adversing what they have contributed to society over the years, whole industries have come from nasa's research and it's not just dealing with things in space or flight. http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2011/pdf/Spinoff2011.pdf
Neil deGrasse Tyson has spoken extensively on this topic, and one of his fans put together a pair of really good videos outlining the main points. The music is a bit of an obvious emotional appeal, but the reasoning is sound.
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] +
It's like digging under your couch cushions, except it's not your couch, it's a couch you've never seen before in a place you've never been. Anything could be in there. Sometimes you find lint, or a hairclip. Sometimes you find a nickel. Sometimes you find $1000. Sometimes you find a battery, except you've never seen a battery before and you don't know what it is or does. Sometimes you find a flashlight. At some point you realize "holy shit the battery fits in the flashlight" and you fumble into turning it on and "HOLY SHIT it makes light". Whether you found the battery or the flashlight first, you wouldn't have any idea you should be looking for the other object. A REALLY smart person might see some clues but that wouldn't even help you dig in the couch any better. A working flashlight might come in handy though, needless say it's awesome and will be nice to have anyway. And having made that first great find, of course you're going to go couch diving some more.
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."
Well put! Cience is an end in and of itself, but, as it turns out, it is also one of the greatest long-term investment any developed society can make, even if it can never know with precision how it will better its citizens' lives.
I think that in this short video Neil deGrasse Tyson touches somewhat on this subject in a pretty convincing manner (at least for me)
Especially since one of your questions was about how can looking for yet unreachable stars or planets be of any use in the foreseeable future. ( For those too lazy to watch it talks about how the algorithm initially used to find stars in fuzzy images is applied to scanning for breast cancer, noting that different parts of science interact in often surprising ways and therefore none should be neglected )
To be honest I don't really care who invests in a space program as long as somebody does. We have ( if we don't screw ourselves over) a potentially infinite number of people on a finite planet. Space needs to happen. Saying that it's the least of our concerns right now is similar to people saying that we can pollute the hell out of the planet since we won't be alive to have to face the consequences.
I just wanted to note that a lot of responses overlap with each other and have interrelated ideas, and all together I think it's a pretty well put and comprehensive representation of what should be said in answer to OP.
I also wanted to say thank you to the OP for bothering to make a thread to discuss the question rather than just moving on with a closed mind. That's really important!
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?
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.
let me see those libertarian job retraining programs.
NASA's biggest discernible and current contribution is its earth sciences program. They work together with american agencies that cover atmosphere, land, and ocean studies, along with agencies around the world, to help develop, launch, and monitor earth monitoring and scientific satellites.
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.
On October 18 2012 08:16 Lmui wrote: Quick calculation as to why it isn't practical to travel between solar systems as of yet, even one as "close" as alpha centauri.
You have to travel ~4.3 light years and even assuming that you're accelerating at a hefty clip, (I'm going to use the value of an VASIMR engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_specific_impulse_magnetoplasma_rocket with some serious liberty as to weight and fuel costs) Assuming your only goal is to get something to there, you put a human in stasis, inside a box with whatever life support is needed, attach an engine, point in the right direction and send it off. Going by current numbers, assuming insane advances in fuel efficiency, assuming the box for the human+human weighs all of 200kg, engine weighs 200kg and fuel weighs 1600kg to give a nice even 2Mg. Using the calculator here: http://www.cthreepo.com/lab/math1.shtml/
With values of 0.005g and 4.3 light years, the travel time is 58 years, with the technology thousands of times better than what we have currently (using realistic values for the fuel load, we'd need 6-9 orders of magnitude more fuel, resulting in a need for more engines etc etc.)
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:
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.
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.
It is a mistake to try and quantify investment into science as strictly business in terms of profit.
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.
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?…
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.
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!!!!
The main point is, as many stated, that groundbreaking research does not work like in video games. You don't know what you will find before you start. Of course, you can direct research to make a better monitor or a faster car or something like that, but that is usually not really new science, just better engineering.
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.
I look at like this, there will always be major problems here on Earth. There will always be pain and suffering, we will never live in a perfect utopia. So why should we simply ignore all that is because of problems that we humans make for ourselves. All the economic issues we face are artificial. Currency and fiances are complex and imaginative endeavors created by us. Should our own silly little games take precedence over our attempts to understand the majesty and wounder of the universe? 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
Some problems are stable. These are for politicians. Some problems worsen steadily. These are for engineers. Some problems immediately threaten life, liberty or happiness. These are for physicians and soldiers. Some problems are a recurrent itch. These are for entrepreneurs. Some problems loom at the horizon of human foresight. These are for scientists.
The role of basic science and pure theory is to find solutions to the problems we don't even know are coming. Basic science and pure theory are humanity's insurance policy against the unknown unknown.
EPT![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ACaDF0kiT5I/TMCwwJujkJI/AAAAAAAAAw4/L2fawpJkYTg/s1600/crickets.jpg)
