MrPopo wrote:
I disagree. If we are assuming that the taxes are being taken anyway then it stops being five bad options. They only become bad options if there is a sixth: don't take the taxes. But positing that we have the tax money already available then we are going to spend it on something. It could be defecit reduction, space program, military, or buying hats for everyone in America. Some of these are good options and some are bad (and I'm not going to get into the relative nature of good vs. bad). Now, if we start off with the money not being available yet, then the options become:
1. Do not take money
2. Take money for space program
3. Take money for hats
...
In which case positing that taking people's money is a bad thing then you do have a single good option and five bad options, of which one will be the least bad.
Hmmm... I'm not sure I totally understand what you're driving at here. I do realize, however, that I did not completely clarify my assumptions in my final paragraph. Since crux said that the government would have likely spent the money on something else that was bad if not for the space program, I implicitly assumed this. However, I did not state it, and I probably should have.
I think we're in agreement that not taking the money from people in the first place is a "good" option.
However, where I get lost in your post is that you appear to be discussing relative goodness, but you then say that you don't want to the relative nature of good versus bad. From where I sit, that is exactly what you are discussing, but perhaps I am misunderstanding.
I do not see how those five bad spending options are only bad if the option of not taking the money in the first place is available.
What I was arguing was this statement:
If you have five bad options, you have five bad options.
The statement was implying no good option for spending the money. I probably confused it as the options I listed my rank good or bad to different people. It was originally said that one might rather have the money spent on the space program than something else. Then you came in with the five bad options, which I felt was implying there was no good option to spend the money on.
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
MrPopo wrote:
What I was arguing was this statement:
If you have five bad options, you have five bad options.
The statement was implying no good option for spending the money.
Oh, no. I never meant to imply that there were no good options for spending money. My only point was that the judgment on whether it was a good idea to go to the moon did not depend on what the other options for spending the money were. Even if they were all five bad choices, that wouldn't make going to the moon a good choice.
ZeroAX wrote:if you don't like how your tax money is being spend, you could always move to another country.
This is a fallacious argument. I don't like how any other country would spend my tax dollars, either. That doesn't mean the US is doing it right.
if you decide to be a part of society you'll play by it's rules. unless most people don't like those rules and they get changed (peacefully or otherwise)
Yeah, because people totally choose what country to be born in. Why the heck do I have to be part of a society at all? Why can't I just mind my own business and not have someone who lives a thousand miles away from me just mind his own business? I'm not referring to your specifically here. In the United States, everyone in minding everyone else's business.
And what's so special about "most people?" Most people like chocolate. You like vanilla? Too bad, you're getting chocolate.
2)you got beaten to the most useful ( and I mean REALLY earth changing useful) application of space exploration. The satelite. The entire space program of both the US and USSR was worth it just for these lovely machines, that helped create the internet, made communication around the globe possible, google earth, and of course gives secret agencies around the world the means to spy on us
I have stated previously that I am a fan of unmanned space flight and that unmanned space flight has actually been productive and worthwhile. See my previous post where I quote crux. I mention it specifically. The bulk of the unmanned program has consisted of satellites. This work could easily have been accomplished without sending a couple of guys to walk around and play golf on the moon.
3)I think the world preferred a stupid race to the moon to yell first, than you guys to start WW3 and fuck the planet up with nukes.
Yes, the world is completely binary and the only two options were to either send a guy to the moon or blow up the planet.
Hatta wrote:Basic research (which lunar exploration is) pays better dividends than any other investment. What we paid to go to the moon we got back many times over in advances in computers, rocketry, plastics, etc.
I am a researcher. I know the value of research. However, imagine if all the cash dumped into sending a couple of guys to space was actually poured directly into research in computers, plastics, powdered orange drinks, microwave ovens, non-stick cooking surfaces, etc...
We could have done the research for all of those things without sending a guy to the moon. The trip really was just to be able to say we did it.
I have to admit that I am OBSESSED with outer space. I have no regrets that the people before me chose to support the space program and I am sad that it is not supported more. I find the whole thing fascinating. I know that might just be my opinion, but I also feel it is useful. Perhaps the conversation will switch again, but I think global warming is a very real thing and space travel provides one (even if farfetched) solution for saving the species. Although I do think, if we kill our own planet, we should not be given a second chance. I am a biology - ecology major and I am surprised how many people still don't take global warming seriously. Most scientists agree that there is a warming affect occurring globally. But before I say too much more, I would like to hear everyone else's opinion first.
I could totally understand how people wouldn't wanting to go to the moon. I can understand where this idea comes from. Understanding it though does not mean I accept or agree, actually my understanding of why people would be against it is why I am for it (well would have been in the time of it, and causes me to see why it was useful in its time). But you have to admit it was a goal that could be used to get a lot of people behind and create projects for advancing research in a lot of fields and drive creativity and the sort.
To get the "if you don't like how your tax money is being spend, you could always move to another country." out of the way first... In this country we like to pride ourselves on our freedoms, but sometimes we like to come together and set a common goal. It allows us to work as a county, one of the prime reasons for having a country. You have someone to depend on. If we all just minded our own business, what is the point of government in the first place? And we can't say "military protection". It's sad to think protection is the only reason, that's like saying you have friends only to back you up in a fight at the bar. Also because that is drawing a line in the sand about what countries are for... the line was never drawn for this country, the founding fathers did not say: "the U.S. gov't is soulily for military protection"... nor did they draw ANY line beyond or before that. Problem with choices and different options put into place in our government is some people WON'T agree, so it is done in a way so that MOST agree (not to say the modern beuracracy of gov't is doing a good job at distinguishing most, but I'm considering the theory of the U.S. gov't, not the actual implementation there in).
Now back at the space thing. I don't think it was a "we did it first thing" only, yes that played a big part. It was the "pep rally" to get everyone behind it. The nation as a whole (the people in it, a nation is nothing with out its people) needed pride and something to say they as a nation did. It would bring us together! We're talking about an age when we just came out of the depression, two world wars, and the Korean War, other skirmishes and nonsense, and were in the midst of the Cold War.
It was war all around... the people of our nation were upset and discouraged as a people. The entire WORLD was in such a state. I mean consider it, the first half of the 20th century was non stop war all around the world over multiple reasons. We tend to only remember one war (WWII to be exact), but there were far more wars then that. 3 huge our country ourselves were a part of. And when I say huge, HUGE, those three wars were horrendous, deadly, and world altering. Even more so then Vietnam (the biggest war of the end of the 20th century).
Getting to the moon was a goal that scientists considered obtainable, and it was something so romantic and awesome that people could REALLY be proud of it. And get behind it.
FURTHERMORE it gave a REASON to develope certain technologies. For instance the first computers were designed and implemented in the creation of the Atomic Bomb (I'm not going to say it was for, but it was the first actual research use of the contemporary computer). Then it kind of fizzled, research and development for computers didn't really advance in the decade following. With the space race it gave a huge public reason to develop more on it, not just gov't contract work on computer research... but broad PUBLIC research. It introduced the nation to what a computer WAS... before which computers mostly existed as science fiction in the consumer realm.
Continuing it created demand in several fields. It inspired boys around the country to become scientists. How many baby boomers out there that are scientists today point at the lunar landing as their boyhood dream and inspiration for the field of science they now pioneer and work in? Cause I'll say, it's a freakin' LOT.
Scientific fields had to be expanded upon and actually implemented for once. We've been messing around with closed Physics systems for years theoretically describing how objects would move in space, but here we finally have a chance to put into test these theories and actually use them for our own gain. No longer is it observing an action in space from a far and seeing if it fit the model of our theory, we're going to go up there and actually do it. Keep in mind before the lunar race we weren't really doing SHIT in space, no one really cared.
Back at the technology front as well all kinds of stuff had to be invented for the space ships to get up there. Advanced rocket engineering, life sustaining systems in the most life threatening place known to man, as mentioned computers, plastics, etc etc... all stuff you bring up pumping finances into... well that's what it DID, it created a REASON to investigate and advance in these fields.
"so bob, what are you doing?"
"I'm developing a new plastic that can withstand the vacuum of space."
"why? It's not like we're in space schmoe"
"ummm, cause, ummm, I don't know... there is probably some use we could think of for it."
That's not how ideas go. People usually set out to develope and devise a way to accomplish something with a goal in mind. With an objective to overcome. Going to space created tons of scenarios for us to try and reach for and overcome which inspired amazing creativity.
Prior to the space race technological advancement was stagnate and not going much of anywhere. People weren't highly concerned. Some scientists who were in it for a pure love for science were doing it, but the numbers were small. They were the nerdiest of the nerds. The space race brought science into the living room, it brought technology to the dinner table, it let mom and dad know what it was and what it can do. Inspired little boys and girls to dream of one day being a scientist when before they dreamed of doctors, firemen, and cowboys (all noble jobs... well not cowboys... but still not the same). Also by showing mom and dad, very old fashioned people at the time (coming out of the depression and pre-modern world) the usefulness for allowing their children to study in this fields.
"Dad, I want to be a micro electronic engineer."
"A hooza whatzit? No son, you're going to take over the family business."
"But Dad micro electronics are amazing and it's my passion."
"And what are you going to do with it?"
"Make robots and computers and other amazing technological feats for the world."
"Whoza WHAT? What are those things? More of the science fiction mumbo-jumbo... you need to stop reading comic books son and start learning the family business."
Space, and our exploration of it, opened our eyes to the usefulness of these technologies. It let the "regular joe" know it ISN'T all science fiction, and that the dreams and passions of little boys and girls were all actually moving towards a real tangible future! Before the space race going to the moon was comparable to a lot of technology... technology as a whole was stated with common phrases and analogies of "going to the moon". Similar to the phrase "when pigs fly". Now the idea of space is so common knowledge the entire concept and analogy has been turned around to "why can't I do this, we've put a fucking man on the moon, but I can't have such and such technology." Imagine a day WHEN pigs fly, the whole concept of flying pigs would be so tangible that the idea of saying "when pigs fly" would seem ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as thinking the world is flat.
You owe things like the space race for your own passion for the industry. And any scientist worth his salt would realize this. Research money isn't the ONLY thing that fuels research... it is creativity, ambition, and focalized goals!!
Imagine that, the gov't set a goal that was attainable and inspired great passion in the people to develope for it. There's only a few things that really can create such a comotion in the people. And the sad thing is the most common movement that drives such creativity is war, most technology in the history of man has been in preperation of war. At least the space race was a bit more peaceful then that. Not saying it was all peaceful, I'll admit the space race was very much so tied into the cold war and preparation against possible attacks with them (which brings up other reasons for having it). But as a nation, as for the people, we looked at it as a civil race between us and Russia (well as civil as you could be with an enemy).
Limewater wrote:Even if they were all five bad choices, that wouldn't make going to the moon a good choice.
This assumes a certain amount of optimism that their is a good choice. I don't have that much intrinsic faith in our government to assume that's always the case. I'd rather simply posit that there's always a better choice and that the better choice should win over the worse choice.
I agree that significant advancements have been made through the space program, but I also agree that we're making a HUGE assumption that the same money couldn't also be spent on the advancement of science on something a little more directly suited towards our goals. For instance, I completely agree with research of satellites that predominantly took place in the 50's, partly a consequence of the Cold War. But lets not pretend that satellites wouldn't have arrived without a space program intending to send man to the moon. The Exploration of Cosmic Space by Means of Reaction Devices was written in 1903. The groundwork was laid down long before the Cold War.
Of course, I am ignoring the social implications of things like the moon landing. It wasn't simply an example of the advancement of science, but it was a promotion of science. The value of such huge publicity simply cannot be understated. It has undoubtedly paid for itself many times over in the amount of people it inspired. However, the price we continue to pay for the advancement of space exploration doesn't exactly pay for itself in the same way. I have no doubts that significant advancements for mankind will continue to come from advancements in the space program. It's silly to suggest, however, that just as many advancements wouldn't come if we spent that same money directly on research to benefit mankind.
And by the way, duct: Brevity, my friend. Brevity.
but no one suggests that it wouldn't have come at other means.
If I bicycle to work, or drive a car to work. Either way I got to work... because one may be sugjectively better then the other, does not mean the former is worthless.
As for brevity, it's the way I enjoy my time. A man who feels he hasn't wasted his own time, hasn't.
It's not about whether it wouldn't have come by other means, but whether more advancement would come from more direct expenditures of resources. Again, I'm not disputing the promotion of science, but truthfully the most significant press NASA got after the moon landings was probably the unfortunate launch of Challenger in 1986.
crux wrote:It's not about whether it wouldn't have come by other means, but whether more advancement would come from more direct expenditures of resources. Again, I'm not disputing the promotion of science, but truthfully the most significant press NASA got after the moon landings was probably the unfortunate launch of Challenger in 1986.
Aw true, but that's the continuation of NASA and how NASA goals were directed since the lunar landing. My extraordinarily long (which is a lot since my posts tend to be long already) post was merely about the lunar mission and nothing about NASAs actions since. I was merely commenting on the "social implications" of promoting science in the time when the lunar mission dreamed up.
The entire direction of the forum discussion had moved to the lunar mission, and I was commenting directly on that topic.
Could the funds be placed elsewhere TODAY? Yeah, most certainly, especially today seeing as the "pep rally" bit has been done and people have been quickly coerced into the new technological age (with one hell of a show I might add). Todays usefulness of NASA, semi-useful in specific fields. But the overall budget they're afforded... oh please.
But in the same respect I will say a good deal of the budget is placed into two majour classes. The management, maintenance, and forward production of statellites, an integral part of our modern infrastructure. And the international foreign relation via the international space station (though I think we are very limited on the international scope, India and China's forward thinking jump into the pool has made me very happy).
On top of that some more funding should be alotted, I think future plans for space are very important in understanding.
But beyond some fair funding (after those first two important things) things should be scaled down. We have a lot of things here on Earth that get no where near the same funding today.
