Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Neon, Oct 8, 2013.
So now that the Islamic brotherhood is out so are we? Ironic
Good. We need to start cutting off a whole hell of a lot more foreign aid. If we don't get a serious return on our investment (coughIsraelcough) then we shouldn't be handing out food, money, and weapons like cheap Halloween candy.
Maybe we should put all of that money into science programs. But I doubt that is going to happen.
Or, you know...
Just not spend it.
Yeh, den we can blind the world or sumthin'
Don't send money, send nukes.
We have been getting a serious return on our investment from the Egyptian military. Feel free to google the list of notorious terrorists they rounded up since Morsi got overthrown.
Yes, because socializing scientific research even more, instead of limiting the government to its legitimate purpose, will be real helpful.
Yeah, because it's real helpful that we neutered NASA and other scientific pursuits that advance man kind.
1. NASA's budget has gone up in 2008 by 3 billion, and has been roughly constant ever since. NASA hasn't been neutered, its funding has been mismanaged. If you have an issue with that, then you should be against having the government in charge of space exploration, not in favor of it.
2. Judging a government program based solely on benefits, instead of a cost/benefit evaluation, is irrational. If you want to evaluate NASA, compare it to what private companies also advancing mankind could do, if they weren't being robbed of almost half their earnings every single year.
3. There is clear historical evidence proving that central planning stalls science and technology rather than further it, and leads to misery, poverty and corruption, not the advancement of mankind. Anyone arguing for the advancement of mankind through central planning, in 2013, should first go to school and study history, science and economics, and only then concern himself with "advancing mankind".
4. Even if you were right that funding NASA with my money advances mankind (and you're not, for the reasons listed above), you still wouldn't have the right to steal from me. If you think you can further mankind better than me, then you shouldn't need me to do produce the funding for your noble plans. You should earn them yourself.
The only argument I have to your very logical points is they don't work in real life. Why? Lack of mandate. We got to the moon because Kennedy said "Get us to the moon. I don't care how you fucking do it, get us there." The world is a better place because of it, regardless of the cost (which, BTW, paid itself back tenfold in innovation).
This is something private industry just can't do. There is no greater limitations you can put on creativity than fear of risk and desire for profit, both of which are essential for private industry and either of which would have killed the Apollo missions.
The proof is in the pudding. Private industry is still decades away from a viable shuttle industry. If the government gave a mandate, they could have it up and running again in just a few years.
Besides, as far as I'm concerned, NASA should be considered a 5th military branch and essential to national security...because it is.
See point nr. 3. History is real life. It all happened. It's very clear which works better, mandate or freedom.
The "real life" you're looking at isn't history, it's the rare exceptions which, due to incidental factors, seem to confirm your biases. In the case of Kennedy's mandate, the incidental factor was the Cold War, which caused central planners to be focused on this one positive goal, for a very limited time.
What you are refusing to look at is that, right after Kennedy died, LBJ took the same exact principle you're defending (that a society governed by mandate is efficient and moral) and applied it to build the "Great Society" and two decades of economic stagnation.
How do you know that private industry can't do it? In the 20th century, no country had a free industry. Companies are broken up when they grow "too big" and their ability to plan for long term, large profits is stifled by targeted taxation by politicians who govern by mandate.
Private businessmen have big dreams, and the ability to make them happen. The people stopping private companies from growing enough to achieve them have neither. Kennedy was the one, extremely lucky, extremely rare exception that happened to come along at just the right time to make something good happen through the government for a change. I wouldn't expect that to happen again anytime soon.
Here's what you are saying: a creative person acting in his own interest (taking on the amount of risk he chooses, acting for profit if he wants to) is a limitation. The government mandating what he should do instead is "relief from limitation".
I know a little bit about philosophy, so I know that this line of reasoning comes from a fella by the name of Friedrich Engels. Whenever I find myself in agreement with people like him, it causes me to immediately think things through again, even more carefully. It should cause you to do the same, what you're saying is one of the most deeply irrational things you could say.
Why limit the argument at NASA? Last time I checked most recent scientific discoveries were from universities and most were backed by research grants, even the famous Bell Labs had some government money flowing into it. Then there's discoveries that may not have any immediate profit, but could be important later on, ie Higgs Boson. Then there's the matter of companies wanting to clamp down on the information of certain advancements/discoveries which could hold back developments in other fields that could use them.
Move this shit to the science forum.
No, what I'm saying is a creative person who is no longer constrained by profit is willing and free to explore concepts and ideas for the sake of innovation and science without having to make sure it's financially viable. And with a government controlled program, if something needs to get done, it will get done even if the way they do it is not exactly efficient.
It's not that I think that private space programs are bad. It's a good thing and should continue. It's just that the government should have an active program as well, for a whole list of reasons.
For example: Like I said above, there should be a fifth military branch dedicated to space and space research. It is absolutely essential to our national security to be able to reach space on short notice. Even for such mundane things like the repairing of satellites.
Has that occurred to you? We have satellites up there that are absolutely essential to military operations and intelligence gathering, not to mention the civilian infrastructure, and our government/military has no way to fix them if they fuck up...except for asking one of our biggest enemies for help. We should be able to get get up there in short order if we need to, and the fact that we can't puts us all in danger.
And do you think China is going to give one fuck about our treaties concerning space and the moon once they get their program together? Fuck no. They will have weapons up there before you can say ching chong.
I applaud NASA's support for private industry. It's the either/or concept that I find dangerous.
If they opened a space military I'd enlist tomorrow (where I would promptly fail all the psych evals and be booted out immediately). A boy can dream...
/voted boy most likely to have slightly inflated dreams.
and this is why 0bama is cutting off aid, they are rounding up all his friends
cutting them all off.