#41. Posted:
speed
  • V5 Launch
Status: Offline
Joined: Jun 11, 200910 Year Member
Posts: 9,897
Reputation Power: 3152
Motto: "I'l no I grew up to fast speed I no u will be little famous" - Famous_Energy
eejit wroteI can show you millions who were inconvenienced by the decision to spend money on those endeavors and many others like them.


I would love to see proof of a space program directly inconveniencing millions of people. On the other hand, I would be happy to provide several examples of space programs have improved the quality of life for millions.

eejit wroteThis approach condemns potentially hundreds of thousands of people to poverty and death over theoretical science which may or may not come to fruition.


No it doesn't. This is an extremely naive and frankly uneducated view on the world's problems.

The truth is, the issues you're referencing are not solved by throwing endless amounts of money at it. The US provides billions in aid every year to African countries, on top of dozens of humanitarian charities providing direct support, and yet the conditions in these countries has not improved in any significant manner. We provide aid to North Korea, a country that is threatening to attack us with nuclear weapons, but yet they are only becoming more hostile, and famine is still destroying the country.


eejit wroteThere's no point in prolonging the inevitable death of our species by bouncing from planet to planet and condemning more people to suffer and die for untold numbers of generations when we can give people alive right now lives worth living here on Earth.


Are you sure about that? Look at it this way, if a human here on Earth is diagnosed with cancer, but has a reasonable chance at survival with treatment, are you going to deny them treatment in lieu of making their remaining days enjoyable because "hey, you're going to die some day anyways"?


Last edited by speed ; edited 1 time in total
#42. Posted:
-ShotZ-
  • Challenger
Status: Offline
Joined: Jun 09, 20163 Year Member
Posts: 131
Reputation Power: 5
The universe os as big as the universe can be , problem solved......
#43. Posted:
ProfessorNobody
  • Summer 2019
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 07, 20127 Year Member
Posts: 3,721
Reputation Power: 260
speed wrote
eejit wroteI can show you millions who were inconvenienced by the decision to spend money on those endeavors and many others like them.


I would love to see proof of a space program directly inconveniencing millions of people.

eejit wroteThis approach condemns potentially hundreds of thousands of people to poverty and death over theoretical science which may or may not come to fruition.


No it doesn't. This is an extremely naive and frankly uneducated view on the world's problems.

The truth is, the issues you're referencing are not solved by throwing endless amounts of money at it. The US provides billions in aid every year to African countries, on top of dozens of humanitarian charities providing direct support, and yet the conditions in these countries has not improved in any significant manner. We provide aid to North Korea, a country that is threatening to attack us with nuclear weapons, but yet they are only becoming more hostile, and famine is still destroying the country.


eejit wroteThere's no point in prolonging the inevitable death of our species by bouncing from planet to planet and condemning more people to suffer and die for untold numbers of generations when we can give people alive right now lives worth living here on Earth.


Are you sure about that? Look at it this way, if a human here on Earth is diagnosed with cancer, but has a reasonable chance at survival with treatment, are you going to deny them treatment in lieu of making their remaining days enjoyable because "hey, you're going to die some day anyways"?


I would love to see proof of a space program directly inconveniencing millions of people.


That would be a great response if I meant directly.
Of course the people who organize these things aren't purposefully trying to inconvenience millions of people, but they are still doing it whether they mean to or not.

If you are walking past a pond where two children are drowning and one of them happens to be yours of course you save your child but as a result the other drowns.
You indirectly inconvenienced that other child because of where you applied your attention.
Enough money is spent on space exploration each year by the world to save millions of starving children if it is applied correctly.

Indirectly they are letting these children starve to death.

On the other hand, I would be happy to provide several examples of space programs have improved the quality of life for millions.


Somebody already did, see Fold's post.

But it's besides the point anyway. I'm not suggesting that studying space can't help us as a species, i'm suggesting that now, at this point in time, we have a very good understanding of what the outcome of a certain project will be.

I'm simply suggesting that if 'helping people on Earth right now' isn't the main benefit, don't pursue it.
So the main 'benefit' to humanity gained by landing a probe on Mars is a potential future home for the species, or somewhere to colonize.
So not helping people on Earth right now in any significant way.

The main benefits to launching a satellite over an area which currently has low coverage and would help the residents of the area learn better skills, become more connected with the outside world, get aid easier and advance more quickly technologically, that is helping people on Earth right now, so go for it.

And I can see the response to this being, "But without prior space study and missions which didn't help people we wouldn't know how to do that." Which is why I said, "at this point in time."

No it doesn't. This is an extremely naive and frankly uneducated view on the world's problems.

The truth is, the issues you're referencing are not solved by throwing endless amounts of money at it. The US provides billions in aid every year to African countries, on top of dozens of humanitarian charities providing direct support, and yet the conditions in these countries has not improved in any significant manner. We provide aid to North Korea, a country that is threatening to attack us with nuclear weapons, but yet they are only becoming more hostile, and famine is still destroying the country.


This is perfectly fine in conjunction with your world view, but it doesn't make sense in conjunction with mine.
In yours it is perfectly OK to spend this money and time looking at space exploration because, after all, it's a pretty insignificant amount of money and it could save the species in the future. Worth it.

In mine, like I pointed out at the end of my last post, it doesn't make any sense to not spend this money and effort - I should have been more clear on the effort part - on people living on Earth right now.

Also, I'm not talking about any specific issues. I'm talking about the simple fact that there are people in the world who are in poverty. There is money being spent on space exploration which, if put towards helping those in poverty, could save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

I'm not suggesting that scrapping all of the space programs in the world will solve world hunger.
I'm suggesting that a large, but limited, number of people can be helped if we apply a large, but limited, amount of money towards helping them instead of using that money for space exploration.

I don't understand how that can be disputed, it's just a matter of how you distribute the money.

Are you sure about that? Look at it this way, if a human here on Earth is diagnosed with cancer, but has a reasonable chance at survival with treatment, are you going to deny them treatment in lieu of making their remaining days enjoyable because "hey, you're going to die some day anyways"?


A more accurate analogy in relation to what I'm saying would be where every single human on Earth is diagnosed with cancer and every single one of their descendants will be diagnosed with cancer and the treatment will work for maybe 10% of those people who can live in comfort for their lives, but the rest would be condemned to pain and suffering until they eventually die.

So no, I wouldn't cure 10% of the humans alive today.

In this analogy - If I were the psychopath in charge of making these decisions - I'd spend all the money in the world making a cure for this cancer which worked for everybody alive today and make everyone infertile at the same time.

Trust me speed, I have looked into every single counter argument to this view that I have been able to get my hands on, all the way down to the very specific wording in some of the premises made by the philosophers who 'invented' this worldview and I haven't been convinced by any of them and I want to be convinced by them because of course this is a terrible way to see the world.

So you're welcome to try debating this but I think you're wasting your time - not because you are wrong but simply because I probably won't be convinced by anything you say because I will have seen it before.
Like I have said already, I think it comes down to personality and more than simple rhetoric to determine whether or not someone is convinced by this.


Last edited by ProfessorNobody ; edited 3 times in total
#44. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: May 28, 20172 Year Member
Posts: 176
Reputation Power: 23
I believe that the universe is quite big and I also think that we're not the only ones in this universe our planet belongs to. I personally love the study of the universe!
#45. Posted:
Maj
  • Shoutbox Hero
Status: Offline
Joined: Mar 30, 20146 Year Member
Posts: 3,588
Reputation Power: 373
It's big enough, that's all I need to know
#46. Posted:
speed
  • Gold Member
Status: Offline
Joined: Jun 11, 200910 Year Member
Posts: 9,897
Reputation Power: 3152
Motto: "I'l no I grew up to fast speed I no u will be little famous" - Famous_Energy
eejit wroteThat would be a great response if I meant directly.
Of course the people who organize these things aren't purposefully trying to inconvenience millions of people, but they are still doing it whether they mean to or not.


Again, please provide proof.

eejit wroteIf you are walking past a pond where two children are drowning and one of them happens to be yours of course you save your child but as a result the other drowns.
You indirectly inconvenienced that other child because of where you applied your attention.
Enough money is spent on space exploration each year by the world to save millions of starving children if it is applied correctly.

Indirectly they are letting these children starve to death.


That is a horrible argument. Using your logic, I could say that you are indirectly responsible for a person dying in Africa this week because you bought a new video game rather than buying them food.

A more accurate analogy in relation to what I'm saying would be where every single human on Earth is diagnosed with cancer and every single one of their descendants will be diagnosed with cancer and the treatment will work for maybe 10% of those people who can live in comfort for their lives, but the rest would be condemned to pain and suffering until they eventually die.

So no, I wouldn't cure 10% of the humans alive today.


This might be a valid point, except 90% of the world is not in life threatening poverty, nor are they "condemned to pain and suffering". I agree that for the other 10% that are in that situation, it is terrible, but again, it is not as simple as throwing money at the problem.

In this analogy - If I were the psychopath in charge of making these decisions - I'd spend all the money in the world making a cure for this cancer which worked for everybody alive today and make everyone infertile at the same time.


Again, throwing more money at a problem doesn't work. For yet another example, let's look at actual cancer, which is arguably the most dangerous disease humanity is currently facing. Based on a quick search, global spending for cancer research is sitting somewhere around 100 Billion dollars per year. While we are definitely making progress, we are very far from any real cure.

However, NASA has a budget of ~18B per year. Of that, 8B is allocated towards space exploration.

So if we're throwing 100B/yr at cancer research and only making modest progress, how do you expect diverting 8B in funding would make a difference in a much larger problem like global famine?

Trust me speed, I have looked into every single counter argument to this view that I have been able to get my hands on, all the way down to the very specific wording in some of the premises made by the philosophers who 'invented' this worldview and I haven't been convinced by any of them and I want to be convinced by them because of course this is a terrible way to see the world.

So you're welcome to try debating this but I think you're wasting your time. Like I have said already, I think it comes down to personality and more than simple rhetoric to determine whether or not someone is convinced by this.


Fair enough. If arguing with facts isn't going to change your view, I won't continue. I will only say that taking a stance like that is dangerously ignorant.


Last edited by speed ; edited 1 time in total
#47. Posted:
Rareparrot
  • Fairy Master
Status: Offline
Joined: Jan 09, 20155 Year Member
Posts: 4,137
Reputation Power: 1246
Motto: Call of duty is for real men. Lnite is for kids.
Y U NO BAN YET NO ARGUE WITH STAFF
#48. Posted:
ProfessorNobody
  • TTG Contender
Status: Offline
Joined: Nov 07, 20127 Year Member
Posts: 3,721
Reputation Power: 260
speed wrote
eejit wroteThat would be a great response if I meant directly.
Of course the people who organize these things aren't purposefully trying to inconvenience millions of people, but they are still doing it whether they mean to or not.


Again, please provide proof.

eejit wroteIf you are walking past a pond where two children are drowning and one of them happens to be yours of course you save your child but as a result the other drowns.
You indirectly inconvenienced that other child because of where you applied your attention.
Enough money is spent on space exploration each year by the world to save millions of starving children if it is applied correctly.

Indirectly they are letting these children starve to death.


That is a horrible argument. Using your logic, I could say that you are indirectly responsible for a person dying in Africa this week because you bought a new pair of shoes rather than buying them food.

A more accurate analogy in relation to what I'm saying would be where every single human on Earth is diagnosed with cancer and every single one of their descendants will be diagnosed with cancer and the treatment will work for maybe 10% of those people who can live in comfort for their lives, but the rest would be condemned to pain and suffering until they eventually die.

So no, I wouldn't cure 10% of the humans alive today.


This might be a valid point, except 90% of the world is not in life threatening poverty, nor are they "condemned to pain and suffering". I agree that for the other 10% that are in that situation, it is terrible, but again, it is not as simple as throwing money at the problem.

In this analogy - If I were the psychopath in charge of making these decisions - I'd spend all the money in the world making a cure for this cancer which worked for everybody alive today and make everyone infertile at the same time.


Again, throwing more money at a problem doesn't work. For yet another example, let's look at actual cancer, which is arguably the most dangerous disease humanity is currently facing. Based on a quick search, global spending for cancer research is sitting somewhere around 100 Billion dollars per year. While we are definitely making progress, we are very far from any real cure.

However, NASA has a budget of ~18B per year. Of that, 8B is allocated towards space exploration.

So if we're throwing 100B/yr at cancer research and only making modest progress, how do you expect diverting 8B in funding would make a difference in a much larger problem like global famine?

Trust me speed, I have looked into every single counter argument to this view that I have been able to get my hands on, all the way down to the very specific wording in some of the premises made by the philosophers who 'invented' this worldview and I haven't been convinced by any of them and I want to be convinced by them because of course this is a terrible way to see the world.

So you're welcome to try debating this but I think you're wasting your time. Like I have said already, I think it comes down to personality and more than simple rhetoric to determine whether or not someone is convinced by this.


Fair enough. If arguing with facts isn't going to change your view, I won't continue. I will only say that taking a stance like that is dangerously ignorant.


Again, please provide proof.


Come on man, seriously? You know that logically you can't provide anything more than a rational proof for an indirect link between things.
If you're telling me that spending money on one thing rather than another doesn't mean that you are indirectly neglecting the thing you don't spend money on then I can't do anything for you.

That is a horrible argument. Using your logic, I could say that you are indirectly responsible for a person dying in Africa this week because you bought a new pair of shoes rather than buying them food.


Yes, exactly. This is exactly right. Look into some ethical works by Peter Singer and William Macaskill. They provide very interesting views on charity and how we might be ethically responsible for donating as much money as we can to charity. William Macaskill has actually set up his own charity where he guarantees that if you donate around $1200 (I forget the exact figure) then you will have saved someone's life, you will have effectively saved a child drowning in a pond.

This might be a valid point, except 90% of the world is not in life threatening poverty, nor are they "condemned to pain and suffering". I agree that for the other 10% that are in that situation, it is terrible, but again, it is not as simple as throwing money at the problem.


If we're talking about suffering in general, which I am, then I was being conservative with 90%.
100% of people go through life with suffering, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by not including those we would consider rich.

Again, throwing more money at a problem doesn't work. For yet another example, let's look at actual cancer, which is arguably the most dangerous disease humanity is currently facing. Based on a quick search, global spending for cancer research is sitting somewhere around 100 Billion dollars per year. While we are definitely making progress, we are very far from any real cure.

However, NASA has a budget of ~18B per year. Of that, 8B is allocated towards space exploration.

So if we're throwing 100B/yr at cancer research and only making modest progress, how do you expect diverting 8B in funding would make a difference in a much larger problem like global famine?


It would make a difference to the people that this $8bn helped.
I said I didn't expect to solve world hunger or cure cancer, but helping $8bn worth of people is better than helping none.

Fair enough. If arguing with facts isn't going to change your view, I won't continue. I will only say that taking a stance like that is dangerously ignorant.


I said this in another post on this topic but I'll say it again:

This is one of the few topics regarding science and the application of science where what we view as truth is predicated on our opinion, rather than the other way around.

In your world view your facts, which are facts in both world views, support your point. In my world view they weaken your point and you are simply giving me amounts of money to throw towards helping people in poverty.

It doesn't matter if it's $100bn or $1bn being spent on space exploration, either amount is better spent helping people on Earth, according to my view, and in yours it is better spent exploring space for the future of humanity.

Roblox wroteY U NO BAN YET NO ARGUE WITH STAFF


There's a difference between arguing with staff decisions regarding warnings and bans and having a friendly debate with staff on a topic.


Last edited by ProfessorNobody ; edited 2 times in total
#49. Posted:
k3rry
  • Christmas!
Status: Offline
Joined: Aug 20, 20109 Year Member
Posts: 1,091
Reputation Power: 151
I wanna get rich enough so I can colonize mars before Tesla does it.
#50. Posted:
SasukeUzamaki
  • TTG Senior
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 15, 20109 Year Member
Posts: 1,138
Reputation Power: 45
ip wroteAnd people still believe that we are the only things in the universe...


Size is irrespective, a counter argument being surely since the universe is so big, surely we cannot be the most adcanced civillisation, why has another civillisation not revealed their presence. Research the fermi paradox. Personally though, I do believe there are other forms of sentient life out there, but the specific conditions for life to flourish and to reach this is advancement in technology may actually be as rare as we think.
Users browsing this topic: None
Jump to:


RECENT POSTS

HOT TOPICS