Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Luke_Prowler]

The space program is important in the same way that recycling and research for alternate fuels is important. It may not look like it's doing anything, but ignoring it would screw us over in the long run.

On topic, The problem is not just that you're relying on the government to be good, you're relying on EVERYONE to be good. It like playing Russain Roulette with five of the chambers loaded instead of one.

[Lagslayer]

How do we use that for fission? Are you saying there is uranium on the moon?
Furthermore, in our situation, it is undeniably smart to cut the space program. The cost of getting industrial equipment up there is simply too great. We have our economy to worry about atm, and putting the program off a few years wont affect us in the future in a considerable cashion You talk about nuclear power on the moon while our scientists on Earth are unable to figure out fusion because of lack of funding. Funds need to go where it matters, and we can get back to the space program when our economy isn't in shambles.

About the elevator, that is my point. NASA wants to study microbes on Mars. The thought idea of sending industrial equipment to the moon is far too costly to consider. It would cost trillions of dollars and take decades to set up.

Oops, it's actually Helium 3, which can be used for fusion, not fission. It is ejected by the sun, but our atmosphere deflects most of it. The moon has no atmosphere, so the rocks absorb it.

More money needs to be put into nuclear as well.

Also, refer to my previous post. NASA hardly gets anything anymore.

[xtank5]

Why is it valuable though? Do tell.

Space holds vast amounts of resources and knowledge. Asteroids and comets can provide raw materials that can be mundane or exotic.  The hard vacuum of space can be useful for manufacturing (ex: very clean-rooms for semi-conductors) or experiments that require such a vacuum, and zero-gravity can also provide new insights into certain scientific fields and provide advantages to manufacturing as well.  Plus there's the whole "oh shit, there goes the Earth, let's go find a new home guys."  Of course, I'm no expert on the subject, but to me the above information makes sense.
Back on topic:

No, socialism is not really that bad.  So long as socialist programs work towards the common good of society (security, safety, healthcare, welfare, education, etc.) while maintaining the freedoms to which we are entitled (free speech, etc.) and ensuring our rights are protected.  The people in charge just need to make sure everything is handled properly and that people don't try to cheat or abuse the system.  Of course, this is very hard to do.

The reasons why socialism is hard to execute properly can vary from situation to situation and from the opinions of the observers.  It is my opinion that socialism is hard to execute because there are people who either abuse their power for their own benefit or are manipulated in such a way for others' benefit, that socialist programs are never implemented or implemented badly (at least from the perspective of the people).  This causes a negative image for socialist reforms and may lead to a public feeling that every socialist reform that comes their way will ultimately fail, which winds up becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy due to lack of perceived support from the people for the government and because the people do not push hard enough for the government to get it right.  All it takes is one good fuck-up to screw everyone over.

TL;DR
Socialism can be good, so long as it is implemented properly, which is easier said than done.

Fakeedit: (goddamn ninjas)

Spoiler: Off topic (click to show/hide)

...
And it doesn't look like we'll get a space elevator up soon. Maybe, but even then it would take a ridiculous amount of power to run the thing. We'd need advancements in every field to get everything to work.

From a pragmatic point of view, this idea would be utterly ludicrous, considering the amount of debt we are in at the moment.

Emphasis mine.

Sure.  We may not be able to get a space elevator up any time soon, but if it is as you say, and we will need advancements in every field, is that a bad thing?  Technical advancements in one field can lead to advancements in other fields, sometimes unrelated ones.  For example: improved materials technology cold lead to improved medical devices, etc.  Besides, it's not like we would spend trillions and develop the space elevator in 10 years.  It is also unlikely to be developed by a single nation.  If anything, a Space elevator would be (best) built on or very near the equator.  I'm also a little optimistic that the nations of the world would be pleased-as-punch to have a substantially cheaper way to get their people (scientists and businessmen alike) into orbit and would cooperate towards that end.  Besides, the technology needed to build the damn thing hardly exists.  It'll take years, maybe decades, to develop all of it.  Every step, from R&D to construction, would have to take place in stages. Thus, the enormous cost would be spread over years of R&D that would be applicable in other fields, years of construction, and many wealthy nations.  The whole point is to not get a space elevator up soon, just when we can.

More Goddamn ninjas!

Spoiler: Also off topic (click to show/hide)

Yes. Cuts to the space program are needed, as I said, but the worry is that we will never get back to it.

No. I disagree.  Research into space ought to benefit us when we do get a space elevator.

Also:
(On topic because Keynesian Economic Theory is socialist)
All this talk about not spending money when the economy is in shambles makes me sad.  I personally believe in Keynesian economics.  The government should spend money and incur a deficit when the economy is poor to encourage growth (the R&D sectors might not need the funding so much but you still have to make sure the scientists are employed) and the government should save money when the economy is rich to discourage an unstable "boom" and to cover it's losses for when times are tough.  It goes against conventional thinking ("live within your means"), but it works.  Even the squirrels do it.

Edit: Added punctuation to some areas.

[_DivideByZero_]

Yes. Cuts to the space program are needed, as I said, but the worry is that we will never get back to it.

Ah, my apologies then. It is best to wait until technology permits us, however. Scans of the moon would make sense for the future, but attempts to find intelligent life that likely wont even effect us in millennia are pointless. I think we should leave mars alone for now.

Anyway, time to resume discussion.

@Luke the difference is that space travel is far, far beyond practicality at the moment.

@Lag Ah, I see. nuclear power has a great deal promised for us. It would be a shame to let our efforts in fusion die. We are getting close, anyway.
However, isn't helium the byproduct of fusion, not the fuel? I can read up on it later, though.

@xtank the issue is that this will, as I have stated, an absurd amount of funding to exploit. Right now we have a recession and debt to deal with.

Phew, typed all but the first two posts on my Android. Hooray for TouchPal!

[Nikov]

I had to check the date on the OP to make sure this wasn't a necro.

Needless to say I shall not be participating in Socialism Thread Part DCVIII.

[xtank5]

Spoiler: Off Topic (click to show/hide)

Ah, my apologies then. It is best to wait until technology permits us, however. Scans of the moon would make sense for the future, but attempts to find intelligent life that likely wont even effect us in millennia are pointless. I think we should leave mars alone for now.

I think probes ought to be okay, but we should focus on outer Earth orbit.

@xtank the issue is that this will, as I have stated, an absurd amount of funding to exploit. Right now we have a recession and debt to deal with.

Emphasis mine.

I think you may have missed the last bit in my post about Keynesian Economics.

I had to check the date on the OP to make sure this wasn't a necro.

Needless to say I shall not be participating in Socialism Thread Part DCVIII.

You just did.

[Criptfeind]

No. I disagree.  Research into space ought to benefit us when we do get a space elevator.

Honestly, it was a much more complicated thing. I mean, there is the whole debate. Should we try to spend our way out or save our way out, ect ect. I do not want to get into that so I chose the simplest option to make my point.

Also, I am not sure if the government should be doing the research directly.

[TherosPherae]

I think socialism might be just that bad because, well, when you give power over to the government, eventually a total douchebag will be elected, appointed, or otherwise come into power. And then he passes some legislation that pretty much screws everyone over.

There's also the fact that with socialism, the regulations that are made tend to treat everyone equally in every regard. Fact of the matter is, people aren't completely and totally equal. I know that usually, I can't write worth crap, and my art skills are... lacking, in my opinion. I know people who can't do certain things as well as I can, but can blow me out of the water in other regards. Regulations passed in a socialistic regard probably won't account for some of the differences in people, and many won't get to realize their full potential because of it.

There's also problems with all the greedy people - y'know, the ones with the drive to earn all that money - who want to not share money that they earn from having some brilliant and highly marketable idea. So they'll take their brilliant and highly marketable idea elsewhere, keep their money, and the people living under socialism are worse off for it, if just because they miss out on whatever the idea was.

Just my thoughts, and I'll explain them if need arises. I know that my thinking isn't perfect, but neither is my comprehension, so if you point out an error, please do so in such a way that your average moron on the street could understand it.

[Ethicalfive]

Why is it valuable though? Do tell.

Preventing meteorite based extinctions is pretty valuable. Burying your head in the sand is not going to stop these kinds of impacts. They happen all the time, just take a look a look at the moon or mars for direct proof. Your dreaming if you think we can deal with an impending impact of this kind without further funding and research.

Then, theres existing stuff like GPS and weather monitoring satellites that make life easier and more predictable for us.

[Criptfeind]

I got to say, I am a paranoid guy. If I had my way humanity would be spread as far as possible throughout space so that even if we lose a entire solar system we will as a species go on.

Of course when we are go spread apart that it takes a thousand years to get from one end of our space to the other we will not be the same 'species' per say, but at least the decedents of humanity will live on in some form.

Edit: Although I think if this happened it would be a good idea for each system to beam it's dictionary to the other systems once per year. Even though it would take a hundred years to get to the farthest away humans, I still think the ability to talk to one another is something we should strive to keep.

[thobal]

Space travel may be impractical, but only politically. Very efficient engine designs were banned under treaty in the 1960s.

Also, I think there are some(less controversial) constant thrust systems in development that could put us on mars in a month. Those rovers only took 6 months to get there. And that was on top of a Delta-IIH. Not exactly the biggest shark in the tank.

Sure, it's not man rated, but most people don't even know what that means.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

For those of you that don't know what "man-rated" means, it refers to the stress tolerances of structural components. It doesn't have anything to do with acceleration levels. Just the amount of stress above expected loads that the boosters structure must be built to withstand. Unmanned boosters dont need as high a safety margin as the ones carrying the most highly trained professionals in the world.

As for socialism...
What could possibly be wrong about cooperation? Personally, I've always been attracted to the idea of council communism, but for some reason, people that advocate it always seem to disappear during "communist" revolutions. That or jump out of windows onto some bullets.

So yeah, no democratic communism for anyone. It sucks. Even though it would be so do able in today's era of instant communications. It's still a bad idea and I wont

[lemon10]

Why is it valuable though? Do tell.

Preventing meteorite based extinctions is pretty valuable. Burying your head in the sand is not going to stop these kinds of impacts. They happen all the time, just take a look a look at the moon or mars for direct proof. Your dreaming if you think we can deal with an impending impact of this kind without further funding and research.

Then, theres existing stuff like GPS and weather monitoring satellites that make life easier and more predictable for us.

The last (only?) meteorite based extinction event was 65 million years ago, odds are pretty good that humanity will never get hit by one in its lifespan unless we survive for far more then a million years (even after 50 million years we would be unlikely to experience a extinction event asteroid), humanity at that point is impossible to predict, as we are unable to accuratley predict even a hundred years into the future.
If one happens in a million years or even within 10 thousand years, we will be far more advanced technologically (or back to cavemen/ascended/went into computer simulations, hard to tell), and a meteor would pose little threat (or if we regressed back to cavemen would wipe us all out).

There's also problems with all the greedy people - y'know, the ones with the drive to earn all that money - who want to not share money that they earn from having some brilliant and highly marketable idea. So they'll take their brilliant and highly marketable idea elsewhere, keep their money, and the people living under socialism are worse off for it, if just because they miss out on whatever the idea was.

Most of the people who have tons of money simply have money. While the top 1% surely does contribute their share to society, they don't contribute nearly as much as they have (eg. the top 1% has over twice as much wealth as the bottom 80%), nor nearly as much as they earn (eg. a ceo at a S&P 500 company doesn't contribute $11 million to the economy).

Pure socialism would cause lots of hard to fix problems, but the united states does need to more more in that direction (or at least away from the corpratocracy we currently are).

[Glowcat]

The only problem with Socialism is that it requires a greater degree of control and therefore competence. Since competence is largely a product of leaders, it doesn't work very well in countries where half the leadership despises government whenever it does something pro-active other than throwing money at corporations, throwing money at themselves, or enforcing their traditions on a country at the expense of the common good. Neither are good leaders elected when the population is kept ignorant, higher education despised as elitist, and peoples' fears constantly stoked for political gain.

However, the problem is more of a hurdle than a con, as there is no real alternative.

[Phmcw]

I would fight total socialism just as hard that I fight pure capitalism (Fear me Stalin, 'cause I would totally bash you on videogames forums).

But a mix of market economy and socialism (meaning heavy social security, welfare and health-care) work for me.
I don't care how much the top 1% earn as long as the bottom live decently. And that even if you got a very expensive health problem you can pay for it.
Of course you must heave environmental regulation, anti trust systems, and worker safety regulations, to pally for the deficiencies of capitalism.

Well all the above is the accepted meaning for socialism in Europe. But it's also the accepted meaning for right and conservative. The only problem is that those asshole politician are trying to use the system at their advantage.

[Strife26]

Because Capitalism is soooo much more efficient than socialism. While there are certain markets that are best administrated by the government, and while the government has to tax and regulate industries in such a way that negative and positive externalities are taken care of properly, private industries will always have a better motive than government to excel -> the profit motive.


Obviously, a lot of this depends on how you define socialism, as it's one of those words that really means about as much as fascist now in days.