Slashdot Mirror
Public Discussion Opened on Space Solar Power
eldavojohn writes "The National Security Space Office (NSSO), an office of the DoD, has taken a novel approach to a study they are doing on space based solar power. They've opened a public forum for it and are interested in anyone and everyone's expertise, experience and ideas on the best means to harvest energy in space. I suppose this is similar to the DoD's $1 million for an energy pack just without the award. Still, if you want to have an influence on the US's plans in space, this would be an easy armchair place to start. Space.com also has more on the details."
Cheers!
Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
The average American voter, when asked, guesses that about 15% of our budget goes to non-military foreign aid, and thinks it should be closer to 5%. In reality, it's 0.01% percent. Just, y'know, to put things in perspective.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
"However, NEVER forget that we also do some amazing things. We help literally millions of people a day soley because we WANT to."
Yes. The US has historically done and presently does great and positive things for the rest of the world. That's what is so disappointing about the choices made in the last few years.
It's nice to think that the US would help because it "wants to", out of its generosity, but the reality is that much of the food supplied to the rest of the world is dumped there to keep prices up domestically and to justify massive farm subsidies. It feeds the poor, but dumping that much food at low prices can undercut a country's attempts to build agriculture and an export trade in food (subsidies depress global prices, though many other countries are just as bad), and that can keep people poor. Anyway, to change this the US agricultural business and government policy would have to change drastically. They currently *need* to send grain and other foods elsewhere. So, is this generosity or merely necessity?
It would also be quite difficult for the US to survive without energy and mineral resources drawn from the rest of the world, especially oil, what with >50% of oil imported. Historically, the US had a strong isolationist attitude, but that's long over, because the US simply could not survive for 6 months without the rest of the world's resources. At least, not with its current industrial structure. It's obvious that many military and economic choices have been made not out of some enlightened vision of helping the rest of the world, but primarily out of economic self-interest to keep the oil or (insert commodity here) flowing.
A fairly clear example is Iraq. It's hard to explain the choice to go in there as anything other than getting access to oil. Iraq has about 25% of the known conventional oil reserves, second only to Saudi Arabia. All the original reasons for going in there have evaporated (and they were flimsy beforehand). WMDs? Ha. And everybody now knows the only terrorists in Iraq are the ones that moved in or people who decided to change professions AFTER Saddam was gone. Afganistan made sense at the initiation of the "war on terror", but it's only major resource is opium. It was an expensive operation on solid and globally-supported principles, but taking over that country doesn't pay the bills or feed the resource demands like taking over a country like Iraq. It's obvious the "war on terror" was an excuse in Iraq, and it was hoped it would be easy (decapitation strike indeed!). But if Iraq didn't have oil or threaten other country's oil, I doubt the US would care much.
Yes, the US has and continues to do great and positive things, but you are fooling yourself if you think it is mainly out of generosity or even democratic principles. If it was, then the US would not have such a long and colorful history of propping up dictators and monarchs (e.g., in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Chile, etc.). It has shown that it is quite willing to make shady deals with countries that just happen to have major natural resources needing development. And, look, here's a number of US-headquartered multinational corporations only too willing to lend a generous, helping hand!
I'm sorry to be skeptical. I have great respect for the United States and its principles. Unfortunately I don't see much correlation between where and how the "help" is distributed in the rest of the world and those principles.
The one exception is indeed during natural disasters, where the US has a good and fairly consistent record of offering and effecting aid regardless of who needs it. For that, the generosity of the US is immense and truly genuine. Thanks. The rest of the "help" you can keep. Unfortunately, I doubt the US could survive for long if it did what you suggest.