Because a single idiot can doom your colony or your generation ship.
I have no idea what form interstellar travel will take, but surely it would include redundancy? Perhaps in 2 billion years we will have better psych screening? Maybe we'll all be in suspended animation for the trip? I certainly wouldn't wait on that breakthrough in order to progress our space-faring tech.
The only way I see that we're going to start making moves to get the hell off this planet is through the private sector.
That's why, even though I'm ideologically opposed to things like pork barrel politics, I tend to support items that actually benefit humanity.
Sure, this congressman is only supporting space flight because it benefits his district. Sure, this is not a very efficient way to run a space program. But as you point out, convincing the rest of the population of the merits of spaceflight might be fruitless. So I'll hitch to the shithead's wagon. At least our technology will inch forward.
And really, we only need to inch forward - as many other commenters have pointed out, we have at least a few hundred million years.
It's a complicated issue, and I won't be so arrogant as to think I have the answer.
I do not think that corporations/organizations/unions/etc should have free speech rights at all, and I do not think that they should be allowed to run political ads. Or even "education" campaigns that are just disguised political ads.
Individuals should be able to do whatever the heck they want.
Where you have a hazy line is when an individual wants to buy commercial speech - for example, Ross Perot with his hour-long network television infomercial. I lean towards tightly regulating this, because it's really just an individual circumventing the commercial limitations.
Of course, this becomes difficult to define as well. Is a website commercial or individual speech? How about a book? What about a newspaper ad? Unfortunately, I think we'll need to micromanage all of this - and once you do that, you are right back where you started: the people in charge will make the rules benefit themselves.
So maybe it doesn't really matter all that much...
we will likely have mastered a whole lot of technology that can easily be transfered to space technology even if we don't invest in space tech per se.
This is where we disagree. Certainly materials and the like will continue to improve and we can always leverage that - but I don't see how you can learn certain things without a space program. Like human physiology in space, effects of zero or low gravity on plants, animals, and materials.
We are reasonably prosperous right now - we have an unprecedented capacity to throw money at science. Who is to say that we will have this opportunity again? Certainly I hope we remain prosperous, but I'd like to learn as much as we can right now while I know we have the capacity.
Religion? The sun will blink out... that is not religion, and it's not fear mongering either. It won't happen for billions of years. I'm advocating a slow, prudent path to space colonization as a solution - but I'm open to other solutions.
But what about the universe itself?
Yeah, we also need to spend money on high-energy physics and such. But it's all about time progression - the problem with the sun will come thousands of billions of years before the possible heat death of the universe. We'll have to colonize and move several hundred times by then.
And what about the fact you won't live long enough anyways to see the results of your "efforts"?
We have lots of names for it: being unselfish, leaving a legacy, progression of humankind, etc.
You are full of self-important romantic nonsense about things that no one else normal cares about.
You are right - I should get back to fretting about gas prices. Important populist stuff.
Deficits CAN go away; It's not magic; it's restraint.
I understand that, and I accept that people occasionally get their act together - hell, even the US government occasionally runs "in the black". But on balance, humans OWE money. Deficits come and go is maybe a better way to phrase it. The space program is not a material contribution to the deficit, and cutting it won't solve the larger problem of spending more than we have - but it will prevent us from leaving Earth.
Do you honestly believe that anything resembling human life will still exist by then?
Something descended from us will exist, yes. If you think earth will be hostile to humans before then, then that just means we need to work a bit faster.
So you think we have the right to decide how life will unfold billions of years from now, but I'll bet my last dollar you're staunchly against life extension.
The only creature on this planet with any concept of "rights" is the human being, so yeah, "we" get to decide what rights we have and what is taboo. I honestly have no idea where you get the idea that I'm against life extension.
I agree, we have millions of years. I think any return to the moon or mars should be in the 25 year time scale. There's no rush, we just need to keep advancing the tech to keep humans alive in space. The moon is just a nice target because it is far enough for a realistic test, but close enough that communications delays aren't a huge pain, and we can lob supplies at it while we get the whole self-sufficiency thing straightened out.
But if you're taking such a long view that 2 billion years matters, you may as well give up, because in 10^15 years there is just no escaping proton decay and the heat death of the universe.
First off, this assumes that we are right about perpetual expansion. It also assumes that we won't develop any technology to help us deal with it. And most conveniently, it occurs AFTER the sun blinks out. Like, much later. Like, thousands of billions of years later.
So my proposal is to first master space travel and colonization (we have millions of years!), and then move on to our next big survival issue (we'll have billions of years). In either case, support for high-energy physics research is also something we should fund.
Free speech necessarily extends beyond "political speech", if only because what I care about in a government, you might have no interest
I don't follow your logic - as soon as we say the word "government" it becomes a discussion about political speech.
If I say "pla rapes babies", that is not protected speech. Presumably it is false, and in any case I don't have any proof. You could take me to court for defamation, libel, etc. Allowing people to slander each other does not benefit society.
Do any ads serve the public interest?
LOL, are you trying to prove my point? Commercial speech is not and should not be protected.
Sure, on a timescale of millions of years, the sun will burn out - and the only solution will not be just to leave the planet, but the entire solar system, which would require either some form of faster-than-light physics breakthrough, or a generation ship. Living on which would require developing ecological sustainability skills because it will have very limited resources. Those pesky Greenies! They've infiltrated even our shiny Space Future!
LOL, where did I say that green tech was bad?
But in reality, we're all going to be living on Earth for a long, long time, so why not start treating it like the spaceship it is, and not just a giant strip mine / scrapheap?
Another fine goal - but it still doesn't address our long-term need to get off the planet. I don't see these goals as exclusive of one another - why do you?
Because leaving the planet to consume resources somewhere else is just continuing the problem.
We're on different time scales. The sun will not last forever, so eventually we need to move to a different solar system. The tech to pull that off, if it is possible, will take a long time to develop. It won't develop itself - we have to have a sustained program of continuous tech development.
Every single thing that could possibly be cut from the budget has some kind of "good" reason why it is vital.
Right, same with the space program. I'm arguing that survival of our species should take precedence over sending my grandfather a $1500 check while he is out golfing.
You know what you call it when someone spends money they dont have, with no plan or ability to repay the deby? Irresponsible.
How about stopping to kill each other and destroy what we need for survival before we worry about going somewhere where that's going to be even easier?
How about paying the government deficit that is about to default in a month so humans can habitat Earth first
Because if man is to survive as a species, we must leave this planet. To leave this planet, we must advance the state of the art. To advance the state of the art, we must spend money on human space exploration/colonization.
Deficits will never go away, and neither will the fact that the sun will eventually incinerate the earth.
Slashdot Mirror
Because a single idiot can doom your colony or your generation ship.
I have no idea what form interstellar travel will take, but surely it would include redundancy? Perhaps in 2 billion years we will have better psych screening? Maybe we'll all be in suspended animation for the trip? I certainly wouldn't wait on that breakthrough in order to progress our space-faring tech.
Emulating retail systems is piracy.
Nonsense. Buy the software and Nintendo is making out better than if you went out and bought a subsidized Wii.
Wow, isn't that useful.
It rather depends on what is in that 20MB. How many diplomatic cables would fit into 20MB? Or 200MB, since 2TB drives are commodities now.
The only way I see that we're going to start making moves to get the hell off this planet is through the private sector.
That's why, even though I'm ideologically opposed to things like pork barrel politics, I tend to support items that actually benefit humanity.
Sure, this congressman is only supporting space flight because it benefits his district. Sure, this is not a very efficient way to run a space program. But as you point out, convincing the rest of the population of the merits of spaceflight might be fruitless. So I'll hitch to the shithead's wagon. At least our technology will inch forward.
And really, we only need to inch forward - as many other commenters have pointed out, we have at least a few hundred million years.
What about political advertisement?
It's a complicated issue, and I won't be so arrogant as to think I have the answer.
I do not think that corporations/organizations/unions/etc should have free speech rights at all, and I do not think that they should be allowed to run political ads. Or even "education" campaigns that are just disguised political ads.
Individuals should be able to do whatever the heck they want.
Where you have a hazy line is when an individual wants to buy commercial speech - for example, Ross Perot with his hour-long network television infomercial. I lean towards tightly regulating this, because it's really just an individual circumventing the commercial limitations.
Of course, this becomes difficult to define as well. Is a website commercial or individual speech? How about a book? What about a newspaper ad? Unfortunately, I think we'll need to micromanage all of this - and once you do that, you are right back where you started: the people in charge will make the rules benefit themselves.
So maybe it doesn't really matter all that much...
2. Not with my tax dollars.
They aren't yours, which is why we have discussions like this.
we will likely have mastered a whole lot of technology that can easily be transfered to space technology even if we don't invest in space tech per se.
This is where we disagree. Certainly materials and the like will continue to improve and we can always leverage that - but I don't see how you can learn certain things without a space program. Like human physiology in space, effects of zero or low gravity on plants, animals, and materials.
We are reasonably prosperous right now - we have an unprecedented capacity to throw money at science. Who is to say that we will have this opportunity again? Certainly I hope we remain prosperous, but I'd like to learn as much as we can right now while I know we have the capacity.
Why is it that when this subject comes up, people by default assume that "man must survive as a species?".
LOL, I don't know... maybe I'm just romantic?
Religion-like arguments detected!
Religion? The sun will blink out... that is not religion, and it's not fear mongering either. It won't happen for billions of years. I'm advocating a slow, prudent path to space colonization as a solution - but I'm open to other solutions.
But what about the universe itself?
Yeah, we also need to spend money on high-energy physics and such. But it's all about time progression - the problem with the sun will come thousands of billions of years before the possible heat death of the universe. We'll have to colonize and move several hundred times by then.
And what about the fact you won't live long enough anyways to see the results of your "efforts"?
We have lots of names for it: being unselfish, leaving a legacy, progression of humankind, etc.
You are full of self-important romantic nonsense about things that no one else normal cares about.
You are right - I should get back to fretting about gas prices. Important populist stuff.
I choose not to
Really? You think the federal budget works like that? I have to fund all sorts of bullshit, some of it you are probably in favor of.
Deficits CAN go away; It's not magic; it's restraint.
I understand that, and I accept that people occasionally get their act together - hell, even the US government occasionally runs "in the black". But on balance, humans OWE money. Deficits come and go is maybe a better way to phrase it. The space program is not a material contribution to the deficit, and cutting it won't solve the larger problem of spending more than we have - but it will prevent us from leaving Earth.
Do you honestly believe that anything resembling human life will still exist by then?
Something descended from us will exist, yes. If you think earth will be hostile to humans before then, then that just means we need to work a bit faster.
So you think we have the right to decide how life will unfold billions of years from now, but I'll bet my last dollar you're staunchly against life extension.
The only creature on this planet with any concept of "rights" is the human being, so yeah, "we" get to decide what rights we have and what is taboo. I honestly have no idea where you get the idea that I'm against life extension.
Yeah, but there isn't a need for hurry with that.
I agree, we have millions of years. I think any return to the moon or mars should be in the 25 year time scale. There's no rush, we just need to keep advancing the tech to keep humans alive in space. The moon is just a nice target because it is far enough for a realistic test, but close enough that communications delays aren't a huge pain, and we can lob supplies at it while we get the whole self-sufficiency thing straightened out.
But if you're taking such a long view that 2 billion years matters, you may as well give up, because in 10^15 years there is just no escaping proton decay and the heat death of the universe.
First off, this assumes that we are right about perpetual expansion. It also assumes that we won't develop any technology to help us deal with it. And most conveniently, it occurs AFTER the sun blinks out. Like, much later. Like, thousands of billions of years later.
So my proposal is to first master space travel and colonization (we have millions of years!), and then move on to our next big survival issue (we'll have billions of years). In either case, support for high-energy physics research is also something we should fund.
Free speech necessarily extends beyond "political speech", if only because what I care about in a government, you might have no interest
I don't follow your logic - as soon as we say the word "government" it becomes a discussion about political speech.
If I say "pla rapes babies", that is not protected speech. Presumably it is false, and in any case I don't have any proof. You could take me to court for defamation, libel, etc. Allowing people to slander each other does not benefit society.
Do any ads serve the public interest?
LOL, are you trying to prove my point? Commercial speech is not and should not be protected.
LOL, smartass! :)
Sure, on a timescale of millions of years, the sun will burn out - and the only solution will not be just to leave the planet, but the entire solar system, which would require either some form of faster-than-light physics breakthrough, or a generation ship. Living on which would require developing ecological sustainability skills because it will have very limited resources. Those pesky Greenies! They've infiltrated even our shiny Space Future!
LOL, where did I say that green tech was bad?
But in reality, we're all going to be living on Earth for a long, long time, so why not start treating it like the spaceship it is, and not just a giant strip mine / scrapheap?
Another fine goal - but it still doesn't address our long-term need to get off the planet. I don't see these goals as exclusive of one another - why do you?
Because leaving the planet to consume resources somewhere else is just continuing the problem.
We're on different time scales. The sun will not last forever, so eventually we need to move to a different solar system. The tech to pull that off, if it is possible, will take a long time to develop. It won't develop itself - we have to have a sustained program of continuous tech development.
Every single thing that could possibly be cut from the budget has some kind of "good" reason why it is vital.
Right, same with the space program. I'm arguing that survival of our species should take precedence over sending my grandfather a $1500 check while he is out golfing.
You know what you call it when someone spends money they dont have, with no plan or ability to repay the deby? Irresponsible.
I agree.
PS re the sun incinerating the earth, I don't think we'll have to worry about that for eons
That's right - we should leave the problem to our descendants, who may or may not have the means to run a space program.
That's exactly the type of short-term thinking that I'm trying to fight.
How about stopping to kill each other and destroy what we need for survival before we worry about going somewhere where that's going to be even easier?
Because that's impossible. Space travel is not.
no, I don't think we will have learned our lesson by then
Even if we make our existence on Earth perfectly sustainable, the sun will eventually go red giant.
How about paying the government deficit that is about to default in a month so humans can habitat Earth first
Because if man is to survive as a species, we must leave this planet. To leave this planet, we must advance the state of the art. To advance the state of the art, we must spend money on human space exploration/colonization.
Deficits will never go away, and neither will the fact that the sun will eventually incinerate the earth.
Without free speech, there can be no democratic society, and without a democracy, there can be no legitimate government.
Correction... without free POLITICAL speech, there can be no democratic society.
Allowing "OMG THE SKY IS FALLING" speech when there is no such danger does not help democracy, and I can't see how it helps the public interest.
Are tobacco ads in the public interest?
you must be new here
If "here" is Japan, then yes, I've only been there once. Is the judiciary non-independent there?