No, I do not understand economics. That's like I would say you misunderstand Darwinian principles and what it takes for a race to survive. Such blunt statements are useless.
Don't you see you are making the same mistake as that other guy who keeps ignoring the basic tenent of what I say.
What constitutes 'best' and 'better use'?...acording to the author, that involves in the first place economics. I do not subscribe to that idea. I think human spacetravel is indicative of the spirit to conquer and colonize other terrotories, and that that exploration is something we need to keep alive, because it has survival-advantages.
In my view, that outweighs any short term economics or lesser scientific output. Thus, what the author sees as better, I see as worse. You claim my view is somehow less valid, because I consider 'the numbers' to be less important then you or the author, but with equal right I can say the same.
Yet, countrary to some ppl, who claim their vision should surpass anyone's else, I'm being rational about it. I'm not saying: go for human spacetravel and fuck all the rest. No, I'm saying there must be room for different kinds of things, including human and robotic spacetravel (and all the rest, because it's always better to diversify then to limit yourself).
I hope I made my point clear, this time. "what's the next best thing we could do with that money?" can NOT be answered in any definitive way (which is another reason for diversification). Take, for instance, someone thinks that the immediate saving of human lives is more important then anything that a robotic probe could give of scientific data. A valid point, in some respects, bcause: would you rather have saved your daughter from malaria or gotten some data from Mars? Few ppl would choose for the latter, if it were lives/people THEY know.
So, with that reasoning, one could say it's better to help get rid of the major deseases in africa and around the world, and robotic spacetravel should be scrapped too, because, after all...it can be 'better' spend.
But then... what about maintaining statues and other art. I mean; surely it's more important to save a life, even if it's in africa, then to get rid of some pigeonshit on a statue?
Do you see where I'm going? There IS NO objective 'better'.
The best thing to do is to diversify and subsidise different things, as states do now; including art, humanitarian aid, diseaesecontrol, human spacetravel, robotic, maintainance of art, etc.
It's only a clear and cut deal when you portray it black and white, as I said.
But as I equally demonstrated, there is more then one way to deal with the issue, where there is no dichotomy (because it's an artificial one, created through oversimplification).
I'm beginning to wonder if you do this on purpose.
First of all, many engineers and scientists are pro-spacetravel too, which tells you a lot, since they are often in direct competition with it. Take the planetary society, for instance: it's completely organised and run by engineers and scientists, yet they support human spacetravel.
And actually, the article says "Astronomers and other scientists are generally skeptical of the value of manned space flight". Which isn't surprising, because they are in direct competition with it.
The conclusion he makes (or at least insinuates) is, that they are right. And it is THAT conclusion I do not agree with.
Furthermore, I want to point out (again) that the comparisons with poverty and all that, did not came from me, but from a poster that used it as an argument for showing why the money for human spacetravel should go elsewhere. Which I have debunked.
"Noticing that manned flight is more expensive than unmanned and deciding it should get more money is no more sensible than saying that air travel should get more money than car travel, because it too is more expensive."
If you have a limited bugdet and want to keep many things running, then you are bound to look at what the minimum is to do it. Human spacetravel is more expensive then robotic, thus chances are it will drain the budget more. The reasoning on itself is very sound; it's just you do not agree with the premise. Which shows that the premisse used is of determining importance in the debate (and alas, has a subjective nature).
And indeed, if you wanted to keep airtravel and cartravel auround, and they only can survive through subsidising by the state by a limited budget, then airplanes would (moneywise) be a greater drain then cartravel.
Note, however, that I didn't say 'should' (because that would imply giving it a value because it's more expensive, which would be ridiculous), I said 'is bound to get'.
You can explore, but you can not colonise with robots.
The will to explore is deeply entrenched in the human race, but with a reason: it has survival advantages. A species that doesn't colonise new territory and adapt, will perish. I think it's paramount that humans always keep their adventurage spirit and keep exploring and expanding, because the moment we will go 'ah, let's sit back in our sofa's and let our robots/droids do it', we're basically finished, even when not being aware of it at that moment.
I'm rather trusting the abilities of trolls, though.;-)
I don't think I can add much to what I already said. You do not seem to grasp, or at least accept, that the argument you raised *in the above post* is a non-argument.
I'll try it one more time; you (or at least the former poster;-) said:
"You're putting up a strawman argument. What we're dealing with is efficient distribution of finite government resources. Funds not allocated to manned space missioned may be allocated to a host of other research endeavours, education, nature preservation, poverty reduction, decreasing the tax burden, or a thousand other goals."
What is presented here, is a fact, but is not an argument. With exactly the same 'argument' I can say:
1)Funds not allocated to other research endeavours, may be allocated to education, nature preservation, poverty reduction, decreasing the tax burden
2)Funds not allocated to education, may be allocated to nature preservation, poverty reduction, decreasing the tax burden
3)Funds not allocated to nature preservation, may be allocated to poverty reduction, decreasing the tax burden, education
4)ad infinitum
All of the above statements are true, but they do not constitute an argument why one should be preffered above the other.
And if a preference is validation enough to make it an argument, then your preference is worth as much as mine, and mine as much as everyone elses'.
So, indeed, it can be 'wrong'...but to whome? What is wrong for you can be right for another. For instance; I think it's right that money is spent on human spacetravel, while it's clear that some think the opposite. Indeed, the article gives reasons why it shouldn't be done, only (as I've said and demonstrated in my response) that argument has no intrinsical value.
It starts with the premise that it's 'wrong' because their is no economic benefit in it. However, who said it has to be worthwhile economically speaking before spacetravel should be attempted? That's his viewpoint, not mine.
What I can do, however, is showing the fallacy by rational argumentation (which I would trust the most in comming to an understanding, btw). If one claims something should not be done because it has no immediate profitable returns, then one can claim the same for similar expenditures of (for instance academic) projects the state subsidizes. That includes non-human spacetravel, something the author DOES want to continue: ergo, the reasoningshows a fallacy (because, after all, you have to be consistent in your reasoning).
However, my whole point is, that, indeed, the spending must be varied among different things. That's why, given a finite amount of money one can spend on spacetravel, and the fact that human spacetravel is more expensive, the bigger part of the budget is bound to go to the human-part.
But that's not his or your reasoning, though it's on itself very rational; the argumentation here is that human spacetravel should be scrapped. The reasons given for that are economic in nature, but once again, the force and validity of that is purtely depended on whether or not you think profit or not should be decisive in determining if you go through with it or not. (and then we come back to his fallacy).
So, indeed, I do not believe that people can validly compare the relative worth of different goals, if they choose the worth of it arbitrarily. Therefor, the first thing to do is determine what value something has for the one and the other. My viewpoint on this, is that the state should spend on a variety of subjects and projects, as it, in reality, already does. And that includes human spacetravel.
Only if you think it's a black or white issue: OR you put everything on curing cancer/aids, OR you spend it all on 'very rare' diseases at the expense of the first.
Black&white reasonings never have much to do with reality, however.
For instance, one could easily argue that the corporations should spend a bit more of their pure profit on the research of these rare diseases. Or isn't a miniscule bit of a lower profitmargin worth the lives of those patients, even if they are few?
Or, one could argue that corporations should spend it primarely on what they are best at; (profitable) major diseases, and academic research should concentrate on on the stuff that corporations aren't interested in.
But I guess it feels better being able to say 'and 200 million ppl will agree with me'.
My argument was that 'you can spend it better elsewhere' is a non-argument.
I'm also totally not following the rest of your argumentation in the aove post: returning taxmoney has nothing to do with what I said.
My point is, that everyone can say about everything that something would be better spend on something else. You are defining it to human spacetravel, but that's just a fully arbitrary decision. One could say the same of money spend on maintaining statues and art, for instance (see examples in my other post).
I am in the opinion that spenditure should be balanced, and that (as it is in reality) a part should go to maintaining art, a part to the third world, a part to non-human space-exploration, and a part to human space exploration.
Those that view one thing as 'better' then the other can protest against this, of course, but their argumentation based on their definition of what constitutes 'better' and 'more efficient' spenditure is not any more valid then that of anyone else. (That's why, on itself, it's a non-argument: the validity of the argument is determined by the (biased) view of the one that arguments it, not on rational merrits).
"Why do we need the state to push for that with taxpayer money.."
Why not? This sort of reasoning is a non-argument. If you don't think it's needed, then the conclusion follows it shouldn't, if you think it is, it should. One could say that of anything, after all: 'Why must I pay (taxes) for roads I never use?', 'Why use taxpayers money to maintain statues and buildings that have no economical benefit?'...the list is endless.
Were your taxdollars (if you are USA) better spend on the war in Iraq, then?
"..I'd spend 900 million on eradicating malaria & smallpox & things like that which kill millions in Africa even today..."
Well, what DID you spend on it? You don't have a billion to spend, but surely you can survive with a lot less then what you earn now, if you really wanted to?
What disturbs me with this 'it would be better spend on...' kind of arguments is that, often, the people claiming that do not spend a dime on those subjects they claim would be far more noble. The state can't spend millions on spacetravel, because ppl in the third world can use it better...but spending money themselves they don't do, because - god forbids - they would have to give up some of the luxury they are used too.
Mostly the counterargument is: 'But I haven't got nearly as much money!'. That can be, but since you can save a malaria-infested kid for less then 20 dollars, imagine how many ppl you could save if you gave up your ISP/line/cable and used that money to support all those noble causes you claim the state should spend the money on. So it isn't really an excuse, is it?
Now, I'm no saint neither, and I'm not giving up much of my comfort for helping others in the third world neither...but at least I'm honest about it. And I'm not whining about it when others, including states, spend money on other things then what I want, or that I hypocratically claim would be nobler causes to spend it on, when I am not doing it myself, not want too in any large degree.
PS. I'm not really speaking of *you*, since I don't know you, but more about the principle.
Economics (profits) ARE a major incentive for many things. My point is, it would be said if that would become the only thing we would recogn with or would accept as the conditio sine qua non for getting into a project or start some endeavour.
Lets face it, that's why we have counterbalances (or we ought to have, anyway) for corporations, such as states and governments - and even groups of individuals; see http://planetarysociety.org. If we hadn't, a lot of services, projects and the major part of the academic world would cease to exist.
I wasn't ignoring economics, that's why I said it's needed to get mass-useage of space(travel).
But profit shouldn't and isn't the only motivator. I'm a bit puzzled by the 'large' incentive. When is large large enough? I would put it to you, that there are intrinsical human motivations (such as the will to explore) that are as valid as any economical ones.
Is that large enough? Well, that depends, again, on the view you have. States and governments seem to be quite willing to spend money on spacetravel. And as with numerous other projects and services, they sponsor it by tax-payers' money.
So, if you think the non-economic incentives are not large enough, I don't see how your latter part of the argument could be right. Certainly, spacetravel (including human spacetravel) doesn't pay for itself (yet), and yet, it has been sustained for more then 50 years, something a corporation would find extremely hard to do.
Thus, clearly, the incentive exists and is great enough, or your argument that it can't be sustained if it doesn't pay for itself is not correct.
I think the major flaw in all these 'arguments' why we shouldn't go into space is that they always set economic factors as a premise.
But, although economic viability is important to create a mass-usuage of space(travel), I fail to see why it should be the only possible motive to start exploring space. It's a pretty narrowminded, materialistic and typical capitalistic view on things. It's the same view that makes progress on medication for very rare diseases so slow: corporations can't see how they are ever going to get profit out of it, so they all turn their backs on it.
If ppl (including states) are only going to do something when they are sure of an immediate profitable return, the world has become a sad place. (And we should leave it the sooner;-)
Arguments based on such a viewpoint fail to recognise other incentives apart from economical ones.
The problem I have with this line of reasoning is, that these 'madmen' and ruthless dicators were often actively supported, and sometimes even helped in power by the same USA that is full of 'bringing democratic values the world' and other lame excuses to conceil their own ongoing immorality in their dealings with the world.
The blood of those people is not entirely on the hands of Sadam, but also on that of the USA.
For sure, the USA is not the only country that has commited these kinds of things, though they are on the top row, certainly considering the hypocrisy displayed. Germany has had it's share, as does the Netherlands and a lot of other european countries. But the difference is, we *learn* about these atrocities and wrongdoings at home/shool, and we learn that they were immoral and should not be repeated.
In contrast, however, most americans react totally the opposite when confronted with the shamefull actions of their country: they not only deny it vehemently, they try to minimize the immorality and the consequences, and even try to defend it. Just as you are doing.
shouldn't we take a bit less then solace that the same USA delivered those very WMD that all those 'worst butchers' used and were actively supported by the USA?
They were fully aware what he was doing with the civilian population since the 80'ies: they just didn't give a damn, because he was their 'friend' at the time, and fighting big bad foe Iran. How much solace can there be, knowing that those butchers were actively supported, and in some cases helped to power, thanks to the USA?
Like with iraq; that worked out real great, didn't it?/end sarcasm(?)/
It's always so cool to see how the USA condemns countries with WMD, after they delivered the means to these countries to develop them in the first place.
Or how they invade and sanction countries that have WMD - while having WMD themselves, ofcourse, exept Isreal, Pakistan and India. But only when it suits them, ofcourse, because let's not forget they DID imose sanctions on the latter two, untill they did the bidding of Bush and his cronies.
Or the USA much uplifting struggle for freedom and democracy in the world, while supporting ruthless dictators and human-rights-abusing monarchies...as long as it is to the economic and political benefit of the USA, of course.
A real interesting article in this regard can be found at http://www.verbumvanum.org/shirky where some additional insight is given about social dynamics in Open Source Projects.
I did not say it was an open source project, I said open source projects like Linux have understood the importance of making sure that what is free (as in free speech) remains free. Just as verbumvanum did. Just as PG does not.
I guess it's the equivalent of the discussions between GPL and BSD-licenses. While, viewed on itself, the BSD can be regarded as being more 'free', it has one major drawback: it does not attempt to keep it free. Alas, as history has shown us; if you do not fight for freedom, you eventually lose it.
It's the perogative of the ultimate pacifist, as it were: to never take a stance and always 'live and let live'. Which is an admirable philosophy, but only possible because earlier generations have fought for that same freedom (and are still doing now).
That's why, ultimately, I think the right way to go is the GPL and OPLA style: the only restriction for the free use, is that it be freely used. (Simplified, but you get the drift). It has basically the same freedom of use, but it aims at keeping it that way.
If the price of freedom is keeping freedom alive, it's a price well worth paying.
That said, verbumvanum does NOT require *specific* licensing. It is prefered if authors use OPLA, but equal (or more) free licenses are accepted as well. And even when using the OPLA, they are only doing the same (depending on what version they choose to use), as what you say PG asks: providing online distributionrights as long as it's for non-commercial purposes.
I think you might have misread the licence if you think it gives the authors LESS rights then anything that PG asks, on the contrary. They can choose themselves how restrictive or free they want to be, with the provision that it's not more then the most restrictive of the OPLA variants; which basically garantuees free online distribution. Apart from that, they keep the right of always being able to give another license to a third party, under different conditions; the OPLA rights remain for THAT particular licensed work from verbumvanum, however.
It is sad to see that projects lose their initial zeal and ideology.
I think the major error these sites/projects make, is that they do not incorporate the goals with which they start in any binding legal form. Thus, after a while, they fall prey to commercialism, often in its worst form. While their is nothing wrong with commercialism, when left unchecked, it will ultimately destroy the very thing it made it great. Time and again, the ideology is replaced by commercialism...unless you make sure, from the start, that can't happen.
Some open source projects, such as Linux, have understood that, and were GPL'ed. This safegards any commercialism that would destroy it's very foundation.
Another one, more in line with the Gutenburg Project, is the OPLA. This can be found on http://www.verbumvanum.org; a site dedicated to the same goals as project gutenburg, but which has learned the lessons of OSS/GPL.
The parent poster has already answered that: a devl can do it for his own personal use, or he can do it just for fun, etc. A userbase does not have to be his primary concern.
And even of devls that do like to have a big userbase for their prog, it's still up to the devl to determine the value of the users (as users, of course).
"Claims of more or less scientific validity prevent people from being able to question your viewpoint."
Maybe certain (bogus) claims are, but scientific scrutiny is actually THE ONLY manner in which a viewpoint can be questionned in a meaningful way.
If you just stay with emotions and opinions, you never get anywhere, when the viewpoints are diametrically oposed.
The less there are restrictions, the more free something is. How will that do?
In your examples, then, Haiti has MORE restrictions, be it of a far more brutal, survival-of-the-fittest level. The strong and powerfull create the restrictions there, as where the USA tempers this and tries to set the restrictions more equally.
That said, if it were possible to create a true restriction-free society (which I fear can't be done in rl, at most in certain cyberspace area's) then you WOULD have more freedom.
The fact I like the GPL more is because, in the current world, you HAVE to defend your rights. While the GPL fights for them, the BSD is more like the ultimate pacifist: whatever happens, it's all right. So, in a sense, yes, they are more free, but to a level it endagers that things remain free in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
I've already responded to such arguments.
No, I do not understand economics. That's like I would say you misunderstand Darwinian principles and what it takes for a race to survive. Such blunt statements are useless.
Don't you see you are making the same mistake as that other guy who keeps ignoring the basic tenent of what I say.
What constitutes 'best' and 'better use'?...acording to the author, that involves in the first place economics. I do not subscribe to that idea. I think human spacetravel is indicative of the spirit to conquer and colonize other terrotories, and that that exploration is something we need to keep alive, because it has survival-advantages.
In my view, that outweighs any short term economics or lesser scientific output. Thus, what the author sees as better, I see as worse. You claim my view is somehow less valid, because I consider 'the numbers' to be less important then you or the author, but with equal right I can say the same.
Yet, countrary to some ppl, who claim their vision should surpass anyone's else, I'm being rational about it. I'm not saying: go for human spacetravel and fuck all the rest. No, I'm saying there must be room for different kinds of things, including human and robotic spacetravel (and all the rest, because it's always better to diversify then to limit yourself).
I hope I made my point clear, this time. "what's the next best thing we could do with that money?" can NOT be answered in any definitive way (which is another reason for diversification). Take, for instance, someone thinks that the immediate saving of human lives is more important then anything that a robotic probe could give of scientific data. A valid point, in some respects, bcause: would you rather have saved your daughter from malaria or gotten some data from Mars? Few ppl would choose for the latter, if it were lives/people THEY know.
So, with that reasoning, one could say it's better to help get rid of the major deseases in africa and around the world, and robotic spacetravel should be scrapped too, because, after all...it can be 'better' spend.
But then... what about maintaining statues and other art. I mean; surely it's more important to save a life, even if it's in africa, then to get rid of some pigeonshit on a statue?
Do you see where I'm going? There IS NO objective 'better'.
The best thing to do is to diversify and subsidise different things, as states do now; including art, humanitarian aid, diseaesecontrol, human spacetravel, robotic, maintainance of art, etc.
It's only a clear and cut deal when you portray it black and white, as I said.
But as I equally demonstrated, there is more then one way to deal with the issue, where there is no dichotomy (because it's an artificial one, created through oversimplification).
I'm beginning to wonder if you do this on purpose.
First of all, many engineers and scientists are pro-spacetravel too, which tells you a lot, since they are often in direct competition with it. Take the planetary society, for instance: it's completely organised and run by engineers and scientists, yet they support human spacetravel.
And actually, the article says "Astronomers and other scientists are generally skeptical of the value of manned space flight". Which isn't surprising, because they are in direct competition with it.
The conclusion he makes (or at least insinuates) is, that they are right. And it is THAT conclusion I do not agree with.
Furthermore, I want to point out (again) that the comparisons with poverty and all that, did not came from me, but from a poster that used it as an argument for showing why the money for human spacetravel should go elsewhere. Which I have debunked.
"Noticing that manned flight is more expensive than unmanned and deciding it should get more money is no more sensible than saying that air travel should get more money than car travel, because it too is more expensive."
If you have a limited bugdet and want to keep many things running, then you are bound to look at what the minimum is to do it. Human spacetravel is more expensive then robotic, thus chances are it will drain the budget more. The reasoning on itself is very sound; it's just you do not agree with the premise. Which shows that the premisse used is of determining importance in the debate (and alas, has a subjective nature).
And indeed, if you wanted to keep airtravel and cartravel auround, and they only can survive through subsidising by the state by a limited budget, then airplanes would (moneywise) be a greater drain then cartravel.
Note, however, that I didn't say 'should' (because that would imply giving it a value because it's more expensive, which would be ridiculous), I said 'is bound to get'.
You can explore, but you can not colonise with robots. The will to explore is deeply entrenched in the human race, but with a reason: it has survival advantages. A species that doesn't colonise new territory and adapt, will perish. I think it's paramount that humans always keep their adventurage spirit and keep exploring and expanding, because the moment we will go 'ah, let's sit back in our sofa's and let our robots/droids do it', we're basically finished, even when not being aware of it at that moment.
I'm rather trusting the abilities of trolls, though. ;-)
;-) said:
I don't think I can add much to what I already said. You do not seem to grasp, or at least accept, that the argument you raised *in the above post* is a non-argument.
I'll try it one more time; you (or at least the former poster
"You're putting up a strawman argument. What we're dealing with is efficient distribution of finite government resources. Funds not allocated to manned space missioned may be allocated to a host of other research endeavours, education, nature preservation, poverty reduction, decreasing the tax burden, or a thousand other goals."
What is presented here, is a fact, but is not an argument. With exactly the same 'argument' I can say:
1)Funds not allocated to other research endeavours, may be allocated to education, nature preservation, poverty reduction, decreasing the tax burden
2)Funds not allocated to education, may be allocated to nature preservation, poverty reduction, decreasing the tax burden
3)Funds not allocated to nature preservation, may be allocated to poverty reduction, decreasing the tax burden, education
4)ad infinitum
All of the above statements are true, but they do not constitute an argument why one should be preffered above the other.
And if a preference is validation enough to make it an argument, then your preference is worth as much as mine, and mine as much as everyone elses'.
So, indeed, it can be 'wrong'...but to whome? What is wrong for you can be right for another. For instance; I think it's right that money is spent on human spacetravel, while it's clear that some think the opposite. Indeed, the article gives reasons why it shouldn't be done, only (as I've said and demonstrated in my response) that argument has no intrinsical value.
It starts with the premise that it's 'wrong' because their is no economic benefit in it. However, who said it has to be worthwhile economically speaking before spacetravel should be attempted? That's his viewpoint, not mine.
What I can do, however, is showing the fallacy by rational argumentation (which I would trust the most in comming to an understanding, btw). If one claims something should not be done because it has no immediate profitable returns, then one can claim the same for similar expenditures of (for instance academic) projects the state subsidizes. That includes non-human spacetravel, something the author DOES want to continue: ergo, the reasoningshows a fallacy (because, after all, you have to be consistent in your reasoning).
However, my whole point is, that, indeed, the spending must be varied among different things. That's why, given a finite amount of money one can spend on spacetravel, and the fact that human spacetravel is more expensive, the bigger part of the budget is bound to go to the human-part.
But that's not his or your reasoning, though it's on itself very rational; the argumentation here is that human spacetravel should be scrapped. The reasons given for that are economic in nature, but once again, the force and validity of that is purtely depended on whether or not you think profit or not should be decisive in determining if you go through with it or not. (and then we come back to his fallacy).
So, indeed, I do not believe that people can validly compare the relative worth of different goals, if they choose the worth of it arbitrarily. Therefor, the first thing to do is determine what value something has for the one and the other. My viewpoint on this, is that the state should spend on a variety of subjects and projects, as it, in reality, already does. And that includes human spacetravel.
Only if you think it's a black or white issue: OR you put everything on curing cancer/aids, OR you spend it all on 'very rare' diseases at the expense of the first.
Black&white reasonings never have much to do with reality, however.
For instance, one could easily argue that the corporations should spend a bit more of their pure profit on the research of these rare diseases. Or isn't a miniscule bit of a lower profitmargin worth the lives of those patients, even if they are few?
Or, one could argue that corporations should spend it primarely on what they are best at; (profitable) major diseases, and academic research should concentrate on on the stuff that corporations aren't interested in.
But I guess it feels better being able to say 'and 200 million ppl will agree with me'.
My argument was that 'you can spend it better elsewhere' is a non-argument.
I'm also totally not following the rest of your argumentation in the aove post: returning taxmoney has nothing to do with what I said.
My point is, that everyone can say about everything that something would be better spend on something else. You are defining it to human spacetravel, but that's just a fully arbitrary decision. One could say the same of money spend on maintaining statues and art, for instance (see examples in my other post).
I am in the opinion that spenditure should be balanced, and that (as it is in reality) a part should go to maintaining art, a part to the third world, a part to non-human space-exploration, and a part to human space exploration.
Those that view one thing as 'better' then the other can protest against this, of course, but their argumentation based on their definition of what constitutes 'better' and 'more efficient' spenditure is not any more valid then that of anyone else. (That's why, on itself, it's a non-argument: the validity of the argument is determined by the (biased) view of the one that arguments it, not on rational merrits).
Ermm...you do realise it was meant as a joke, right?
Apart from that: I resent many things that I'm being asked to (tax)pay for, some of those things you'll find usefull no doubt, while I don't.
It's an argument that goes both ways.
The 'you can spend it better on other things'-argument.
Well, see my post 'yeah, right' in answer to that.
"Why do we need the state to push for that with taxpayer money.."
Why not? This sort of reasoning is a non-argument. If you don't think it's needed, then the conclusion follows it shouldn't, if you think it is, it should. One could say that of anything, after all: 'Why must I pay (taxes) for roads I never use?', 'Why use taxpayers money to maintain statues and buildings that have no economical benefit?'...the list is endless.
Were your taxdollars (if you are USA) better spend on the war in Iraq, then?
"..I'd spend 900 million on eradicating malaria & smallpox & things like that which kill millions in Africa even today..."
Well, what DID you spend on it? You don't have a billion to spend, but surely you can survive with a lot less then what you earn now, if you really wanted to?
What disturbs me with this 'it would be better spend on...' kind of arguments is that, often, the people claiming that do not spend a dime on those subjects they claim would be far more noble.
The state can't spend millions on spacetravel, because ppl in the third world can use it better...but spending money themselves they don't do, because - god forbids - they would have to give up some of the luxury they are used too.
Mostly the counterargument is: 'But I haven't got nearly as much money!'. That can be, but since you can save a malaria-infested kid for less then 20 dollars, imagine how many ppl you could save if you gave up your ISP/line/cable and used that money to support all those noble causes you claim the state should spend the money on. So it isn't really an excuse, is it?
Now, I'm no saint neither, and I'm not giving up much of my comfort for helping others in the third world neither...but at least I'm honest about it. And I'm not whining about it when others, including states, spend money on other things then what I want, or that I hypocratically claim would be nobler causes to spend it on, when I am not doing it myself, not want too in any large degree.
PS. I'm not really speaking of *you*, since I don't know you, but more about the principle.
Lets face it, that's why we have counterbalances (or we ought to have, anyway) for corporations, such as states and governments - and even groups of individuals; see http://planetarysociety.org. If we hadn't, a lot of services, projects and the major part of the academic world would cease to exist.
I wasn't ignoring economics, that's why I said it's needed to get mass-useage of space(travel). But profit shouldn't and isn't the only motivator. I'm a bit puzzled by the 'large' incentive. When is large large enough? I would put it to you, that there are intrinsical human motivations (such as the will to explore) that are as valid as any economical ones. Is that large enough? Well, that depends, again, on the view you have. States and governments seem to be quite willing to spend money on spacetravel. And as with numerous other projects and services, they sponsor it by tax-payers' money. So, if you think the non-economic incentives are not large enough, I don't see how your latter part of the argument could be right. Certainly, spacetravel (including human spacetravel) doesn't pay for itself (yet), and yet, it has been sustained for more then 50 years, something a corporation would find extremely hard to do. Thus, clearly, the incentive exists and is great enough, or your argument that it can't be sustained if it doesn't pay for itself is not correct.
I think the major flaw in all these 'arguments' why we shouldn't go into space is that they always set economic factors as a premise.
;-)
But, although economic viability is important to create a mass-usuage of space(travel), I fail to see why it should be the only possible motive to start exploring space. It's a pretty narrowminded, materialistic and typical capitalistic view on things. It's the same view that makes progress on medication for very rare diseases so slow: corporations can't see how they are ever going to get profit out of it, so they all turn their backs on it.
If ppl (including states) are only going to do something when they are sure of an immediate profitable return, the world has become a sad place. (And we should leave it the sooner
Arguments based on such a viewpoint fail to recognise other incentives apart from economical ones.
The problem I have with this line of reasoning is, that these 'madmen' and ruthless dicators were often actively supported, and sometimes even helped in power by the same USA that is full of 'bringing democratic values the world' and other lame excuses to conceil their own ongoing immorality in their dealings with the world.
The blood of those people is not entirely on the hands of Sadam, but also on that of the USA.
For sure, the USA is not the only country that has commited these kinds of things, though they are on the top row, certainly considering the hypocrisy displayed. Germany has had it's share, as does the Netherlands and a lot of other european countries. But the difference is, we *learn* about these atrocities and wrongdoings at home/shool, and we learn that they were immoral and should not be repeated.
In contrast, however, most americans react totally the opposite when confronted with the shamefull actions of their country: they not only deny it vehemently, they try to minimize the immorality and the consequences, and even try to defend it. Just as you are doing.
"If cheap == "always victorious" then yes I guess our soldiers are cheap."
I see. So Vietnam was a victory, then?
Useless sanctions that starve 500000 civilians is what you get?
Hold that thought.
And we claim we are the 'civilized world'?
shouldn't we take a bit less then solace that the same USA delivered those very WMD that all those 'worst butchers' used and were actively supported by the USA? They were fully aware what he was doing with the civilian population since the 80'ies: they just didn't give a damn, because he was their 'friend' at the time, and fighting big bad foe Iran. How much solace can there be, knowing that those butchers were actively supported, and in some cases helped to power, thanks to the USA?
Like with iraq; that worked out real great, didn't it? /end sarcasm(?)/
It's always so cool to see how the USA condemns countries with WMD, after they delivered the means to these countries to develop them in the first place.
Or how they invade and sanction countries that have WMD - while having WMD themselves, ofcourse, exept Isreal, Pakistan and India. But only when it suits them, ofcourse, because let's not forget they DID imose sanctions on the latter two, untill they did the bidding of Bush and his cronies.
Or the USA much uplifting struggle for freedom and democracy in the world, while supporting ruthless dictators and human-rights-abusing monarchies...as long as it is to the economic and political benefit of the USA, of course.
A real interesting article in this regard can be found at http://www.verbumvanum.org/shirky where some additional insight is given about social dynamics in Open Source Projects.
I did not say it was an open source project, I said open source projects like Linux have understood the importance of making sure that what is free (as in free speech) remains free. Just as verbumvanum did. Just as PG does not. I guess it's the equivalent of the discussions between GPL and BSD-licenses. While, viewed on itself, the BSD can be regarded as being more 'free', it has one major drawback: it does not attempt to keep it free. Alas, as history has shown us; if you do not fight for freedom, you eventually lose it. It's the perogative of the ultimate pacifist, as it were: to never take a stance and always 'live and let live'. Which is an admirable philosophy, but only possible because earlier generations have fought for that same freedom (and are still doing now). That's why, ultimately, I think the right way to go is the GPL and OPLA style: the only restriction for the free use, is that it be freely used. (Simplified, but you get the drift). It has basically the same freedom of use, but it aims at keeping it that way. If the price of freedom is keeping freedom alive, it's a price well worth paying. That said, verbumvanum does NOT require *specific* licensing. It is prefered if authors use OPLA, but equal (or more) free licenses are accepted as well. And even when using the OPLA, they are only doing the same (depending on what version they choose to use), as what you say PG asks: providing online distributionrights as long as it's for non-commercial purposes. I think you might have misread the licence if you think it gives the authors LESS rights then anything that PG asks, on the contrary. They can choose themselves how restrictive or free they want to be, with the provision that it's not more then the most restrictive of the OPLA variants; which basically garantuees free online distribution. Apart from that, they keep the right of always being able to give another license to a third party, under different conditions; the OPLA rights remain for THAT particular licensed work from verbumvanum, however.
I think the major error these sites/projects make, is that they do not incorporate the goals with which they start in any binding legal form. Thus, after a while, they fall prey to commercialism, often in its worst form. While their is nothing wrong with commercialism, when left unchecked, it will ultimately destroy the very thing it made it great. Time and again, the ideology is replaced by commercialism...unless you make sure, from the start, that can't happen.
Some open source projects, such as Linux, have understood that, and were GPL'ed. This safegards any commercialism that would destroy it's very foundation.
Another one, more in line with the Gutenburg Project, is the OPLA. This can be found on http://www.verbumvanum.org; a site dedicated to the same goals as project gutenburg, but which has learned the lessons of OSS/GPL.
The parent poster has already answered that: a devl can do it for his own personal use, or he can do it just for fun, etc. A userbase does not have to be his primary concern. And even of devls that do like to have a big userbase for their prog, it's still up to the devl to determine the value of the users (as users, of course).
That's what they said the last time too, 60.000 years ago!
"Claims of more or less scientific validity prevent people from being able to question your viewpoint." Maybe certain (bogus) claims are, but scientific scrutiny is actually THE ONLY manner in which a viewpoint can be questionned in a meaningful way. If you just stay with emotions and opinions, you never get anywhere, when the viewpoints are diametrically oposed.
the 'artificial'.
The less there are restrictions, the more free something is. How will that do?
In your examples, then, Haiti has MORE restrictions, be it of a far more brutal, survival-of-the-fittest level. The strong and powerfull create the restrictions there, as where the USA tempers this and tries to set the restrictions more equally.
That said, if it were possible to create a true restriction-free society (which I fear can't be done in rl, at most in certain cyberspace area's) then you WOULD have more freedom.
The fact I like the GPL more is because, in the current world, you HAVE to defend your rights. While the GPL fights for them, the BSD is more like the ultimate pacifist: whatever happens, it's all right. So, in a sense, yes, they are more free, but to a level it endagers that things remain free in the future.