|
GlyphGryph posted:Yeah but you failed to do so, despite the fact that it really would have been trivial to do, indicating that you don't actually understand why anyone who has posted thinks space is worth spending money on despite them having made it abundantly clear. Don't be silly. I understand perfectly well why you think space us worth spending money on: as you said, irrational, primitive religious sentiment. I thought my recognition of this was very clear. I admit that perhaps appealing to self interest or human empathy was misguided as what are these trivialities in the eyes of a fanatic? Still, as I said, I appreciate the honesty of your approach in simply admitting your motivations but I do wish you'd stop trying to justify it in rational terms. You want humans to go to a place because many of your cherished fantasy stories are set in a rough approximation of that region. That is at least accurate. Don't then talk about the great benefits trade with Narnia would have for our economy. quote:You specifically said "some subgroup I like", not "whoever needs it most" or whatever bullshit you're trying to spin this into. I would prefer that you give it to someone who needs it, or to some scheme that is likely to yield results beneficial to humans aside from whatever technologies might arise incidentally from its implementation. As for why you should, consider the possibility that the great comet's arrival is unlikely to be humanity's ascension to the higher dimensions, and perhaps there are things more important than the preparations for its arrival.
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 09:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
Tezzor posted:Don't be silly. I understand perfectly well why you think space us worth spending money on: as you said, irrational, primitive religious sentiment. I thought my recognition of this was very clear. I admit that perhaps appealing to self interest or human empathy was misguided as what are these trivialities in the eyes of a fanatic? Still, as I said, I appreciate the honesty of your approach in simply admitting your motivations but I do wish you'd stop trying to justify it in rational terms. You want humans to go to a place because many of your cherished fantasy stories are set in a rough approximation of that region. That is at least accurate. Don't then talk about the great benefits trade with Narnia would have for our economy. Real life isn't the fantasies you have built up in your head, and it never will be. quote:I would prefer that you give it to someone who needs it, or to some scheme that is likely to yield results beneficial to humans aside from whatever technologies might arise incidentally from its implementation. As for why you should, consider the possibility that the great comet's arrival is unlikely to be humanity's ascension to the higher dimensions, and perhaps there are things more important than the preparations for its arrival. So - Why? What is the motivation for giving it to someone who needs it or putting it towards some scheme? Also, those space scientists do actually need that money (to keep doing their space science, which is obviously important to them), so try to come up with a reason this time that doesn't also justify giving it to them if that's not what you want.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
Its almost as if the Space Race had nothing to do with eventually helping disarm tension between two superpowers..... Oh wait. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo%E2%80%93Soyuz_Test_Project Look, if you are going to stick to this fantasy that without financial benefit nothing is worth funding, you probably need to look a little deeper: NASA pays hundreds of thousands of employees, engineers, scientists, mechanics, etc. Its an economic powerhouse in the areas it is located.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
Jello Australia would employ millions, many of them blue collar workers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
I think now that robots are pretty good and will, in a safe assumption, be even better in the near future the benefit of sending humans into space is basically gone. Also it should be understood that the Earth's gravity well is already basically the limit for the kinds of fuel we have available (possibly even the best fuel and engine in the universe could barely get a manned rocket off the earth) Moving in space means if you want to go one direction you have to throw matter in the other direction all while accounting for gravity so the idea of asteroid mining materially benefiting earth is dumb, as is manned interstellar travel. IIRC from the surface of the earth it's easier to leave the solar system than to reach the sun, as an example of the difficulties in moving around the solar system. Only earth can sustain life, period. Not human life, any life (originating from earth) that wishes to exist beyond a few generations without constant resupply or management from earth is doomed. There is no material benefit, immediate or far flung, from manned space flight beyond satisfying some people's desire for exploration. hth
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Jello Australia would employ millions, many of them blue collar workers. If I wanted to engage in the same level of exaggeration and hyperbole, I could suggest that this dude's e/n thread is your ideal for the US govt: Nothing motivates me beyond not wanting to starve to death You keep trying to cast spaceflight as some singularly ridiculous nerd-religion, but it's just the society-scale manifestation of the same thing that drives individuals to pursue art, and communities to build parks and spend resources on making buildings look like something other than unfinished concrete blocks. People know it's not the "rational" thing to do, but it's a cool challenge and a lot of people are willing to help make it happen, even if it means a few percent of their time/local/federal budget. It gives people meaning, and that's super important. It's what's missing from that e/n dude's life, and he's a wreck because of it. Zero people are interested in Jello Australia. At any level. That's why it's an even worse example than "make anime real" or whatever, because nobody even cares about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Jello Australia would employ millions, many of them blue collar workers. You want to know why people think your're a moron? There it is. This is not a rational argument. This is not a reasonable example. This is the tantrum of a child.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:You keep trying to cast spaceflight as some singularly ridiculous nerd-religion, but it's just the society-scale manifestation of the same thing that drives individuals to pursue art, and communities to build parks and spend resources on making buildings look like something other than unfinished concrete blocks. People are able to pursue their own spiritual fulfillment on their own terms. However not everyone takes pride out of a nationalist colonization project. The people who instantly associate a rejection of manned space flight with nihilism comes off like "You are lacking in spiritual fulfillment because you don't have pride in the specific spiritual endeavor we have," which is a common religious sentiment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
From The Jungle:quote:There was only one earth, and the quantity of material things was limited. Of intellectual and moral things, on the other hand, there was no limit, and one could have more without another's having less; hence "Communism in material production, anarchism in intellectual," was the formula of modern proletarian thought. As soon as the birth agony was over, and the wounds of society had been healed, there would be established a simple system whereby each man was credited with his labor and debited with his purchases; and after that the processes of production, exchange, and consumption would go on automatically, and without our being conscious of them, any more than a man is conscious of the beating of his heart. And then, explained Schliemann, society would break up into independent, self-governing communities of mutually congenial persons; examples of which at present were clubs, churches, and political parties. After the revolution, all the intellectual, artistic, and spiritual activities of men would be cared for by such "free associations"; romantic novelists would be supported by those who liked to read romantic novels, and impressionist painters would be supported by those who liked to look at impressionist pictures—and the same with preachers and scientists, editors and actors and musicians. If any one wanted to work or paint or pray, and could find no one to maintain him, he could support himself by working part of the time. That was the case at present, the only difference being that the competitive wage system compelled a man to work all the time to live, while, after the abolition of privilege and exploitation, any one would be able to support himself by an hour's work a day. Also the artist's audience of the present was a small minority of people, all debased and vulgarized by the effort it had cost them to win in the commercial battle, of the intellectual and artistic activities which would result when the whole of mankind was set free from the nightmare of competition, we could at present form no conception whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
That's an irrelevant distinction, if enough people in society want something, then it becomes a social imperative. You have an incredibly libertarian approach to the role of the state if you think that it should, as a point of principle, not fund any projects that should be the domain of the 'free individual' or whatever. There goes funding for art museums then, right? It's not like they're anywhere near as popular as movies. It also doesn't matter how many times you use the words 'spiritual' or 'religious', satisfaction from collective achievement is not, and will never, be equivalent to religious fervor. Group identity is not solely the domain of religion and it's disingenuous to imply otherwise. Modest Mao posted:Moving in space means if you want to go one direction you have to throw matter in the other direction all while accounting for gravity so the idea of asteroid mining materially benefiting earth is dumb, as is manned interstellar travel. quote:Only earth can sustain life, period. quote:There is no material benefit, immediate or far flung rudatron fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
solar sails get us around in the nothing that is of no value, good
Modest Mao fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
My animes told me there's really cool metal in those far away space rocks lets send some people there to easily mine it and return it to earth lmao
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Modest Mao posted:solar sails get us around in the nothing that is of no value, good .....How very short sighted of you. Nice vocabulary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
rudatron posted:That's an irrelevant distinction, if enough people in society want something, then it becomes a social imperative. You have an incredibly libertarian approach to the role of the state if you think that it should, as a point of principle, not fund any projects that should be the domain of the 'free individual' or whatever. There goes funding for art museums then, right? It's not like they're anywhere near as popular as movies. I'd take it as a social imperative that "enough people want" if it were to have been voted upon. If it's simply pushed through by undemocratic means by whoever is in charge, the problem comes up that those things which are patronized will only those types which don't oppose or actively reinforce the status quo, giving most people a skewed view of the totality of personal endeavors, information and philosophy possible. (For instance, take the dearth in America of museums of the American Civil War or Confederacy and the complete lack of a museum of slavery (until 2015 which itself was only built with private funding.)) I tried explaining earlier that the separation from one type of social philosophy as "religion" from the rest of one's ideological views is a relatively recent development and doesn't apply to much of the world's way of doing things; personal philosophy and politics are necessarily connected. If you disagree with that, well then that'll be that and we'll have reached an impasse Rodatose fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:If I wanted to engage in the same level of exaggeration and hyperbole, I could suggest that this dude's e/n thread is your ideal for the US govt: Nothing motivates me beyond not wanting to starve to death If I were hypothetically able to convince people that Jello Australia was a grand adventure and mankind's destiny, would it therefore be a good idea in your postmodern fog where it doesn't matter that you can't make a rational argument as to benefit?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:If I were hypothetically able to convince people that Jello Australia was a grand adventure and mankind's destiny, would it therefore be a good idea in your postmodern fog where it doesn't matter that you can't make a rational argument as to benefit? If you are going to continue to use this asinine example, please demonstrate how Jello is help introduce new technologies and pushing boundaries. Thanks in advance. I mean, at this point you are making arguments from ignorance, and the Jello thing is nothing more than a poor strawman, honestly one of the poorest I've seen yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:If you are going to continue to use this asinine example, please demonstrate how Jello is help introduce new technologies and pushing boundaries. Thanks in advance. Covering Australia to a depth of 10 feet in green gelatin would lead to new technologies for the more efficient mass-production of gelatin, and thereby new technologies for food production in general. Probably advancements in genetic engineering in developing an algae-type organism that produces green gelatin more directly and efficiently than extraction from bones. Building such a massive and strong retaining wall for the gelatin would result in advancements in construction technology and possibly robotics and materials science, as well as cooling technology, power plants, massive-scale desalinization, as well as probably weapons and surveillance technology in suppressing the baffled and increasingly desperate Australian rebellions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:If I were hypothetically able to convince people that Jello Australia was a grand adventure and mankind's destiny, would it therefore be a good idea in your postmodern fog where it doesn't matter that you can't make a rational argument as to benefit? Yes. Good luck convincing them!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Covering Australia to a depth of 10 feet in green gelatin would lead to new technologies for the more efficient mass-production of gelatin, and thereby new technologies for food production in general. Probably advancements in genetic engineering in developing an algae-type organism that produces green gelatin more directly and efficiently than extraction from bones. Building such a massive and strong retaining wall for the gelatin would result in advancements in construction technology and possibly robotics and materials science, as well as cooling technology, power plants, massive-scale desalinization, as well as probably weapons and surveillance technology in suppressing the baffled and increasingly desperate Australian rebellions. Riiiiiiigggghhhhhhhtttttt. Good luck with that fantasy strawman you have there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
i feel that it speaks to an inherent intellectual cowardice slash inferiority that all the life fetishists in this thread refuse to engage my proposals in a serious fashion
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:i feel that it speaks to an inherent intellectual cowardice slash inferiority that all the life fetishists in this thread refuse to engage my proposals in a serious fashion You're death ideology is killing us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You're death ideology is killing us. Good work Ernie, you are the only one in this thread getting closer to success with every post. So, Tezzor, quote:Why? What is the motivation for giving it to someone who needs it or putting it towards some scheme? Do you at least think it's worth sending robots to space to learn more about space stuff? I mean, let's be honest, thanks to Tezzors hatred of people who like space, it has basically become a thread about whether or not we should ever even bother looking up because the stuff in the sky can never possibly have any impact here on earth and every moment and dollar spent on it is wasted money that could have gone to someone Tezzor likes instead. rather than a thread about whether or not it's worthwhile to actually send people up there to do stuff which was already pretty far from going to Mars. Hell, I don't even think it's worth aiming for manned Mars missions! GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
I was very clear on that: either self interest or human empathy. I recognize that neither of these things are primary goals of eschatology however and are therefore subordinate in your estimation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I was very clear on that: either self interest or human empathy. I recognize that neither of these things are primary goals of eschatology however and are therefore subordinate in your estimation. Self interest is literally just the desires of the self, and sort of by definition justifies space stuff if people want space stuff, which the people you're talking with clearly do, so that's hardly a reason to use the money for stuff that is not space stuff unless you can explain why this reason doesn't apply to space stuff. To quote my question post again: quote:Also, those space scientists do actually need that money (to keep doing their space science, which is obviously important to them), so try to come up with a reason this time that doesn't also justify giving it to them if that's not what you want. Human empathy is simply a primitive human emotion, is it not? Are you really okay with spending the money to satisfy primitive human emotions? Why does this apply to empathy and nor, for existence, curiosity or wanderlust? And wouldn't this justify space spending because we're helping all those people who dream about space accomplish their dreams even if we can't do it ourselves? If I were to explain my reasons for spending money on the space program solely in terms of self-interest and empathy, would you consider that a viable and effective argument? Would you nod along and be like "Well, that's a pretty good reason to do space stuff, can't really argue with that." And if that wasn't your response, why not?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I was very clear on that: either self interest or human empathy. I recognize that neither of these things are primary goals of eschatology however and are therefore subordinate in your estimation. Good luck funding Petroleum Subsidies with that attitude 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Self interest is literally just the desires of the self, and sort of by definition justifies space stuff if people want space stuff, which the people you're talking with clearly do, so that's hardly a reason to use the money for stuff that is not space stuff unless you can explain why this reason doesn't apply to space stuff. Do you think Socratic Barf is going to distract me from the fact that you can't make a rational argument for your position?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Do you think Socratic Barf is going to distract me from the fact that you can't make a rational argument for your position? you still haven't addressed my argument, i wonder why that is?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:you still haven't addressed my argument, i wonder why that is? I don't generally dignify obvious speciousness poorly attempting to hide the fact that the proponent can't make a rational argument for his position. Wonder no longer!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Do you think Socratic Barf is going to distract me from the fact that you can't make a rational argument for your position?  Do you even know what the word 'rational' means? The whole Jello Australia thing says otherwise. Tezzor posted:I don't generally dignify obvious speciousness poorly attempting to hide the fact that the proponent can't make a rational argument for his position. Wonder no longer!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I don't generally dignify obvious speciousness poorly attempting to hide the fact that the proponent can't make a rational argument for his position. Wonder no longer! It's really funny how your vocabulary gets more and more idiotic the longer this goes on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
It's really cool seeing Tezzor use the same disingenuous tactic in this thread that he does in every other thread: ignore the rational arguments of the other side, and then proclaim them to all be fanboys or fetishists that can't form a rational argument.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
i've noticed that internet master debaters choose to decry their opponents as hypocritical or unserious whenever they can't defend their own arguments, why ever could could that be?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
I think it would be great for D&D if this standard of argument was generally applied. "I don't think we should go to war with Iran." "But a lot of people want to go to war with Iran." "It would cause massive human suffering." "Why is human suffering important?" "It's a common moral first principle." "But what if I begin from the first principle that my desire to see cool gun camera footage is more important? Why do anything at all? Am I alive? I can't see my hands"
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I think it would be great for D&D if this standard of argument was generally applied. "Let's talk about how much Jello we can cover Iran in" - Tezzor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:i've noticed that internet master debaters choose to decry their opponents as hypocritical or unserious whenever they can't defend their own arguments, why ever could could that be? Which of my arguments would you like for me to defend?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:"Let's talk about how much Jello we can cover Iran in" - Tezzor. I understand you are very mad at and do not comprehend simple demonstrative analogies, but could you refrain from clumsily attempting to drop sick burns on me and my totally serious idea to cover Australia in Jello? Thanks much in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I understand you are very mad at and do not comprehend simple demonstrative analogies, but could you refrain from clumsily attempting to drop sick burns on me and my totally serious idea to cover Australia in Jello? Thanks much in the future. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Nah, no thanks. I still can't take you seriously.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Which of my arguments would you like for me to defend? if you were able to read then perhaps you'd already know the answer, but let me repeat myself: you claim that gradual socioeconomic reform is a cost effective way of eliminating human misery, you fail to provide anything resembling evidence that this will deal with the issue more thoroughly, quickly, or cheaply, than the complete eradication of all life on earth
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
You can't just make up an absurd analogy to something and then call it a day, especially when the absurdity itself is what causes the analogy to fail.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:if you were able to read then perhaps you'd already know the answer, but let me repeat myself: Ending human suffering is not the sole consideration, and must be balanced with the equally important considerations of justice in our actions and the goal of maximizing human flourishing, otherwise we arrive at this erroneous conclusion. For my part I'm sorry that people criticizing the necessity of spaceships has caused you to spiral so rapidly into teenage nihilism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 22:24
|
|