Tezzor posted:

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.

Tezzor posted:

For my part I'm sorry that people criticizing the necessity of spaceships has caused you to spiral so rapidly into teenage nihilism.

Ernie Muppari posted:

why exactly is justice a worthwhile consideration? and what exactly is the benefit of "human flourishing" (whatever that is)? i know it may be difficult for a life fetishist to understand, but not everyone considers "living" to be a worthwhile endeavor for the entirety of human civilization to devote itself towards

Tezzor posted:

Why is, like, anything anything, man?

Ernie Muppari posted:

you're still not answering my question

Tezzor posted:

Why is answering your question a relevant consideration? Please respond in the form of something I would care about and which does not cause me to analyze my childish and fantastical beliefs.

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?

Tezzor posted:

Why is answering your question a relevant consideration? Please respond in the form of something I would care about and which does not cause me to analyze my childish and fantastical beliefs.

Salt Fish posted:

hopefully people worried about the continuation of mankind will finally look inward at our own planet before its completely devastated by mass extinction and exploitation.

Nintendo Kid posted:

Honestly, you are either for the expansion of growth of the human population off the earth and into space or you are for mass murder and restricted personal liberty to control population growth here on earth.

Nintendo Kid posted:

Honestly, you are either for the expansion of growth of the human population off the earth and into space or you are for mass murder and restricted personal liberty to control population growth here on earth.

Rodatose posted:

reduced consumption by first world nations to sustainable levels* gained by better social organization and a reforming of its culture away from individualism, while devoting some resources to education and health measures in the developing world that'd prevent population growth would probably one way to prevent the need to mass murder the more marginalized people or push them off the earth. This'd probably require a transition from nationalist and capitalist governance, and to tackle the myth in liberal economics that perpetual growth is possible without ever considering limits of what we can extract from the environment. I think this is a better goal than just kicking the can down the road for those who end up on planets that will one day run into similar issues.

*for instance The 12 percent of the world’s population that lives in North America and Western Europe accounts for 60 percent of private consumption spending, while the one-third living in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa accounts for only 3.2 percent. America, with 5% of the world's population, consumes nearly a quarter of the world's energy; almost half of the world's population lives on less than the equivalent of $2 a day.

Salt Fish posted:

This is a weird and wrong speculation because its been demonstrated that given adequate birth control access and education many countries have seen negative population growth.

Tezzor posted:

Why is answering your question a relevant consideration? Please respond in the form of something I would care about and which does not cause me to analyze my childish and fantastical beliefs.

Salt Fish posted:

Tezzor posted:

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.

Nintendo Kid posted:

I'm just posting the strawman Tezzor has been arguing against for 12 years just so it's less shameful for him to keep posting.

Tezzor posted:

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"

GlyphGryph posted:

That's nice and all but let's focus on stuff on the ongoing conversation: What is your opinion on Tezzor's argument that sending anything at all to space even robots is a bad thing that must be stopped because of self interest and basic human empathy?

GlyphGryph posted:

I think he thinks he's mocking me here, but it doesn't really work when this is essentially in fact the thing he's been asking for since he entered this thread. :insertgrowingironicathere:

Especially since all my questions have been pretty loving trivial to answer, but you won't because you aren't willing to entertain the consequences of consistent thought.


That's nice and all but let's focus on stuff on the ongoing conversation: What is your opinion on Tezzor's argument that sending anything at all to space even robots is a bad thing that must be stopped because of self interest and basic human empathy?


So you're saying that your fetish for the primitive fantasy known as "justice" and some sort of weird manifest-destiny-esque goal of "maximizing human flourishing" are both more important than basic human empathy and a desire to alleviate the suffering of humanity? Also, I'm pretty sure Ernie only care's about spaceships and space insofar as it offers the potential to help him hurry all life on earth to its ultimate destination, so that's a weird second sentence.


You truly have a stronger sense of charity and human empathy than I do, fishmech. You're like the one bright spot of hope for him in this long and terrible thread, the scrap of nourishment he needs to survive and continue on indefinitely.


Yeah, that's a significant step up from where we are now.

You: "I don't think we should go to war with Iran."
Someone else: "Why not? Dismantling their nuclear program would make the world a safer place."
"You just want to go to war with Iran because you've got a war fetish. There's no good reason to go to war with Iran"
"... but I said a reason already. Why don't you think that's worth it?"
"Give me reasons that aren't just war fetishism."
"Uh, well, avoiding a hypothetical future war where both sides have nukes."
"That's just speculation and fantasy, there's nothing good that would come from such a war."
"Are you opposed to the idea of war in general?"
"No, wars for reasons I approve of are alright, just not war with Iran."
"Then why the hell do you actually think we shouldn't invade Iran?"
"Because we could cover North Korea with Jello instead. That would probably stop their nuclear program!"
"..."
"Also because the only reason you want to go war with Iran is for primitive religious reasons."
"..."
"Also also we could cover North Korea with Jello instead, did you hear that bit? I think it clearly demonstrates how hosed up your Iran war idea is and provides an irrefutable reason not to do it."
"... I don't see how this is an argument against war with Iran."

Salt Fish posted:

lol if you think I'm going to directly address a tezzor post

GlyphGryph posted:

Yeah, that's a significant step up from where we are now.

You: "I don't think we should go to war with Iran."
Someone else: "Why not? Dismantling their nuclear program would make the world a safer place."
"You just want to go to war with Iran because you've got a war fetish. There's no good reason to go to war with Iran"
"... but I said a reason already. Why don't you think that's worth it?"
"Give me reasons that aren't just war fetishism."
"Uh, well, avoiding a hypothetical future war where both sides have nukes."
"That's just speculation and fantasy, there's nothing good that would come from such a war."
"Are you opposed to the idea of war in general?"
"No, wars for reasons I approve of are alright, just not war with Iran."
"Then why the hell do you actually think we shouldn't invade Iran?"
"Because we could cover North Korea with Jello instead. That would probably stop their nuclear program!"
"..."
"Also because the only reason you want to go war with Iran is for primitive religious reasons."
"..."
"Also also we could cover North Korea with Jello instead, did you hear that bit? I think it clearly demonstrates how hosed up your Iran war idea is and provides an irrefutable reason not to do it."
"... I don't see how this is an argument against war with Iran."

Tezzor posted:

Actually none of this is true.

Once again, for the slow kids: the purpose of Jello Australia, as a rhetorical point, is to demonstrate that all the arguments space fetishists make about the benefits of space spending can be achieved by any large arbitrary project, no matter how pointless or absurd, and therefore disqualifies these arguments as specific defenses of space spending. I'm not married to Jello. Perhaps we fill Australia with yams. Perhaps we build the world's largest rubber band ball. All the arguments you make for space exploration can be equally applied to these.

Rodatose posted:

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.

"A good paper posted:

The American public has long held generally positive attitudes toward the space program, but is not very familiar with its details.

Over the history of the space age, an average of more than 60 percent of those polled rated the job done by NASA as either ‘‘excellent’’ or ‘‘good.’’

Most Americans have shown support for space exploration and view it as important over the years, but also believe that federal money could be better spent on other programs.

Most are also in favor of NASA as an organization, but are relatively unfamiliar with the majority of its activities and objectives.

These polls also suggest historically close relation-ships between public perceptions of NASA and spaceflight depictions in popular culture, especially film. These images from popular culture, coupled with real-world accomplishments in spaceflight, work together to create powerful visions affecting the public consciousness.

Ernie Muppari posted:

to be fair, unless you believe as i do, that real peace will only be achieved when there is no life on earth, then going to war with iran will not even be a first step towards making the world "a safer place"

Tezzor posted:

Once again, for the slow kids: the purpose of Jello Australia, as a rhetorical point, is to demonstrate that all the arguments space fetishists make about the benefits of space spending can be achieved by any large arbitrary project, no matter how pointless or absurd, and therefore disqualifies these arguments as specific defenses of space spending. I'm not married to Jello. Perhaps we fill Australia with yams. Perhaps we build the world's largest rubber band ball. All the arguments you make for space exploration can be equally applied to these.

GlyphGryph posted:

I think you also want the Australia-sized rubber band ball to count as a human achievement the way space travel is, but unfortunately almost no one would think of it that way, and things are only achievements to folks that think they are. Most people would consider a giant rubber band ball made out of jello and yams a failure, really, on multiple levels. And you can't really build off of any of these things - even if we assume that an Australia full of trillions of rubber band balls was a cool thing worth doing that many people would see as a valuable triumph of the species, it doesn't provide any basis for doing future cool things for our children.

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.

Tezzor posted:

Actually none of this is true.

Once again, for the slow kids: the purpose of Jello Australia, as a rhetorical point, is to demonstrate that all the arguments space fetishists make about the benefits of space spending can be achieved by any large arbitrary project, no matter how pointless or absurd, and therefore disqualifies these arguments as specific defenses of space spending. I'm not married to Jello. Perhaps we fill Australia with yams. Perhaps we build the world's largest rubber band ball. All the arguments you make for space exploration can be equally applied to these.

GlyphGryph posted:

I had actually included this unassailable point of view in my original draft, as a successful counterpoint to Iran Tezzor's ineffectual arguing, but unfortunately reading it was really confusing with three voices so I cut it.

But, like, obviously, yeah.


Satiation of curiosity and wanderlust, a desire to pass something of value (valuable knowledge about the universe and what's in it) on to our progeny combined with the tools they need to acquire more, are things the Jello Australia program does not offer. Yes, they both essentially offer a jobs program, but it turns out that Jobs programs that also accomplish other things are better.

Yam Australia also has negatives the space program does not, like rendering an entire country full of people uninhabitable.

I think you also want the Australia-sized rubber band ball to count as a human achievement the way space travel is, but unfortunately almost no one would think of it that way, and things are only achievements to folks that think they are. Most people would consider a giant rubber band ball made out of jello and yams a failure, really, on multiple levels. And you can't really build off of any of these things - even if we assume that an Australia full of trillions of rubber band balls was a cool thing worth doing that many people would see as a valuable triumph of the species, it doesn't provide any basis for doing future cool things for our children.

Tezzor posted:

I think your argument is centrally based on your preconceptions and lack of imagination. Who are you to say that the world's largest rubber band ball wouldn't trigger human curiosity or give you cool things? Why should I care particularly about your curiosity about balls of rock literally over a billion miles away, or your desire for cool things (that you don't own), considerations so far down the Hierarchy of Needs as to below "toilet paper preference"?

Tezzor posted:

I think your argument is centrally based on your preconceptions and lack of imagination. Who are you to say that the world's largest rubber band ball wouldn't trigger human curiosity or give you cool things? Why should I care particularly about your curiosity about balls of rock literally over a billion miles away, or your desire for cool things (that you don't own), considerations so far down the Hierarchy of Needs as to below "toilet paper preference"?

quote:

Who are you to say that the world's largest rubber band ball wouldn't trigger human curiosity or give you cool things?

Tezzor posted:

I think your argument is centrally based on your preconceptions and lack of imagination. Who are you to say that the world's largest rubber band ball wouldn't trigger human curiosity or give you cool things? Why should I care particularly about your curiosity about balls of rock literally over a billion miles away, or your desire for cool things (that you don't own), considerations so far down the Hierarchy of Needs as to below "toilet paper preference"?

Spazzle posted:

Prolonged Priapism, do you believe that NASA's current budget can send a manned mission to mars on the next 20 to 30 years?

Tezzor posted:

I think your argument is centrally based on your preconceptions and lack of imagination. Who are you to say that the world's largest rubber band ball wouldn't trigger human curiosity or give you cool things? Why should I care particularly about your curiosity about balls of rock literally over a billion miles away, or your desire for cool things (that you don't own), considerations so far down the Hierarchy of Needs as to below "toilet paper preference"?

GlyphGryph posted:

I think your argument is based on a fundamental inability to understand values systems, the thoughts and feelings of others, long term thinking and basic logic... in addition to persistent preconceptions you cling to in the face of overwhelming evidence and a complete lack of imagination regarding the ability of people to think differently than yourself.

Evidence:

You talk about wanting to "trigger curiosity" in response to an argument about satiating it.
You talk about stuff "giving you cool things" in response to an argument about doing cool things.

I guess we're just going to have to rest here, with the vast, vast majority of the human race and their psychology as an ineffable mystery to you.

(And no, before you stupidly jump up thinking one of your strawmen has finally been validated, no - I am not saying the vast, vast majority of the population share's my opinion about space. If you actually thought that before getting to this paragraph, let it serve as an example of just how true that statement is.)

Tezzor posted:

Your hairsplitting actually makes your argument worse. It's easier and more plausible for any arbitrary project to sate curiosity (the curiosity of "can we do this thing") than it is to trigger it. Completing any large project can be considered "doing a cool thing" by a nerd emotionally invested in it, which is much easier than it ever giving any benefits beyond that. As far as "long term thinking," this is merely a space fetishist shibboleth meaning "I can't make a coherent evidence-based argument for why this needs to happen at all, let alone right now, but is a precondition of the fantastical future I have imagined into existence."

Prolonged Priapism posted:

Almost definitely not within 20, and very probably not within 30. It's in the realm of technical possibility, if you assume SLS works perfectly, the mission is a short Apollo 11 style flag and footprints trip, etc. There'd really have to be a big, concentrated push (starting roughly now/yesterday) for that to happen though, especially given the current budget. So basically, no.


The "spinoffs" defense is not a very good one, I agree. But that's not the main reason we do space stuff, so I don't see why it seems to be your main rebuttal. You don't have to "care particularly" about space exploration, in fact many people don't! At the same time, many people do, which is why it's worth considering in the first place. As opposed to, say, Jello Australia, which nobody ever cared about even a little.

A better comparison for you to make might be something like a city bidding to host the Olympic games. The "practical" value is basically zero. There may be incidental infrastructure improvements, briefly increased tourism, etc. But the spinoff arguments are not the main point. The point is to host the biggest and most prestigious ridiculous international athletic competition. To be the center of the world's attention, at least for two weeks. The work itself (and the event, of course) is the reward. It's a cool thing that people would like to be a part of, to the point where they compete for the honor. Again, many people think it's stupid and a waste, but enough disagree. Do you see how this is at least roughly the same class of issue as publicly funded spaceflight? Instead of a dumb-as-possible strawman scenario?

Ernie Muppari posted:

so i guess you admit your childish desire for the continued existence of humanity, even if it means many exist only to suffer, isn't rational or cost effective in the least?

Tezzor posted:

I do see how it's similar, and how it's more related to real life, but it lacks the messianism of space fetishism, which is a key factor in its idiocy. Also, and this is a general issue with the internet, but strawman is a word with an actual meaning, stop throwing it to claim victory like a Pokemon card. It's a deliberately absurd example used to highlight the issues with their argument, a reducto ad absurdum. I'm not misrepresenting their argument as support for actually wanting to fill Australia with yams and then knocking that down.

Tezzor posted:

I'm sorry, I'm not going to dignify transparent sniveling until I get answers to the two questions I politely asked which you cruelly dodged. Here they are again for ease:

1. Why is answering your questions something I should care about or consider valuable?
2. Why is, like, anything anything, man?

Tezzor posted:

I do see how it's similar, and how it's more related to real life, but it lacks the messianism of space fetishism, which is a key factor in its idiocy. Also, and this is a general issue with the internet, but strawman is a word with an actual meaning, stop throwing it to claim victory like a Pokemon card. It's a deliberately absurd example used to highlight the issues with their argument, a reducto ad absurdum. I'm not misrepresenting their argument as support for actually wanting to fill Australia with yams and then knocking that down.

Ernie Muppari posted:

meanwhile, i present an actual counter position to yours, one that's internally consistent and challenges your unthinking acceptance of forum orthodoxy, and you refuse to even consider it


1. you actually don't have to answer any of my questions if you're comfortable admitting that your religious beliefs can't stand up to criticism

2. i believe that i've been fairly consistent in my position that nothing is anything

Tezzor posted:

Thanks. I'm going to put you on ignore as you have nothing of interest to say and are embarrassingly whiny about people saying mean things about spaceships. I'll check back in a bit to see if you've calmed down from your depressive spiral into teen nihilism about it.

Tezzor posted:

...years of D&D moderation choices [snip] have allowed for far looser standards of conduct for those uncritically spewing orthodoxy than those critical of it.

Tezzor posted:

Thanks. I'm going to put you on ignore as you have nothing of interest to say and are embarrassingly whiny about people saying mean things about spaceships. I'll check back in a bit to see if you've calmed down from your depressive spiral into teen nihilism about it.

Dzhay posted:

Ernie: without humans things would be really dull. Humans do cool poo poo, like go into space, build cities and invent computers.

Ernie Muppari posted:

the process of creating those things, as well as their use provide more avenues through which people can be made to suffer

Ernie Muppari posted:

the process of creating those things, as well as their use provide more avenues through which people can be made to suffer