John Platko wrote:
I don't how going to Mars is a tactic for dealing with poverty. Please explain.

First, you need to understand the core point: going to Mars is NOT a tactic for dealing with poverty. It's not remotely meant to be.

However, when you consider the requisite industries, the number of employees in construction, supply of resources and support services, all the jobs which will be created by a fledgling space industry, all the foreign investment, the provision of space services etc. you cannot ignore the impact this will have on India's economy.

Ultimately, it will still come down to the will of politicians in India in which way they will leverage the increase in GDP, so a space program doesn't automatically translate to widespread reduction in poverty, but it does generate a more robust, diverse and modern economy which presents more resources available to be used to that end.

As you said - it's not like the other space-faring nations have eradicated poverty, so the argument from the naysayers here really means that they think humanity shouldn't be going to space until poverty is eradicated. I think many have already explained why this is illogical, short-sighted and counter-productive.

@Spearthrower

You're right that I do care what you think of me, particularly as we've been having discussions for many years now.

I can't help how I feel about this though and even after reading all the arguments, I still feel the same. The Indian government has a responsibility to deal with the appalling suffering of so many of its people and whereas other aspects of their technology help to deal with this eg weather satellites, going to Mars doesn't.

As for the argument about being able to afford the Mars project AND feeding/housing/providing health care for the poorest, then shame on them for not doing both. I also find it sickening that millionaires in India don't do a lot more to help their fellow countrymen.

Personally, I've been supporting poor children in India for many years via Save the Children and I've also paid for at least 10 children to go to school. I'm not at all wealthy and my contribution is just a drop in the ocean compared to what India could do for itself.

There's no point in me discussing my views any more in this thread as it's clear most people profoundly disagree with me and there's no middle ground. I don't want to fall out with anyone here so I probably won't say any more on the topic & just agree to disagree.

I know the reasons for your position are entirely due to being a conscientious and caring person, TopMum! That was always at the front of my mind as I responded to you here.

I very much share your hopes in seeing the division of wealth, which is growing ever more grotesque in its inhumanity, be more justly spread. I'd love to know we're building a global society where all people have automatic access to a basic standard of living, where they can assume they will not die of needing basic provisions.

I'm afraid, though, that it's going to take an awful lot of sacrifice to get there. I am not so convinced that our planet can really provide ample carrying capacity for the expected 12bn people by the end of the next century - either a world consciousness is going to need to be raised to lower reproduction, or semi-tyrannical policies are going to need to be put in place.

We do have some solutions - education, women's access to reproductive control, multinational will to provide buffers against disasters etc. are all growing year by year - but even these are long term, slow, and unlikely to have much impact statistically in the short-term. But I also believe that there may be solutions we are yet to discover, and that's why we cannot simply stop technological innovation, exploration, and inquiry - no matter whether the cost of doing so takes some fraction away from the immediate concerns, because we will need more knowledge and expertise to successfully manage this planet and all the organisms that make up its population. We have to keep pushing the boundaries because we never know what's over the next horizon. Only technology is going to allow us to become truly free of our biological heritage and inheritance.

Spearthrower wrote:

John Platko wrote:
I don't how going to Mars is a tactic for dealing with poverty. Please explain.

First, you need to understand the core point: going to Mars is NOT a tactic for dealing with poverty. It's not remotely meant to be.

However, when you consider the requisite industries, the number of employees in construction, supply of resources and support services, all the jobs which will be created by a fledgling space industry, all the foreign investment, the provision of space services etc. you cannot ignore the impact this will have on India's economy.

Ultimately, it will still come down to the will of politicians in India in which way they will leverage the increase in GDP, so a space program doesn't automatically translate to widespread reduction in poverty, but it does generate a more robust, diverse and modern economy which presents more resources available to be used to that end.

As you said - it's not like the other space-faring nations have eradicated poverty, so the argument from the naysayers here really means that they think humanity shouldn't be going to space until poverty is eradicated. I think many have already explained why this is illogical, short-sighted and counter-productive.

Ahhhh the old trickle down theory. That doesn't work, as evidenced by the poverty in the US while, and after, the time we spent big bucks going to the moon and burning cash on that ridiculous space shuttle. But as I said, we mostly went to the moon to win the Cold War. It really wasn't about science, although JFK had a hard time explaining that to the scientists and engineers in charge.

Or the new, will-of-politicians theory...

John Platko wrote:

Ahhhh the old trickle down theory.

Err... no trickle down economics was espoused in this thread - certainly not by me.

More jobs is more jobs. Bigger economy with more diverse industries is a bigger economy with more diverse industries. More foreign investment is more foreign investment.

Your mistake is to think that 'a generally larger and wealthier economy and more diverse industry' = 'trickle down economics'

Trickle down economics already has a quite specific definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

"Trickle-down economics" and the "trickle-down theory" are terms in United States politics to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided to businesses and upper income levels will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole.

I didn't mention anything to do with lowering taxes for industry, I didn't mention anything to do with economic benefits being provided to businesses by the State, I didn't mention increasing upper income levels in order to benefit poorer members.

The only thing I mentioned was 'improving the economy as a whole' which most assuredly is not the remit just of trickle down economics!

So no, it's absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my argument.

John Platko wrote:That doesn't work, as evidenced by the poverty in the US while, and after,....

Well, even though I am not espousing it - let's be clear: it didn't work in the specific case where the term does apply. To say it doesn't work is to claim it cannot possibly work. Of course it can work as it depends on all the other laws being made in a nation at the same time. In the case of the US, it's not just these laws, but all the others and the way the economy was and is being run.

In the post of mine you cited, I expressly noted the unarguable fact that any progress towards diminishing poverty in India ultimately depends on the political leaders of India having the will to enact the necessary laws. That's just a plain fact in a democracy, or pretty much any system of governance we've ever tried.

Of course, in a democracy, the people can try to ensure their will is met by voting in politicians who best represent them.

In this scenario, India is most assuredly not the US - it's a much more vibrant democracy with genuine alternatives.

However, clearly either the politicians are failing the people, or the majority who vote in these unwilling politicians are insufficiently worried about the well-being of their fellows. Democracy can often be the tyranny of the majority, particularly in cases where the unprivileged are conveniently far enough away to not be a immediate and present concern to those who are privileged. For many reasons, geographical and societal, India has historical divisions providing just that kind of buffer between classes.

John Platko wrote: the time we spent big bucks going to the moon and burning cash on that ridiculous space shuttle.

Which ridiculous space shuttle was that?

Humanity landing on the Moon was one of, if not the greatest achievement our species has ever managed. I understand from what I have just read that you may choose to dispute this, but it is assuredly one that will remain in our collective species' memory far longer than any you could name.

John Platko wrote: But as I said, we mostly went to the moon to win the Cold War. It really wasn't about science, although JFK had a hard time explaining that to the scientists and engineers in charge.

You did indeed say that, but it wasn't relevant the first time so I didn't bother responding. It still isn't relevant. No one is talking about what the motivations for launching spacecraft are - in fact, I've made it expressly clear that the objective of the spacecraft is not to eradicate poverty - I said it a goodly number of times throughout this thread in equally clear terms, so I am surprised you missed them all!

Interestingly, however, you note the fact that the scientists and engineers didn't care about the political reasons - they were doing it for other reasons altogether. Those reasons are very much appropriate to part of an entirely different argument that I really only alluded to in my very last post.

I will expand on it now to show you how differently we probably think: We are past the point of no returns in terms of the ecological impact our society is having on the planet - stasis is not an option, we either eventually wither down to a less complex society with consequent poverty and suffering far in excess of today's, or we have to acquire the technology, expertise and mastery of our environment in order to protect it and us from ourselves.

And yes, we should also explore space because it's there! I will never entertain an argument that says we shouldn't look over the next horizon! We need some members of our species to always be pushing past the next frontiers, whether that be scientific, or exploratory. This is who we are, and we're at our best when we do it! For all we know, these are uniquely human values and they should be treasured.

Cracking post. Nothing to add here.

Spearthrower wrote: It still doesn't work out correctly as an analogy - the manufacturing of gold-plated lamas is not intended to alleviate poverty, so of course the result of purchasing clean water facilities would do better on that scale as that would be the specific intention and desired result of such provision.

OK, so you're saying actions intended to alleviate poverty are always more effective.

Spearthrower wrote:A space industry will provide jobs in numerous areas for all demographic sectors, the employed workers will spend money on goods which will be taxed, resulting in the government having a bigger budget which they could then leverage to reduce poverty.

Although it's unarguably a minute effect, it's still a significantly greater effect than throwing 76 million dollars at poverty. That provides at best momentary relief, not a solution.

And now you're saying a space program not intended to alleviate poverty (BTW - how do you know it's not intended to alleviate poverty ) is more effective at alleviating poverty than a directly targeted measure.

Make your mind up.

Spearthrower wrote:If we use the World Bank's figures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India) then somewhere around 400 million people in India are below the poverty line. The 76 million dollars spread over 400 million people equates to less than 20 cents per impoverished person. Even were the money invested wisely in systems that maximise the number of beneficiaries, it would barely even register on that 400 million people, or on the quality of life of those beneficiaries - of course, it would matter an awful lot to the people who did receive that service provision whatever it is, but the case would remains the same, they would still be below the poverty line: 76 million dollars is simply totally insufficient to tackle poverty in India, or even have a noticeable effect.

Yes I'm sure thousands of parents wouldn't notice the fact their children survive.

Keep It Real wrote:

Spearthrower wrote: It still doesn't work out correctly as an analogy - the manufacturing of gold-plated lamas is not intended to alleviate poverty, so of course the result of purchasing clean water facilities would do better on that scale as that would be the specific intention and desired result of such provision.

OK, so you're saying actions intended to alleviate poverty are always more effective.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say 'always' - especially in countries like India which are plagued by corruption. But yes, on the whole an action intended to alleviate poverty has more chance of doing so than one not intended to alleviate poverty.

Keep It Real wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:A space industry will provide jobs in numerous areas for all demographic sectors, the employed workers will spend money on goods which will be taxed, resulting in the government having a bigger budget which they could then leverage to reduce poverty.

Although it's unarguably a minute effect, it's still a significantly greater effect than throwing 76 million dollars at poverty. That provides at best momentary relief, not a solution.

And now you're saying a space program not intended to alleviate poverty (BTW - how do you know it's not intended to alleviate poverty ) is more effective at alleviating poverty than a directly targeted measure.

Make your mind up.

I don't think you've followed what I said, because I assuredly did not contradict myself. The space program is not intended to alleviate poverty. I've never said otherwise. I've said that it can result in that effect regardless of its explicit intent. The essence of my point is not about ALL programs always, in every single way we can imagine, but rather the specific one we're discussing - i.e. the sum of $75m would have next to zero effect on poverty long-term, even if it was directly targeted and designed to achieve maximal reduction in poverty. The space program will ultimately result in a greater gain for India which presents more opportunities than the meagre $75m that can potentially be leveraged by an Indian government with the will to alleviate poverty.

How do I know it's not intended to alleviate poverty? Errr, not really sure how to answer that - perhaps because there's no relationship between them?

Keep It Real wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:If we use the World Bank's figures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India) then somewhere around 400 million people in India are below the poverty line. The 76 million dollars spread over 400 million people equates to less than 20 cents per impoverished person. Even were the money invested wisely in systems that maximise the number of beneficiaries, it would barely even register on that 400 million people, or on the quality of life of those beneficiaries - of course, it would matter an awful lot to the people who did receive that service provision whatever it is, but the case would remains the same, they would still be below the poverty line: 76 million dollars is simply totally insufficient to tackle poverty in India, or even have a noticeable effect.

Yes I'm sure thousands of parents wouldn't notice the fact their children survive.

After a paragraph where I wrote: "t would matter an awful lot to the people who did receive that service provision whatever it is" - seems you want to misread me?

Regardless, I think you'll find that children surviving - albeit entirely desirable from any moral or emotional consideration - actually doesn't do anything to alleviate poverty; it tends to exasperate it - their parents are still poor and now have more mouths to feed, medication to provide etc. on the same budget they had before for fewer.

I am afraid from how you've seemingly intentionally misread me so far you are now going to turn that into a 'so you think it's better if children die'.

Perhaps my impression is wrong, but it seems you're not really interested in any of the complexities here, just flippant remarks and half-way gotchas, so i will let you claim the point if that's what you want?

Spearthrower wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Ahhhh the old trickle down theory.

Err... no trickle down economics was espoused in this thread - certainly not by me.

More jobs is more jobs. Bigger economy with more diverse industries is a bigger economy with more diverse industries. More foreign investment is more foreign investment.

Your mistake is to think that 'a generally larger and wealthier economy and more diverse industry' = 'trickle down economics'

Trickle down economics already has a quite specific definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

"Trickle-down economics" and the "trickle-down theory" are terms in United States politics to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided to businesses and upper income levels will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole.

I didn't mention anything to do with lowering taxes for industry, I didn't mention anything to do with economic benefits being provided to businesses by the State, I didn't mention increasing upper income levels in order to benefit poorer members.

The only thing I mentioned was 'improving the economy as a whole' which most assuredly is not the remit just of trickle down economics!

So no, it's absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my argument.

There seems to be ambiguity about the term. For example:

From:

https://lsaushistory13.wikispaces.com/T ... own+Theory

The Trickle-Down Theory is the idea that giving tax breaks or economic benefits to businesses and the wealthy will benefit the lower classes. The name is credited to Will Rogers, who said "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy" during the Great Depression. The Trickle-Down Theory is related to Reaganomics and laissez-faire in today's society.

But I'm happy to amend my comment and just have it say Trickle down without the word theory.

From google search:

trickle down
phrasal verb of trickle
1. (of wealth) gradually benefit the poorest as a result of the increasing wealth of the richest.

trick·le-down
adjective

modifier noun: trickle-down; modifier noun: trickledown
(of an economic system) in which the poorest gradually benefit as a result of the increasing wealth of the richest.

John Platko wrote:That doesn't work, as evidenced by the poverty in the US while, and after,....

Well, even though I am not espousing it - let's be clear: it didn't work in the specific case where the term does apply. To say it doesn't work is to claim it cannot possibly work. Of course it can work as it depends on all the other laws being made in a nation at the same time. In the case of the US, it's not just these laws, but all the others and the way the economy was and is being run.

In the post of mine you cited, I expressly noted the unarguable fact that any progress towards diminishing poverty in India ultimately depends on the political leaders of India having the will to enact the necessary laws. That's just a plain fact in a democracy, or pretty much any system of governance we've ever tried.

I think we agree on that. In India as in my country, poor people are not the highest priority.

Of course, in a democracy, the people can try to ensure their will is met by voting in politicians who best represent them.

In this scenario, India is most assuredly not the US - it's a much more vibrant democracy with genuine alternatives.

However, clearly either the politicians are failing the people, or the majority who vote in these unwilling politicians are insufficiently worried about the well-being of their fellows. Democracy can often be the tyranny of the majority, particularly in cases where the unprivileged are conveniently far enough away to not be a immediate and present concern to those who are privileged. For many reasons, geographical and societal, India has historical divisions providing just that kind of buffer between classes.

John Platko wrote: the time we spent big bucks going to the moon and burning cash on that ridiculous space shuttle.

Which ridiculous space shuttle was that?

The one that was touted as being a big economic improvement in space travel, a truck for space, - but was instead an economic failure. But I'll add, perhaps the people who launched us on the space shuttle path worked in good faith and honestly believed it would be an economical space vehicle. Technological development of the sort is not without risk, however when it became obvious that it was not going to be able to meet the cost or launch rate predictions then it should
have been scrubbed. I suspect the embarrassment was just too great to do that.

Humanity landing on the Moon was one of, if not the greatest achievement our species has ever managed. I understand from what I have just read that you may choose to dispute this, but it is assuredly one that will remain in our collective species' memory far longer than any you could name.

It was an amazing achievement. Do primarily because we wanted to wave our rocket at the Russians. This is how JFK thought about it.

See:
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/ ... RIvvw.aspx

I'm just suggesting that a better amazing achievement would be to end hunger- or at least put a dent in it.

John Platko wrote: But as I said, we mostly went to the moon to win the Cold War. It really wasn't about science, although JFK had a hard time explaining that to the scientists and engineers in charge.

You did indeed say that, but it wasn't relevant the first time so I didn't bother responding. It still isn't relevant. No one is talking about what the motivations for launching spacecraft are - in fact, I've made it expressly clear that the objective of the spacecraft is not to eradicate poverty - I said it a goodly number of times throughout this thread in equally clear terms, so I am surprised you missed them all!

I don't see how you can drill into this issue without talking about the motivation for spending the money on Mars vs building homes for homeless people and feeding them.

Interestingly, however, you note the fact that the scientists and engineers didn't care about the political reasons - they were doing it for other reasons altogether. Those reasons are very much appropriate to part of an entirely different argument that I really only alluded to in my very last post.

The scientists and engineers had their own agendas and priorities. There were a lot of people involved but I'm sure many had high ideals and "pure" agendas. On the other hand, there were ex Germans with questionable/documented pasts. They were hardly staller examples of humanity.

I will expand on it now to show you how differently we probably think: We are past the point of no returns in terms of the ecological impact our society is having on the planet - stasis is not an option, we either eventually wither down to a less complex society with consequent poverty and suffering far in excess of today's, or we have to acquire the technology, expertise and mastery of our environment in order to protect it and us from ourselves.

I'm not anti technology. I just think it's better directed to the specific problem at hand. I don't see Mars as being it- I could be wrong, I don't actually know much about Mars- but ...

And yes, we should also explore space because it's there! I will never entertain an argument that says we shouldn't look over the next horizon! We need some members of our species to always be pushing past the next frontiers, whether that be scientific, or exploratory. This is who we are, and we're at our best when we do it! For all we know, these are uniquely human values and they should be treasured.

I'm all for exploring space, it just would sit better with me if we checked off a few more high priority items first, - like feeding people.

I will add though, that perhaps this kind of adventure is excellent motivation for students in India to want to study math and science and perhaps the cost is easily justified as a cheap way to increase education which will be directed in all kinds of beneficial areas.

I don't think trickle-down is the appropriate term to describe the effect we're hypothesising - it's called the fiscal multiplier effect.

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Ahhhh the old trickle down theory.

Err... no trickle down economics was espoused in this thread - certainly not by me.

More jobs is more jobs. Bigger economy with more diverse industries is a bigger economy with more diverse industries. More foreign investment is more foreign investment.

Your mistake is to think that 'a generally larger and wealthier economy and more diverse industry' = 'trickle down economics'

Trickle down economics already has a quite specific definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

"Trickle-down economics" and the "trickle-down theory" are terms in United States politics to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided to businesses and upper income levels will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole.

I didn't mention anything to do with lowering taxes for industry, I didn't mention anything to do with economic benefits being provided to businesses by the State, I didn't mention increasing upper income levels in order to benefit poorer members.

The only thing I mentioned was 'improving the economy as a whole' which most assuredly is not the remit just of trickle down economics!

So no, it's absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my argument.

There seems to be ambiguity about the term. For example:

From:

https://lsaushistory13.wikispaces.com/T ... own+Theory

The Trickle-Down Theory is the idea that giving tax breaks or economic benefits to businesses and the wealthy will benefit the lower classes. The name is credited to Will Rogers, who said "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy" during the Great Depression. The Trickle-Down Theory is related to Reaganomics and laissez-faire in today's society.

But I'm happy to amend my comment and just have it say Trickle down without the word theory.

Well, you can change its name to anything you like, but you would still be entirely mistaken as my point has nothing to do with any notion of trickle down. While I am assuredly no expert on economics, you seem to be in an even worse position than me - can't you read from the very thing you're citing that it is not what my position was at all?

Any benefit to the economy involves growth and diversity - this means real benefits for people in that nation. Do you understand the distinction in my point?

Trickle-down means you apply benefits to the top earners and give tax-breaks to businesses and claim that this will result in more spending which will trickle down to the lower earners.

That's clearly not what I said, and I was really quite clear in my last post to clarify that for you.

John Platko wrote:From google search:

trickle down
phrasal verb of trickle
1. (of wealth) gradually benefit the poorest as a result of the increasing wealth of the richest.

trick·le-down
adjective

modifier noun: trickle-down; modifier noun: trickledown
(of an economic system) in which the poorest gradually benefit as a result of the increasing wealth of the richest.

Yes, again - as you can read directly from your citations, that's clearly not my position at all. I have not espoused that position, I have already explained to you why that isn't my position and that I've outlined a position that is in no way synonymous with that, so perhaps it might be time to move onto the next point?

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

John Platko wrote:That doesn't work, as evidenced by the poverty in the US while, and after,....

Well, even though I am not espousing it - let's be clear: it didn't work in the specific case where the term does apply. To say it doesn't work is to claim it cannot possibly work. Of course it can work as it depends on all the other laws being made in a nation at the same time. In the case of the US, it's not just these laws, but all the others and the way the economy was and is being run.

In the post of mine you cited, I expressly noted the unarguable fact that any progress towards diminishing poverty in India ultimately depends on the political leaders of India having the will to enact the necessary laws. That's just a plain fact in a democracy, or pretty much any system of governance we've ever tried.

I think we agree on that. In India as in my country, poor people are not the highest priority.

Sure that's absolutely clear, but I'd next like to ask you in what country poor people ARE the highest priority. Even if we can find a couple of plausible examples, the answer would be a resounding minority. Again, this has nothing to do with any of the pertinent points in this thread.

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Which ridiculous space shuttle was that?

The one that was touted as being a big economic improvement in space travel, a truck for space, - but was instead an economic failure. But I'll add, perhaps the people who launched us on the space shuttle path worked in good faith and honestly believed it would be an economical space vehicle. Technological development of the sort is not without risk, however when it became obvious that it was not going to be able to meet the cost or launch rate predictions then it should
have been scrubbed. I suspect the embarrassment was just too great to do that.

Firstly, I agree wholeheartedly about innovation necessarily being a risk. Particularly when you lead the way into a new area, you are risking a lot, because you are trail-blazing the path which others can follow at less cost and improve on without having to pay the upfront risk and weather the potential mistakes. This is, again, something to be proud of, regardless of its motivations.

As for 'economic failure' - I don't understand that argument. It wasn't designed to make money, it was designed to get people into space - a resounding success by and large. 135 missions over 30 years. You don't find many manufactured goods that last 30 years, yet you're holding the space shuttle program - something that takes people off the planet and returns them safely!! - to much higher expectations based on nothing because no other shuttle has been so successful.

I see no embarrassment here - I see an awesome achievement for humanity. Sure, it may have cost more than predicted, but it was still worth every cent.

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
Humanity landing on the Moon was one of, if not the greatest achievement our species has ever managed. I understand from what I have just read that you may choose to dispute this, but it is assuredly one that will remain in our collective species' memory far longer than any you could name.

It was an amazing achievement. Do primarily because we wanted to wave our rocket at the Russians. This is how JFK thought about it.

See:
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/ ... RIvvw.aspx

I really thought I had managed to explain to you already that the political considerations of the time is entirely irrelevant to anything we're discussing. It's not even a red herring as it doesn't provide any argumentation against the space shuttle, or link the space shuttle to the eradication of poverty. If it helps, I know very well what the motivations for the US winning the Space Race were and have written about it at length elsewhere - still terminally irrelevant with respect to the lines of argument pertinent to this thread.

As we're on this aside, you might want to consider the intermediary decades and how much space industries have come to rely on international cooperation. Even were the origins of space exploration for the basest possible reasons we can imagine, it still has resulted in an age of international cooperation previously unprecedented.

John Platko wrote:
I'm just suggesting that a better amazing achievement would be to end hunger- or at least put a dent in it.

??

No, I can't follow your argument at all.

On the one hand we have an actual real achievement of humanity, on the other we have one which still eludes us, which is extraordinarily complex, which is not a single issue but many, and is present in numerous sovereign nation states. How is the one (to go with the simplistic notion of it being a singular problem) we haven't achieved better than the one we have?

Is the eradication of poverty desirable? Yes.
Is it connected to space flight? No.

Really John, I am not finding you addressing any of the points of substance here - there's a lot of asides which are interesting in their own right, but they're irrelevant to any part of the topic, even when you whack in a sentence recapitulating the error which has been pointed out numerous times.

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

You did indeed say that, but it wasn't relevant the first time so I didn't bother responding. It still isn't relevant. No one is talking about what the motivations for launching spacecraft are - in fact, I've made it expressly clear that the objective of the spacecraft is not to eradicate poverty - I said it a goodly number of times throughout this thread in equally clear terms, so I am surprised you missed them all!

I don't see how you can drill into this issue without talking about the motivation for spending the money on Mars vs building homes for homeless people and feeding them.

Because it's not either/or as has been pointed out so many times now, I don't really know how to help you understand it. A nation's budget is far greater than the amount it spends on its space program, and its budget is far greater than the amount it spends on dealing with poverty - essentially, practically the entire budget would fall under the same 'not being spent on eradicating poverty', but none of that seems to be the issue, just the tiny fraction we have spent on space - why is that?

Plus building homes and perpetually feeding the 400 million people below the poverty line in India does not itself equate to eradicating poverty, just staving it off while the money lasts, and would cost a fuck of a lot more than $76m.

These are points which have been made half a dozen times at least so far. Can you try to actually rebut them rather than recapitulating the same flawed arguments over and over?

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
Interestingly, however, you note the fact that the scientists and engineers didn't care about the political reasons - they were doing it for other reasons altogether. Those reasons are very much appropriate to part of an entirely different argument that I really only alluded to in my very last post.

The scientists and engineers had their own agendas and priorities. There were a lot of people involved but I'm sure many had high ideals and "pure" agendas. On the other hand, there were ex Germans with questionable/documented pasts. They were hardly staller examples of humanity.

Wh...?

Your argumentation is very strange. I have yet to see you respond to a single point without introducing another tangent or smoke screen.

What does the alleged content of the character of any given scientist have to do with anything?

What does the nationality of some of the scientists have to do with it?

Not a sausage or even a bratwurst.

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
I will expand on it now to show you how differently we probably think: We are past the point of no returns in terms of the ecological impact our society is having on the planet - stasis is not an option, we either eventually wither down to a less complex society with consequent poverty and suffering far in excess of today's, or we have to acquire the technology, expertise and mastery of our environment in order to protect it and us from ourselves.

I'm not anti technology. I just think it's better directed to the specific problem at hand. I don't see Mars as being it- I could be wrong, I don't actually know much about Mars- but ...

No one sensible would suggest that we drop everything and do just one thing until it's done, then go onto the next. We're perfectly capable of multi-tasking as a species - some people can be working on one thing, while others work on something else. To suggest otherwise is a very odd argument to be making.

Incidentally, if you don't know about Mars, and I don't know about Mars, and no one knows about Mars - how will we ever know if it's of any material benefit to us without exploring it?

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
And yes, we should also explore space because it's there! I will never entertain an argument that says we shouldn't look over the next horizon! We need some members of our species to always be pushing past the next frontiers, whether that be scientific, or exploratory. This is who we are, and we're at our best when we do it! For all we know, these are uniquely human values and they should be treasured.

I'm all for exploring space, it just would sit better with me if we checked off a few more high priority items first, - like feeding people.

I think I have sufficiently expressed my equal desire to see poverty eradicated, I just recognise that it's not a simple process of throwing money at it until it goes away, because if you throw money at it without fixing any of the underlying causes, then you have to keep throwing money at it forever. And in your notion, we'd be stuck doing that ad infinitum. Give a man a fish, and all that.

John Platko wrote:I will add though, that perhaps this kind of adventure is excellent motivation for students in India to want to study math and science and perhaps the cost is easily justified as a cheap way to increase education which will be directed in all kinds of beneficial areas.

Couldn't agree more... and even if you see the space shuttle as a waste of investment, you have to recognise the profound affect it had on that generation's children who went on to study physics in previously unheard of numbers. It's inspirational - and I'd not want to leap to put a price tag on inspiring a generation, giving them pride in their species and their species' achievement, but I assume it's of high worth.

Keep It Real wrote:I don't think trickle-down is the appropriate term to describe the effect we're hypothesising - it's called the fiscal multiplier effect.

Well, it's closer than any notion of trickle-down, but it's still too specific comparative to what I was saying. My message was pretty clear: bigger, more robust and diverse economy means more money in the system, less unemployment, more consumer spending, more tax revenues, more budget to be spent at the discretion of the elected leaders. It's not any particular theory or effect, it's just plain old economics.

Maybe we can pull in an economist here to help clarify it for you?

lol your posts read like total diarrhoea spearthrower, and your belligerent tone does nothing to improve that. I could spend my time ripping them to shreds and pointing out how contradictory, misinformed and anaemic they are but I'm not sure I can be bothered. Maybe later. TTFN.

Good on India.

Now, here's how it can alleviate poverty. Anybody who can pull something like this off with so little money is clever as all fuck. Having people who are clever as all fuck in a country, and attracting more people who are clever as all fuck to work there is a lot more effective than throwing money at the problem, especially when the money goes, as it usually does, to contractors and the like who aren't clever as all fuck.

Keep It Real wrote:lol your posts read like total diarrhoea spearthrower,...

I very much doubt that's true, KIR. If it's the case for you, my guess would be reading comprehension issues on your side, which is why you struggled to make sense of perfectly clear English and erected logically flawed responses.

Keep It Real wrote:and your belligerent tone does nothing to improve that.

No belligerence in my tone whatsoever - you're projecting.

Funny how you could detect my tone, while also claiming the content of my posts was illegible.

Sadly, that makes no sense, much like your arguments about gold plated lamas.

Keep It Real wrote:I could spend my time ripping them to shreds and pointing out how contradictory, misinformed and anaemic they are but I'm not sure I can be bothered. Maybe later. TTFN.

Yeah yeah, sure you could. Just like you could prove Gods exist, but just don't have time right now.

Run along then chappy.

Gotta love tone-trolling...

Spearthrower wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Ahhhh the old trickle down theory.

Err... no trickle down economics was espoused in this thread - certainly not by me.

More jobs is more jobs. Bigger economy with more diverse industries is a bigger economy with more diverse industries. More foreign investment is more foreign investment.

Your mistake is to think that 'a generally larger and wealthier economy and more diverse industry' = 'trickle down economics'

Trickle down economics already has a quite specific definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics

"Trickle-down economics" and the "trickle-down theory" are terms in United States politics to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided to businesses and upper income levels will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole.

I didn't mention anything to do with lowering taxes for industry, I didn't mention anything to do with economic benefits being provided to businesses by the State, I didn't mention increasing upper income levels in order to benefit poorer members.

The only thing I mentioned was 'improving the economy as a whole' which most assuredly is not the remit just of trickle down economics!

So no, it's absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my argument.

There seems to be ambiguity about the term. For example:

From:

https://lsaushistory13.wikispaces.com/T ... own+Theory

The Trickle-Down Theory is the idea that giving tax breaks or economic benefits to businesses and the wealthy will benefit the lower classes. The name is credited to Will Rogers, who said "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy" during the Great Depression. The Trickle-Down Theory is related to Reaganomics and laissez-faire in today's society.

But I'm happy to amend my comment and just have it say Trickle down without the word theory.

Well, you can change its name to anything you like, but you would still be entirely mistaken as my point has nothing to do with any notion of trickle down. While I am assuredly no expert on economics, you seem to be in an even worse position than me - can't you read from the very thing you're citing that it is not what my position was at all?

Any benefit to the economy involves growth and diversity - this means real benefits for people in that nation. Do you understand the distinction in my point?

Trickle-down means you apply benefits to the top earners and give tax-breaks to businesses and claim that this will result in more spending which will trickle down to the lower earners.

That's clearly not what I said, and I was really quite clear in my last post to clarify that for you.

John Platko wrote:From google search:

trickle down
phrasal verb of trickle
1. (of wealth) gradually benefit the poorest as a result of the increasing wealth of the richest.

trick·le-down
adjective

modifier noun: trickle-down; modifier noun: trickledown
(of an economic system) in which the poorest gradually benefit as a result of the increasing wealth of the richest.

Yes, again - as you can read directly from your citations, that's clearly not my position at all. I have not espoused that position, I have already explained to you why that isn't my position and that I've outlined a position that is in no way synonymous with that, so perhaps it might be time to move onto the next point?

While I think you fail to understand the broad way the trickle down term is used I have no interest in bickering over terms so I will once again modify my comment and replace the term trickle down with the phrase "a rising tide lifts all boats." Which is simply not true. And there's no reason to believe that it works any better to help people in desperate economic positions.

However, we do seem to be having some communication difficulty and if you're attempting to communicate to me that your comments are about helping people in India who are already well educated and can fend for themselves being given a subsidy to improve their lives further, or provide for their pet projects, and in no way refers to the very poorest, then I'm not really interested in that discussion.

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

John Platko wrote:That doesn't work, as evidenced by the poverty in the US while, and after,....

Well, even though I am not espousing it - let's be clear: it didn't work in the specific case where the term does apply. To say it doesn't work is to claim it cannot possibly work. Of course it can work as it depends on all the other laws being made in a nation at the same time. In the case of the US, it's not just these laws, but all the others and the way the economy was and is being run.

In the post of mine you cited, I expressly noted the unarguable fact that any progress towards diminishing poverty in India ultimately depends on the political leaders of India having the will to enact the necessary laws. That's just a plain fact in a democracy, or pretty much any system of governance we've ever tried.

I think we agree on that. In India as in my country, poor people are not the highest priority.

Sure that's absolutely clear, but I'd next like to ask you in what country poor people ARE the highest priority. Even if we can find a couple of plausible examples, the answer would be a resounding minority. Again, this has nothing to do with any of the pertinent points in this thread.

Oh my, I gather that your position is that the issues of poor people in India have nothing to do with anything pertinent in this thread. Do I have that right?

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Which ridiculous space shuttle was that?

The one that was touted as being a big economic improvement in space travel, a truck for space, - but was instead an economic failure. But I'll add, perhaps the people who launched us on the space shuttle path worked in good faith and honestly believed it would be an economical space vehicle. Technological development of the sort is not without risk, however when it became obvious that it was not going to be able to meet the cost or launch rate predictions then it should
have been scrubbed. I suspect the embarrassment was just too great to do that.

Firstly, I agree wholeheartedly about innovation necessarily being a risk. Particularly when you lead the way into a new area, you are risking a lot, because you are trail-blazing the path which others can follow at less cost and improve on without having to pay the upfront risk and weather the potential mistakes. This is, again, something to be proud of, regardless of its motivations.

As for 'economic failure' - I don't understand that argument. It wasn't designed to make money, it was designed to get people into space - a resounding success by and large. 135 missions over 30 years. You don't find many manufactured goods that last 30 years, yet you're holding the space shuttle program - something that takes people off the planet and returns them safely!! - to much higher expectations based on nothing because no other shuttle has been so successful.

I see no embarrassment here - I see an awesome achievement for humanity. Sure, it may have cost more than predicted, but it was still worth every cent.

Ahh perhaps a bit of education on the subject will clear up this misunderstanding.

Once upon a time we went to the moon and brought back some rocks. Everyone was all excited and proud for while, but as with many things, the excitement quickly wore off for most. Then the credit card bill arrived. And to most it seemed like a lot of money for a bunch of rocks, cool as they might be. To many, space travel didn't seem worth the $$$$$$$$$. NASA and its contractors were very until they got an idea. They figured that it was costing so much $$$$$$$$$ because we threw out the space vehicles after using them just once. So they came up with a mostly, partly, sort-of, reusable space vehicle that would make it more like driving a truck into space. It could haul a lot on each trip and best of all would be reusable. Fly it, bring it home, send it through the wash and off it goes again. Cheap, reliable, no need for aircraft carriers and such to fetch it out of the ocean. What a plan .... To make a long story short, it didn't work out that way at all. There were a lot of unforeseen costs in making a reusable space vehicle with the capabilities touted. And while the technical achievements were impressive, they pushed the possible to the limit and that required a lot of expensive maintenance - engines, heat shields, etc.. To make things worse, the pressure from unmet expectations of the program put so much stress on NASA and its contractors management that they started to make bad decisions- and people died . All in all, the space shuttle failed to meet its goals- by a lot.

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
Humanity landing on the Moon was one of, if not the greatest achievement our species has ever managed. I understand from what I have just read that you may choose to dispute this, but it is assuredly one that will remain in our collective species' memory far longer than any you could name.

It was an amazing achievement. Do primarily because we wanted to wave our rocket at the Russians. This is how JFK thought about it.

See:
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/ ... RIvvw.aspx

I really thought I had managed to explain to you already that the political considerations of the time is entirely irrelevant to anything we're discussing. It's not even a red herring as it doesn't provide any argumentation against the space shuttle, or link the space shuttle to the eradication of poverty. If it helps, I know very well what the motivations for the US winning the Space Race were and have written about it at length elsewhere - still terminally irrelevant with respect to the lines of argument pertinent to this thread.

As we're on this aside, you might want to consider the intermediary decades and how much space industries have come to rely on international cooperation. Even were the origins of space exploration for the basest possible reasons we can imagine, it still has resulted in an age of international cooperation previously unprecedented.

There is international cooperation in many aspects of life, commerce, military, education, religion, etc. space cooperation is just another flavor of the same phenomenon.

John Platko wrote:
I'm just suggesting that a better amazing achievement would be to end hunger- or at least put a dent in it.

??

No, I can't follow your argument at all.

On the one hand we have an actual real achievement of humanity, on the other we have one which still eludes us, which is extraordinarily complex, which is not a single issue but many, and is present in numerous sovereign nation states. How is the one (to go with the simplistic notion of it being a singular problem) we haven't achieved better than the one we have?

Is the eradication of poverty desirable? Yes.
Is it connected to space flight? No.

Exactly! Now we're getting somewhere. That's an excellent summary of the problem. There is a desire to eradicate poverty and space flight (well at least Mars space flight) is not connected to that goal. Ergo, money spent on Mars could be better spent.

Really John, I am not finding you addressing any of the points of substance here - there's a lot of asides which are interesting in their own right, but they're irrelevant to any part of the topic, even when you whack in a sentence recapitulating the error which has been pointed out numerous times.

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

You did indeed say that, but it wasn't relevant the first time so I didn't bother responding. It still isn't relevant. No one is talking about what the motivations for launching spacecraft are - in fact, I've made it expressly clear that the objective of the spacecraft is not to eradicate poverty - I said it a goodly number of times throughout this thread in equally clear terms, so I am surprised you missed them all!

I don't see how you can drill into this issue without talking about the motivation for spending the money on Mars vs building homes for homeless people and feeding them.

Because it's not either/or as has been pointed out so many times now, I don't really know how to help you understand it. A nation's budget is far greater than the amount it spends on its space program, and its budget is far greater than the amount it spends on dealing with poverty - essentially, practically the entire budget would fall under the same 'not being spent on eradicating poverty', but none of that seems to be the issue, just the tiny fraction we have spent on space - why is that?

Plus building homes and perpetually feeding the 400 million people below the poverty line in India does not itself equate to eradicating poverty, just staving it off while the money lasts, and would cost a fuck of a lot more than $76m.
These are points which have been made half a dozen times at least so far. Can you try to actually rebut them rather than recapitulating the same flawed arguments over and over?

But it's not an all or nothing type of situation. Feeding how ever many people $76m will feed means that many less people going hungry, and that matters- especially to them. Is this not obvious?

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
Interestingly, however, you note the fact that the scientists and engineers didn't care about the political reasons - they were doing it for other reasons altogether. Those reasons are very much appropriate to part of an entirely different argument that I really only alluded to in my very last post.

The scientists and engineers had their own agendas and priorities. There were a lot of people involved but I'm sure many had high ideals and "pure" agendas. On the other hand, there were ex Germans with questionable/documented pasts. They were hardly staller examples of humanity.

Wh...?

We used Hitler's rocket team to help us get to the moon in a very big way and their track record for abusing people is well documented. It's a national disgrace as far as I'm concerned.

Your argumentation is very strange. I have yet to see you respond to a single point without introducing another tangent or smoke screen.

What does the alleged content of the character of any given scientist have to do with anything?

Well, for example, if collectively scientists and engineers ignore risks and warnings which might put lives at undue risk because their character is such that they can't take the pressure put on them by other people due to their personal or collective character failures then people might die an avoidable death. And this happened at NASA, and it is well documented.

And Von Braun and his cronies cared more about rockets and space then they did about the thousands who died building their designs in horrible conditions.

What does the nationality of some of the scientists have to do with it?

Not a sausage or even a bratwurst.

It's not the nationality, it's the specific Germans who were center stage at the Saturn V development.
I'm rather fond and amazed of the Germans who immigrated to the US and designed an built the early Martin steal string guitars. I could tell another little story if you require a history lesson on the early US space program and WHO did what and
WHO they were and WHERE they came from and WHAT they did there.

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
I will expand on it now to show you how differently we probably think: We are past the point of no returns in terms of the ecological impact our society is having on the planet - stasis is not an option, we either eventually wither down to a less complex society with consequent poverty and suffering far in excess of today's, or we have to acquire the technology, expertise and mastery of our environment in order to protect it and us from ourselves.

I'm not anti technology. I just think it's better directed to the specific problem at hand. I don't see Mars as being it- I could be wrong, I don't actually know much about Mars- but ...

No one sensible would suggest that we drop everything and do just one thing until it's done, then go onto the next. We're perfectly capable of multi-tasking as a species - some people can be working on one thing, while others work on something else. To suggest otherwise is a very odd argument to be making.

Incidentally, if you don't know about Mars, and I don't know about Mars, and no one knows about Mars - how will we ever know if it's of any material benefit to us without exploring it?

One could make that argument about anything that is unknown. I'm simply saying, let's get our priorities right. Feed, house, educate people, give them a decent standard of living with known resources or at least far less speculative resources than Mars might have and when our earthly house is in order, by all means, go explore Mars or wherever. (Although, I'm open to there being real measurable benefits from India's Mars program, like kids really cracking the books and getting interested in core math and science skills that can actually improve their lives and the lives of people around them- that is, as long as they don't grow up and want to use these skills on even bigger boondoggles in space.)

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
And yes, we should also explore space because it's there! I will never entertain an argument that says we shouldn't look over the next horizon! We need some members of our species to always be pushing past the next frontiers, whether that be scientific, or exploratory. This is who we are, and we're at our best when we do it! For all we know, these are uniquely human values and they should be treasured.

I'm all for exploring space, it just would sit better with me if we checked off a few more high priority items first, - like feeding people.

I think I have sufficiently expressed my equal desire to see poverty eradicated, I just recognise that it's not a simple process of throwing money at it until it goes away, because if you throw money at it without fixing any of the underlying causes, then you have to keep throwing money at it forever. And in your notion, we'd be stuck doing that ad infinitum. Give a man a fish, and all that.

John Platko wrote:I will add though, that perhaps this kind of adventure is excellent motivation for students in India to want to study math and science and perhaps the cost is easily justified as a cheap way to increase education which will be directed in all kinds of beneficial areas.

Couldn't agree more... and even if you see the space shuttle as a waste of investment, you have to recognise the profound affect it had on that generation's children who went on to study physics in previously unheard of numbers. It's inspirational - and I'd not want to leap to put a price tag on inspiring a generation, giving them pride in their species and their species' achievement, but I assume it's of high worth.

I'm not sure how many people were inspired by the space shuttle program, certainly that's true of the early space program and the moon landing. US interest in the space shuttle rolled off pretty fast for most people. I doubt if most people knew when launches were taking place. Technical people were thrilled of course.

And that reminds me of a course that's available on line which talks about all aspects of the space shuttle in depth with many of the actual people involved in the development. We're lucky to have this kind of information available, however there are other views on how "successful" the shuttle really was.

Enjoy!

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics- ... -lectures/

John Platko wrote:

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Spearthrower wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
Err... no trickle down economics was espoused in this thread - certainly not by me.

More jobs is more jobs. Bigger economy with more diverse industries is a bigger economy with more diverse industries. More foreign investment is more foreign investment.

Your mistake is to think that 'a generally larger and wealthier economy and more diverse industry' = 'trickle down economics'

Trickle down economics already has a quite specific definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics


I didn't mention anything to do with lowering taxes for industry, I didn't mention anything to do with economic benefits being provided to businesses by the State, I didn't mention increasing upper income levels in order to benefit poorer members.

The only thing I mentioned was 'improving the economy as a whole' which most assuredly is not the remit just of trickle down economics!

So no, it's absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my argument.

There seems to be ambiguity about the term. For example:

From:

https://lsaushistory13.wikispaces.com/T ... own+Theory

The Trickle-Down Theory is the idea that giving tax breaks or economic benefits to businesses and the wealthy will benefit the lower classes. The name is credited to Will Rogers, who said "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy" during the Great Depression. The Trickle-Down Theory is related to Reaganomics and laissez-faire in today's society.

But I'm happy to amend my comment and just have it say Trickle down without the word theory.

Well, you can change its name to anything you like, but you would still be entirely mistaken as my point has nothing to do with any notion of trickle down. While I am assuredly no expert on economics, you seem to be in an even worse position than me - can't you read from the very thing you're citing that it is not what my position was at all?

Any benefit to the economy involves growth and diversity - this means real benefits for people in that nation. Do you understand the distinction in my point?

Trickle-down means you apply benefits to the top earners and give tax-breaks to businesses and claim that this will result in more spending which will trickle down to the lower earners.

That's clearly not what I said, and I was really quite clear in my last post to clarify that for you.

John Platko wrote:From google search:

trickle down
phrasal verb of trickle
1. (of wealth) gradually benefit the poorest as a result of the increasing wealth of the richest.

trick·le-down
adjective

modifier noun: trickle-down; modifier noun: trickledown
(of an economic system) in which the poorest gradually benefit as a result of the increasing wealth of the richest.

Yes, again - as you can read directly from your citations, that's clearly not my position at all. I have not espoused that position, I have already explained to you why that isn't my position and that I've outlined a position that is in no way synonymous with that, so perhaps it might be time to move onto the next point?

While I think you fail to understand the broad way the trickle down term is used I have no interest in bickering over terms so I will once again modify my comment and replace the term trickle down with the phrase "a rising tide lifts all boats." Which is simply not true. And there's no reason to believe that it works any better to help people in desperate economic positions.

However, we do seem to be having some communication difficulty and if you're attempting to communicate to me that your comments are about helping people in India who are already well educated and can fend for themselves being given a subsidy to improve their lives further, or provide for their pet projects, and in no way refers to the very poorest, then I'm not really interested in that discussion.

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
Well, even though I am not espousing it - let's be clear: it didn't work in the specific case where the term does apply. To say it doesn't work is to claim it cannot possibly work. Of course it can work as it depends on all the other laws being made in a nation at the same time. In the case of the US, it's not just these laws, but all the others and the way the economy was and is being run.

In the post of mine you cited, I expressly noted the unarguable fact that any progress towards diminishing poverty in India ultimately depends on the political leaders of India having the will to enact the necessary laws. That's just a plain fact in a democracy, or pretty much any system of governance we've ever tried.

I think we agree on that. In India as in my country, poor people are not the highest priority.

Sure that's absolutely clear, but I'd next like to ask you in what country poor people ARE the highest priority. Even if we can find a couple of plausible examples, the answer would be a resounding minority. Again, this has nothing to do with any of the pertinent points in this thread.

Oh my, I gather that your position is that the issues of poor people in India have nothing to do with anything pertinent in this thread. Do I have that right?

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Which ridiculous space shuttle was that?

The one that was touted as being a big economic improvement in space travel, a truck for space, - but was instead an economic failure. But I'll add, perhaps the people who launched us on the space shuttle path worked in good faith and honestly believed it would be an economical space vehicle. Technological development of the sort is not without risk, however when it became obvious that it was not going to be able to meet the cost or launch rate predictions then it should
have been scrubbed. I suspect the embarrassment was just too great to do that.

Firstly, I agree wholeheartedly about innovation necessarily being a risk. Particularly when you lead the way into a new area, you are risking a lot, because you are trail-blazing the path which others can follow at less cost and improve on without having to pay the upfront risk and weather the potential mistakes. This is, again, something to be proud of, regardless of its motivations.

As for 'economic failure' - I don't understand that argument. It wasn't designed to make money, it was designed to get people into space - a resounding success by and large. 135 missions over 30 years. You don't find many manufactured goods that last 30 years, yet you're holding the space shuttle program - something that takes people off the planet and returns them safely!! - to much higher expectations based on nothing because no other shuttle has been so successful.

I see no embarrassment here - I see an awesome achievement for humanity. Sure, it may have cost more than predicted, but it was still worth every cent.

Ahh perhaps a bit of education on the subject will clear up this misunderstanding.

Once upon a time we went to the moon and brought back some rocks. Everyone was all excited and proud for while, but as with many things, the excitement quickly wore off for most. Then the credit card bill arrived. And to most it seemed like a lot of money for a bunch of rocks, cool as they might be. To many, space travel didn't seem worth the $$$$$$$$$. NASA and its contractors were very until they got an idea. They figured that it was costing so much $$$$$$$$$ because we threw out the space vehicles after using them just once. So they came up with a mostly, partly, sort-of, reusable space vehicle that would make it more like driving a truck into space. It could haul a lot on each trip and best of all would be reusable. Fly it, bring it home, send it through the wash and off it goes again. Cheap, reliable, no need for aircraft carriers and such to fetch it out of the ocean. What a plan .... To make a long story short, it didn't work out that way at all. There were a lot of unforeseen costs in making a reusable space vehicle with the capabilities touted. And while the technical achievements were impressive, they pushed the possible to the limit and that required a lot of expensive maintenance - engines, heat shields, etc.. To make things worse, the pressure from unmet expectations of the program put so much stress on NASA and its contractors management that they started to make bad decisions- and people died . All in all, the space shuttle failed to meet its goals- by a lot.

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Humanity landing on the Moon was one of, if not the greatest achievement our species has ever managed. I understand from what I have just read that you may choose to dispute this, but it is assuredly one that will remain in our collective species' memory far longer than any you could name.

It was an amazing achievement. Do primarily because we wanted to wave our rocket at the Russians. This is how JFK thought about it.

See:
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/ ... RIvvw.aspx

I really thought I had managed to explain to you already that the political considerations of the time is entirely irrelevant to anything we're discussing. It's not even a red herring as it doesn't provide any argumentation against the space shuttle, or link the space shuttle to the eradication of poverty. If it helps, I know very well what the motivations for the US winning the Space Race were and have written about it at length elsewhere - still terminally irrelevant with respect to the lines of argument pertinent to this thread.

As we're on this aside, you might want to consider the intermediary decades and how much space industries have come to rely on international cooperation. Even were the origins of space exploration for the basest possible reasons we can imagine, it still has resulted in an age of international cooperation previously unprecedented.

There is international cooperation in many aspects of life, commerce, military, education, religion, etc. space cooperation is just another flavor of the same phenomenon.

John Platko wrote:I'm just suggesting that a better amazing achievement would be to end hunger- or at least put a dent in it.

??

No, I can't follow your argument at all.

On the one hand we have an actual real achievement of humanity, on the other we have one which still eludes us, which is extraordinarily complex, which is not a single issue but many, and is present in numerous sovereign nation states. How is the one (to go with the simplistic notion of it being a singular problem) we haven't achieved better than the one we have?

Is the eradication of poverty desirable? Yes.
Is it connected to space flight? No.

Exactly! Now we're getting somewhere. That's an excellent summary of the problem. There is a desire to eradicate poverty and space flight (well at least Mars space flight) is not connected to that goal. Ergo, money spent on Mars could be better spent.

Really John, I am not finding you addressing any of the points of substance here - there's a lot of asides which are interesting in their own right, but they're irrelevant to any part of the topic, even when you whack in a sentence recapitulating the error which has been pointed out numerous times.

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote: You did indeed say that, but it wasn't relevant the first time so I didn't bother responding. It still isn't relevant. No one is talking about what the motivations for launching spacecraft are - in fact, I've made it expressly clear that the objective of the spacecraft is not to eradicate poverty - I said it a goodly number of times throughout this thread in equally clear terms, so I am surprised you missed them all!

I don't see how you can drill into this issue without talking about the motivation for spending the money on Mars vs building homes for homeless people and feeding them.

Because it's not either/or as has been pointed out so many times now, I don't really know how to help you understand it. A nation's budget is far greater than the amount it spends on its space program, and its budget is far greater than the amount it spends on dealing with poverty - essentially, practically the entire budget would fall under the same 'not being spent on eradicating poverty', but none of that seems to be the issue, just the tiny fraction we have spent on space - why is that?

Plus building homes and perpetually feeding the 400 million people below the poverty line in India does not itself equate to eradicating poverty, just staving it off while the money lasts, and would cost a fuck of a lot more than $76m.
These are points which have been made half a dozen times at least so far. Can you try to actually rebut them rather than recapitulating the same flawed arguments over and over?

But it's not an all or nothing type of situation. Feeding how ever many people $76m will feed means that many less people going hungry, and that matters- especially to them. Is this not obvious?

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Interestingly, however, you note the fact that the scientists and engineers didn't care about the political reasons - they were doing it for other reasons altogether. Those reasons are very much appropriate to part of an entirely different argument that I really only alluded to in my very last post.

The scientists and engineers had their own agendas and priorities. There were a lot of people involved but I'm sure many had high ideals and "pure" agendas. On the other hand, there were ex Germans with questionable/documented pasts. They were hardly staller examples of humanity.

Wh...?

We used Hitler's rocket team to help us get to the moon in a very big way and their track record for abusing people is well documented. It's a national disgrace as far as I'm concerned.

Your argumentation is very strange. I have yet to see you respond to a single point without introducing another tangent or smoke screen.

What does the alleged content of the character of any given scientist have to do with anything?

Well, for example, if collectively scientists and engineers ignore risks and warnings which might put lives at undue risk because their character is such that they can't take the pressure put on them by other people due to their personal or collective character failures then people might die an avoidable death. And this happened at NASA, and it is well documented.

And Von Braun and his cronies cared more about rockets and space then they did about the thousands who died building their designs in horrible conditions.

What does the nationality of some of the scientists have to do with it?

Not a sausage or even a bratwurst.

It's not the nationality, it's the specific Germans who were center stage at the Saturn V development.
I'm rather fond and amazed of the Germans who immigrated to the US and designed an built the early Martin steal string guitars. I could tell another little story if you require a history lesson on the early US space program and WHO did what and
WHO they were and WHERE they came from and WHAT they did there.

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:I will expand on it now to show you how differently we probably think: We are past the point of no returns in terms of the ecological impact our society is having on the planet - stasis is not an option, we either eventually wither down to a less complex society with consequent poverty and suffering far in excess of today's, or we have to acquire the technology, expertise and mastery of our environment in order to protect it and us from ourselves.

I'm not anti technology. I just think it's better directed to the specific problem at hand. I don't see Mars as being it- I could be wrong, I don't actually know much about Mars- but ...

No one sensible would suggest that we drop everything and do just one thing until it's done, then go onto the next. We're perfectly capable of multi-tasking as a species - some people can be working on one thing, while others work on something else. To suggest otherwise is a very odd argument to be making.

Incidentally, if you don't know about Mars, and I don't know about Mars, and no one knows about Mars - how will we ever know if it's of any material benefit to us without exploring it?

One could make that argument about anything that is unknown. I'm simply saying, let's get our priorities right. Feed, house, educate people, give them a decent standard of living with known resources or at least far less speculative resources than Mars might have and when our earthly house is in order, by all means, go explore Mars or wherever. (Although, I'm open to there being real measurable benefits from India's Mars program, like kids really cracking the books and getting interested in core math and science skills that can actually improve their lives and the lives of people around them- that is, as long as they don't grow up and want to use these skills on even bigger boondoggles in space.)

John Platko wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:And yes, we should also explore space because it's there! I will never entertain an argument that says we shouldn't look over the next horizon! We need some members of our species to always be pushing past the next frontiers, whether that be scientific, or exploratory. This is who we are, and we're at our best when we do it! For all we know, these are uniquely human values and they should be treasured.

I'm all for exploring space, it just would sit better with me if we checked off a few more high priority items first, - like feeding people.

I think I have sufficiently expressed my equal desire to see poverty eradicated, I just recognise that it's not a simple process of throwing money at it until it goes away, because if you throw money at it without fixing any of the underlying causes, then you have to keep throwing money at it forever. And in your notion, we'd be stuck doing that ad infinitum. Give a man a fish, and all that.

John Platko wrote:I will add though, that perhaps this kind of adventure is excellent motivation for students in India to want to study math and science and perhaps the cost is easily justified as a cheap way to increase education which will be directed in all kinds of beneficial areas.

Couldn't agree more... and even if you see the space shuttle as a waste of investment, you have to recognise the profound affect it had on that generation's children who went on to study physics in previously unheard of numbers. It's inspirational - and I'd not want to leap to put a price tag on inspiring a generation, giving them pride in their species and their species' achievement, but I assume it's of high worth.

I'm not sure how many people were inspired by the space shuttle program, certainly that's true of the early space program and the moon landing. US interest in the space shuttle rolled off pretty fast for most people. I doubt if most people knew when launches were taking place. Technical people were thrilled of course.

And that reminds me of a course that's available on line which talks about all aspects of the space shuttle in depth with many of the actual people involved in the development. We're lucky to have this kind of information available, however there are other views on how "successful" the shuttle really was.

Enjoy!

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics- ... o-lectures

Blah, blah, blah, John. To this day, some seven or eight bucks worth of goods or services are produced annually for every buck spent on the Apollo program. Goods or services that are a direct result of that program.

It does have its possible drawbacks, though. If the fucking integrated circuit had not been developed for NASA, we wouldn't have to be putting up with your bullshit right now.

The_Metatron wrote:

John Platko wrote:

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Spearthrower wrote:

John Platko wrote:
There seems to be ambiguity about the term. For example:

From:

https://lsaushistory13.wikispaces.com/T ... own+Theory


But I'm happy to amend my comment and just have it say Trickle down without the word theory.

Well, you can change its name to anything you like, but you would still be entirely mistaken as my point has nothing to do with any notion of trickle down. While I am assuredly no expert on economics, you seem to be in an even worse position than me - can't you read from the very thing you're citing that it is not what my position was at all?

Any benefit to the economy involves growth and diversity - this means real benefits for people in that nation. Do you understand the distinction in my point?

Trickle-down means you apply benefits to the top earners and give tax-breaks to businesses and claim that this will result in more spending which will trickle down to the lower earners.

That's clearly not what I said, and I was really quite clear in my last post to clarify that for you.

John Platko wrote:From google search:

Yes, again - as you can read directly from your citations, that's clearly not my position at all. I have not espoused that position, I have already explained to you why that isn't my position and that I've outlined a position that is in no way synonymous with that, so perhaps it might be time to move onto the next point?

While I think you fail to understand the broad way the trickle down term is used I have no interest in bickering over terms so I will once again modify my comment and replace the term trickle down with the phrase "a rising tide lifts all boats." Which is simply not true. And there's no reason to believe that it works any better to help people in desperate economic positions.

However, we do seem to be having some communication difficulty and if you're attempting to communicate to me that your comments are about helping people in India who are already well educated and can fend for themselves being given a subsidy to improve their lives further, or provide for their pet projects, and in no way refers to the very poorest, then I'm not really interested in that discussion.

John Platko wrote:
I think we agree on that. In India as in my country, poor people are not the highest priority.

Sure that's absolutely clear, but I'd next like to ask you in what country poor people ARE the highest priority. Even if we can find a couple of plausible examples, the answer would be a resounding minority. Again, this has nothing to do with any of the pertinent points in this thread.

Oh my, I gather that your position is that the issues of poor people in India have nothing to do with anything pertinent in this thread. Do I have that right?

John Platko wrote:
The one that was touted as being a big economic improvement in space travel, a truck for space, - but was instead an economic failure. But I'll add, perhaps the people who launched us on the space shuttle path worked in good faith and honestly believed it would be an economical space vehicle. Technological development of the sort is not without risk, however when it became obvious that it was not going to be able to meet the cost or launch rate predictions then it should
have been scrubbed. I suspect the embarrassment was just too great to do that.

Firstly, I agree wholeheartedly about innovation necessarily being a risk. Particularly when you lead the way into a new area, you are risking a lot, because you are trail-blazing the path which others can follow at less cost and improve on without having to pay the upfront risk and weather the potential mistakes. This is, again, something to be proud of, regardless of its motivations.

As for 'economic failure' - I don't understand that argument. It wasn't designed to make money, it was designed to get people into space - a resounding success by and large. 135 missions over 30 years. You don't find many manufactured goods that last 30 years, yet you're holding the space shuttle program - something that takes people off the planet and returns them safely!! - to much higher expectations based on nothing because no other shuttle has been so successful.

I see no embarrassment here - I see an awesome achievement for humanity. Sure, it may have cost more than predicted, but it was still worth every cent.

Ahh perhaps a bit of education on the subject will clear up this misunderstanding.

Once upon a time we went to the moon and brought back some rocks. Everyone was all excited and proud for while, but as with many things, the excitement quickly wore off for most. Then the credit card bill arrived. And to most it seemed like a lot of money for a bunch of rocks, cool as they might be. To many, space travel didn't seem worth the $$$$$$$$$. NASA and its contractors were very until they got an idea. They figured that it was costing so much $$$$$$$$$ because we threw out the space vehicles after using them just once. So they came up with a mostly, partly, sort-of, reusable space vehicle that would make it more like driving a truck into space. It could haul a lot on each trip and best of all would be reusable. Fly it, bring it home, send it through the wash and off it goes again. Cheap, reliable, no need for aircraft carriers and such to fetch it out of the ocean. What a plan .... To make a long story short, it didn't work out that way at all. There were a lot of unforeseen costs in making a reusable space vehicle with the capabilities touted. And while the technical achievements were impressive, they pushed the possible to the limit and that required a lot of expensive maintenance - engines, heat shields, etc.. To make things worse, the pressure from unmet expectations of the program put so much stress on NASA and its contractors management that they started to make bad decisions- and people died . All in all, the space shuttle failed to meet its goals- by a lot.

John Platko wrote:
It was an amazing achievement. Do primarily because we wanted to wave our rocket at the Russians. This is how JFK thought about it.

See:
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/ ... RIvvw.aspx

I really thought I had managed to explain to you already that the political considerations of the time is entirely irrelevant to anything we're discussing. It's not even a red herring as it doesn't provide any argumentation against the space shuttle, or link the space shuttle to the eradication of poverty. If it helps, I know very well what the motivations for the US winning the Space Race were and have written about it at length elsewhere - still terminally irrelevant with respect to the lines of argument pertinent to this thread.

As we're on this aside, you might want to consider the intermediary decades and how much space industries have come to rely on international cooperation. Even were the origins of space exploration for the basest possible reasons we can imagine, it still has resulted in an age of international cooperation previously unprecedented.

There is international cooperation in many aspects of life, commerce, military, education, religion, etc. space cooperation is just another flavor of the same phenomenon.

John Platko wrote:I'm just suggesting that a better amazing achievement would be to end hunger- or at least put a dent in it.

??

No, I can't follow your argument at all.

On the one hand we have an actual real achievement of humanity, on the other we have one which still eludes us, which is extraordinarily complex, which is not a single issue but many, and is present in numerous sovereign nation states. How is the one (to go with the simplistic notion of it being a singular problem) we haven't achieved better than the one we have?

Is the eradication of poverty desirable? Yes.
Is it connected to space flight? No.

Exactly! Now we're getting somewhere. That's an excellent summary of the problem. There is a desire to eradicate poverty and space flight (well at least Mars space flight) is not connected to that goal. Ergo, money spent on Mars could be better spent.

Really John, I am not finding you addressing any of the points of substance here - there's a lot of asides which are interesting in their own right, but they're irrelevant to any part of the topic, even when you whack in a sentence recapitulating the error which has been pointed out numerous times.

John Platko wrote:
I don't see how you can drill into this issue without talking about the motivation for spending the money on Mars vs building homes for homeless people and feeding them.

Because it's not either/or as has been pointed out so many times now, I don't really know how to help you understand it. A nation's budget is far greater than the amount it spends on its space program, and its budget is far greater than the amount it spends on dealing with poverty - essentially, practically the entire budget would fall under the same 'not being spent on eradicating poverty', but none of that seems to be the issue, just the tiny fraction we have spent on space - why is that?

Plus building homes and perpetually feeding the 400 million people below the poverty line in India does not itself equate to eradicating poverty, just staving it off while the money lasts, and would cost a fuck of a lot more than $76m.
These are points which have been made half a dozen times at least so far. Can you try to actually rebut them rather than recapitulating the same flawed arguments over and over?

But it's not an all or nothing type of situation. Feeding how ever many people $76m will feed means that many less people going hungry, and that matters- especially to them. Is this not obvious?

John Platko wrote:
The scientists and engineers had their own agendas and priorities. There were a lot of people involved but I'm sure many had high ideals and "pure" agendas. On the other hand, there were ex Germans with questionable/documented pasts. They were hardly staller examples of humanity.

Wh...?

We used Hitler's rocket team to help us get to the moon in a very big way and their track record for abusing people is well documented. It's a national disgrace as far as I'm concerned.

Your argumentation is very strange. I have yet to see you respond to a single point without introducing another tangent or smoke screen.

What does the alleged content of the character of any given scientist have to do with anything?

Well, for example, if collectively scientists and engineers ignore risks and warnings which might put lives at undue risk because their character is such that they can't take the pressure put on them by other people due to their personal or collective character failures then people might die an avoidable death. And this happened at NASA, and it is well documented.

And Von Braun and his cronies cared more about rockets and space then they did about the thousands who died building their designs in horrible conditions.

What does the nationality of some of the scientists have to do with it?

Not a sausage or even a bratwurst.

It's not the nationality, it's the specific Germans who were center stage at the Saturn V development.
I'm rather fond and amazed of the Germans who immigrated to the US and designed an built the early Martin steal string guitars. I could tell another little story if you require a history lesson on the early US space program and WHO did what and
WHO they were and WHERE they came from and WHAT they did there.

John Platko wrote:
I'm not anti technology. I just think it's better directed to the specific problem at hand. I don't see Mars as being it- I could be wrong, I don't actually know much about Mars- but ...

No one sensible would suggest that we drop everything and do just one thing until it's done, then go onto the next. We're perfectly capable of multi-tasking as a species - some people can be working on one thing, while others work on something else. To suggest otherwise is a very odd argument to be making.

Incidentally, if you don't know about Mars, and I don't know about Mars, and no one knows about Mars - how will we ever know if it's of any material benefit to us without exploring it?

One could make that argument about anything that is unknown. I'm simply saying, let's get our priorities right. Feed, house, educate people, give them a decent standard of living with known resources or at least far less speculative resources than Mars might have and when our earthly house is in order, by all means, go explore Mars or wherever. (Although, I'm open to there being real measurable benefits from India's Mars program, like kids really cracking the books and getting interested in core math and science skills that can actually improve their lives and the lives of people around them- that is, as long as they don't grow up and want to use these skills on even bigger boondoggles in space.)

John Platko wrote:
I'm all for exploring space, it just would sit better with me if we checked off a few more high priority items first, - like feeding people.

I think I have sufficiently expressed my equal desire to see poverty eradicated, I just recognise that it's not a simple process of throwing money at it until it goes away, because if you throw money at it without fixing any of the underlying causes, then you have to keep throwing money at it forever. And in your notion, we'd be stuck doing that ad infinitum. Give a man a fish, and all that.

John Platko wrote:I will add though, that perhaps this kind of adventure is excellent motivation for students in India to want to study math and science and perhaps the cost is easily justified as a cheap way to increase education which will be directed in all kinds of beneficial areas.

Couldn't agree more... and even if you see the space shuttle as a waste of investment, you have to recognise the profound affect it had on that generation's children who went on to study physics in previously unheard of numbers. It's inspirational - and I'd not want to leap to put a price tag on inspiring a generation, giving them pride in their species and their species' achievement, but I assume it's of high worth.

I'm not sure how many people were inspired by the space shuttle program, certainly that's true of the early space program and the moon landing. US interest in the space shuttle rolled off pretty fast for most people. I doubt if most people knew when launches were taking place. Technical people were thrilled of course.

And that reminds me of a course that's available on line which talks about all aspects of the space shuttle in depth with many of the actual people involved in the development. We're lucky to have this kind of information available, however there are other views on how "successful" the shuttle really was.

Enjoy!

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics- ... o-lectures

Blah, blah, blah, John. To this day, some seven or eight bucks worth of goods or services are produced annually for every buck spent on the Apollo program. Goods or services that are a direct result of that program.

I had no idea that Tang was so popular. Who knew?

It does have its possible drawbacks, though. If the fucking integrated circuit had not been developed for NASA, we wouldn't have to be putting up with your bullshit right now.

There was a far more pressing need for the integrated circuit than NASA provided- i.e. blowing people up. The military was all over it. NASA took their cue from the military missile programs to design the Apollo computer. But the Integrated circuit was a natural transition for the transistor. Densely packing transistors is not only important for saving space but also important to make circuits run fast and with less power. And that was important for all kinds of things.

Never the less, the Apollo computer was very cool. Here's a video that gives a good overview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIBhPsyYCiM

Also, one of the developers wrote a book about the development of the Apollo computer which is an interesting read.