/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4367195]

Let it be known that space exploration and travel have to be funded privately, not publicly.

Yes going to mars is interesting, but so is fucking hos, and people can rightly be expected to pay for such entertainment themselves.

It is ludicrous that space exploration is somehow within the domain of government spending. It is a hideous form of violence that taxpayers are disowned for this shit at gunpoint.

No one keeps you from setting up a private fund and send shit to mars yourself. You do NOT get to disown hard-working taxpayers who never consented to this crap, nor are interested in this crap. If the WERE interested, they could donate to your fund voluntarily.

STOP THIS VIOLENT BULLSHIT!!!

Thanks, that's all.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4367198]

One could argue that no one would fund a trip to mars, despite how much people would want it. Therefore we need the government to fund such a trip in the absence of a free market solution.

Just throwing out arguments.

[Anonymous No.4367202]

>>4367198
>One could argue that no one would fund a trip to mars, despite how much people would want it.
Not coherently. You could set up a fund like crowdsourcing, see how many people commit, and only if the necessary costs for a project are reached, the money actually flows.

If people aren't voluntarily donating, then that's a revealed preference that they are, in fact, NOT interested in financing it. Sending men with guns after them for this is violence and unjustifiable.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4367234]

>>4367202

Asking people how much they would pay a mars mission, is not a reliable measure of how much they would put forward when asked if they would put forward some money for a mars mission.

Then you have all kinds of exteranlity, and game theory problems, like people not putting money forward on the perception of other people not putting money forward. Or people benefiting from a program, while not putting money forward themselves.

Anyway, you just cant have a massive program like that keeping track of everyone's tab on the mars mission business.

It makes more sense to just tax people and then fund it.

[Anonymous No.4367235]

bump to spread the word

This violence must stop!

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4367239]

>>4367235
What violence?

[Anonymous No.4367244]

The money spent on knowledge and progress is eternal.

Anything else is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.4367254]

>>4367234
>Then you have all kinds of exteranlity, and game theory problems, like people not putting money forward on the perception of other people not putting money forward.

Crowdfunding can work like this: People commit to paying a certain sum. If and only if the necessary threshold for a project is reached, they actually have to pay. No one "puts money forward" if other people don't. If not sufficient people are ready to commit, you obviously don't have public interest in this project.

It is absurd to think that in a society in which people aren't ready to commit some money if and only if others are also ready to commit to a project, that project should be funded by violent disowning of people who never consented.

>Or people benefiting from a program, while not putting money forward themselves.

They benefit if and only if enough people voluntarily pay. They can commit to paying small sums to increase the probability of this. If enough people do this, it gets funded. The cost of not commiting is the probability that the project doesn't get funded. People who refuse to pay show that they are not enough interested in the benefit to commit to the project. If they benefit later, that's merely a bonus to them.

It's like streaming a show online that I would never pay for. If it exists, I stream, if I have to pay, I don't want it. This never means it's okay to force me to pay if I'm not interested enough.

[Anonymous No.4367256]

>>4367239
What happens if you refuse to pay your taxes? Men with guns come to your home an lock you up physically.

[Anonymous No.4367260]

You elected governments which support this hence the public was consenting.
Don't for a second pretend you paultards are a majority.

[Anonymous No.4367264]

>>4367260
I never elected such a government. Other people's votes don't imply *my* consent!

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4367267]

>>4367254

>Crowdfunding can work like this: People commit to paying a certain sum. If and only if the necessary threshold for a project is reached, they actually have to pay. No one "puts money forward" if other people don't. If not sufficient people are ready to commit, you obviously don't have public interest in this project.

Yeah but, people are free to commit even when they dont mean it. There is no cost to pledging $1,000,000.

>that project should be funded by violent disowning of people who never consented.
>violent

That word... I dont think it means what you think it means..

> People who refuse to pay show that they are not enough interested

Thats not true. They might think its the best idea ever, and at the same time believe it will be funded and thus have no incentive to pay.

Like teachers unions, if a teacher pays the union, the union fights for better wages, but even if you dont pay the union, you get the benefit of better wages.

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4367270]

>>4367264
Your consent is not relevant.
The government was elected fairly, and the public does not have a say on how taxpayer money gets to be spent.
You have no choice.

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4367272]

>>4367256
Tax evasion is a crime, but they will not come with guns.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4367277]

>>4367264
>>4367256
>>4367270

I actually have to agree with OP here. Election does not imply consent, just majority. Also majority doesnt imply justice. On top of that no one knows anything about who they are voting for, and politicians never have any obligation to fulfill their duties.

The fact that the government is democratic does not imply the government is just by taxing OP.

[Anonymous No.4367278]

>>4367267
>Yeah but, people are free to commit even when they dont mean it. There is no cost to pledging $1,000,000.
The commitment could be legally binding under the condition that the threshold is reached. It's like signing a contract that says, "If enough people pay enough, I owe this money to the project implementors". Absolutely well-defined.

>That word... I dont think it means what you think it means..
But it does. What happens to you if you refuse to pay taxes other people have defined?

>They might think its the best idea ever, and at the same time believe it will be funded and thus have no incentive to pay.
I already pointed out: The decrease in probability that the project will be funded is the cost of not commititng.

[Anonymous No.4367280]

>>4367256

Find another country to live in and pay taxes there.

Canada's not funding a Mars mission.

[Anonymous No.4367281]

>>4367270
>Your consent is not relevant. You have no choice.
That's why it's violence. You might just as well rob people on the streets.

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4367283]

>>4367281
Society would break down if taxes were optional. You can not just refuse to pay, and it is of course impossible to get everyone to agree on how it should be spent.

This is not perfect, but it is the best system we have.

[Anonymous No.4367284]

>>4367272
>Tax evasion is a crime, but they will not come with guns.
They will. And with tasers.

[Anonymous No.4367285]

>>4367277

>Election does not imply consent, just majority. Also majority doesnt imply justice. On top of that no one knows anything about who they are voting for, and politicians never have any obligation to fulfill their duties.

Your problems lie within the system and have nothing to do with the particular concern of a manned Mars mission.

[Anonymous No.4367289]

>>4367283
Society would not break down if the government didn't fund mars missions and the fucking opera! I never said taxes aren't necessary for some societal functions. They are, for instance, obviously necessary for funding law enforcement (to a sane degree).

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4367290]

>>4367278

>The commitment could be legally binding under the condition that the threshold is reached.

Nigga please, that will never happen. Millions of legally binding contracts? This is not practical, or feasible.

> What happens to you if you refuse to pay taxes other people have defined?

Yeah I guess tax evasion, but coercion =/= violence.

> The decrease in probability that the project will be funded is the cost of not commititng.

If one were under the impression that it will be funded one is not concerned about the probability of its funding.

Besides, if you are talking about paying for a probability, that is like a separate thing than the good itself. Now you have the whole market muddled up.

>>4367285

True

[Harriet !x6oGOnISPY No.4367292]

>>4367284
No, you would have to commit a more serious crime to warrant such a violent response.
Unarmed policemen would be enough, providing you do not resist.

[Anonymous No.4367293]

>>4367290
>Nigga please, that will never happen. Millions of legally binding contracts? This is not practical, or feasible.
You can do this with a simple crowdfunding website. Such projects already exist.

>Yeah I guess tax evasion, but coercion =/= violence.
Coercion is the threat of violence, it doesn't exist without the actual use of violence. Tax evaders are sitting in prison right now, they did not voluntarily go there, and they cannot leave.

>If one were under the impression that it will be funded one is not concerned about the probability of its funding.
I recommend reading up on the concept of expected value.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4367295]

>>4367293

>You can do this with a simple crowdfunding website

No you cant. You cant do it. A mars mission would just be such a massive amount of money. These "crowdfunding" websites are are for a few thousand dollars at a time, and there are no real obligations.

>I recommend reading up on the concept of expected value.

I recommend a rebuttal.

>mfw this whole time

[Anonymous No.4367303]

>>4367295
>These "crowdfunding" websites are are for a few thousand dollars at a time, and there are no real obligations.
I think the implementation of this is manageable. It may have some overhead costs, but certainly nothing like forcing people to pay for large-scale projects they have no interest in. Alternatively, set up a normal fund for donations that does research in scalable project chunks and see how the interest evolves. If it's not there for large-scale projects, the public was never interested in these projects.

>I recommend a rebuttal.
I can't believe I have to spell it out for you. The more money you are willing to commit, the higher the probability that the threshold for implementation is actually reached. The more people are ready to commit, the higher the proability. If you knew the concept of expected value, you would get it. The probability shift of each commitment may be low, but if the threshold is not reached, the project is not funded (high utility shift). Multiply the probability shift with the utility shift, and you get the expected utility of a commitment. If that's not high enough to motivate people at all, then that's a revealed preference that they were never interested in the project to begin with, which makes it immoral to finance it at gunpoint.

[Anonymous No.4367308]

If the government can make me pay taxes for welfare niggers, then they can make the peasants pay for space exploration too.

[Anonymous No.4367313]

>>4367308
The function of welfare is to secure your own life if you end up in poverty, and to reduce the crime rate. These are basic functions in the domain of the state. The function of going to mars is just curiosity and sciency entertainment. It's absurd to use violence to force this.

[Anonymous No.4367321]

>The progress of science for the best of mankind should be let die if there is no capitalism involved so they can sustain themselves
Fuck off OP, go back to the middle ages

[Anonymous No.4367328]

>>4367303
>so how's the progress?
>pretty good, all the parts are ready, except the engine, no one was interested in the engine.

[Anonymous No.4367330]

Mars is the new gun, it pushes human progress and any nation that can be a part of it will have a distinct symbolic, cultural, material, and scientific/knowledge based advantage over other less capable nations.

No one can argue against the value of the American space program. due to the space race we now have the commanding heights over the rest of the world and they know it. Pushing for Mars will give us, or anyone involved i the process, unforeseen insights on space dominance.

Fuck yo feelings nigga this is about natural selection <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NOs2nmwig&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLF6
DC77F93525981F>

[Anonymous No.4367332]

>>4367321
>for the best of mankind
If you seriously thought those mars missions were for your best, you would donate for it too. The fact that people here think people wouldn't shows it's not for the best of mankind. Why would it be? What do you gain from sending someone to mars? Super inefficient entertainment. Nothing else.

[Anonymous No.4367335]

>>4367328
Funny how you just proved you can't read.

[Anonymous No.4367341]

>>4367335
Funny how you just proved you can't into jokes.

[Anonymous No.4367346]

>>4367341
Ah my bad, I thought you were trying to make a point.

[Anonymous No.4367347]

>>4367332
>What do you gain from sending someone to mars? Super inefficient entertainment. Nothing else.
Are you really this dense?
Okay let's stop all scientific research that only does data gathering this very instant, for there is obviously no purpose in it.
Also I have no money to donate. What I do daily is donate my spare CPU time to the world community grid.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4367349]

>>4367303

>I think the implementation of this is manageable.

Well I dont.

>I can't believe I have to spell it out for you

You are basically saying the same sentences. I was able to read them the first time.

In the most simplistic sense, if it costs $100 to go to space, and Tom will derive >$100 worth of utility from going to space, he pays for going to space. Now lets introduce two individuals. Tom and Carl. It costs $100 to go to space. Both Tom and Carl want to go to space and are willing to pay $100. Tom knows Carl will put up $100 therefore Tom wont put up $100 because it would be a waste of money. Carl knows Tom wants to go to space, therefore Carl wont put up $100. Just because everyone wants to go to space, doesnt imply anyone actually goes to space. This is basic game theory.

Its not free to commit to this stuff either, if its legally binding. If its legally binding than there is a cost of documentation, and the opportunity cost of a certain amount of money which you might owe later. That could dissuade people from committing.

On top of that there is no way you could force everyone to fulfill their obligations. Think about what happens if 10,000,000 people commit $100. You are going to pay a lawyer to sue 10,000,000 people for $100? That doesnt make any sense. You might collect on all the promises, and not actually reach the threshold to begin with. Then what? No one does business with anyone that stupid.

Anyway, I have typed more words than you are worth. Stop reading so much Ayn Rand. It rots your brain.

[Anonymous No.4367351]

specifically= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NOs2nmwig&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLF6#t=9
m

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4367352]

>>4367328

Made me laugh

[Anonymous No.4367354]

>>4367347
>Also I have no money to donate. What I do daily is donate my spare CPU time to the world community grid.
That actually costs money in increased energy costs. Of course, if you paid fewer taxes, you could donate more money.

>Okay let's stop all scientific research that only does data gathering this very instant, for there is obviously no purpose in it.
You could privatize it, with the excess money from reduced taxation. There is no reason why governments should have this job, based on coercion.

[Anonymous No.4367355]

>>4367346
I did, in the form of a joke. And I understood what you were saying. I guess I have to spell out what I'm getting at:
important stuff like space exploration should not be left to the whims of the public, nor to be butchered by 'expediency' during popularity contests

At least not during the times when popular sentiment is contraction and ossification.

[Anonymous No.4367357]

>>4367354
>>4367354

In 100 words or less:
Why should a private firm invest billions of dollars in order to get to Mars?

[Anonymous No.4367358]

>>4367354
>That actually costs money in increased energy costs.
Little money.

>You could privatize it, with the excess money from reduced taxation.
Nobody would invest.
And if they did, that would make whatever knowledge is generated, private, copyrighted. That is a fucking terrible idea with current copyright laws.
The pharmaceutical business already has this and it's a fucking nightmare for the progress of medicine.

[Anonymous No.4367360]

>>4367349
>Anyway, I have typed more words than you are worth.
Any yet you didn't get it, as your bogus example with Carl and Tom clearly shows. Given your lack of insight and disrespectful debate style, I'm no longer wasting my time with you.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4367362]

>>4367360

>I'm no longer wasting my time with you.

No! Im no longer wasting my time with you!

...you big jerk!

[Anonymous No.4367365]

>important stuff like space exploration
That was my whole point - it's not important. If it was, you *would* see millions of benefactors/investors voluntarily pay. We're not seeing that. What a surprise.

>Why should a private firm invest billions of dollars in order to get to Mars?
Why should taxpayers?

[Anonymous No.4367370]

>>4367365
>it's not important
You sound like all that dumb people in the world that claim "math is useless" because you fail to grasp the implications of the subject
All the shit that has been developed during the space race is fucking ridiculous. We probably wouldn't have satellites and cellphones these days if it wasn't for the USAvsURSS space duel.

[Anonymous No.4367373]

>>4367365

Because of all the knowledge we got from the space era.
There are a lot of things that were discovered / manufactured due to the work NASA did in order to get into space / the moon.
And I won't even bother with the non-materialistic good, such as confirmation of various scientific theories.

[Anonymous No.4367375]

>>4367365
And you're implying that people see what is important.
Bread and circuses.

If the whole population was highly educated and really aware of the universe, there'd be no need for government, or coercion. But that's not the way the world is, and that's why there has to be taxes to pay for what the stupid people can't understand that they need. And you seem to imply that you belong to these uneducated masses.

[Anonymous No.4367378]

fucking niggers, are you even listening? <http://www.technewsworld.com/story/74426.html>

[Anonymous No.4367379]

>>4367349
Your example is garbage, sounds like something from a shitty textbook.

Let's say getting to space costs $100 per trip, and $2000 in non-recouped engineering costs. Company Z designs a means of doing so and plans out implementation. They sell tickets for $200, with the condition that the ticket will only be honored if 15 people buy tickets.

...

That's it. This is what actually happens in reality, for instance, Virgin Galactic.

>economist
That explains a lot.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4367380]

Libertarian arguments often rely on the idea that the economy is so efficient that libertarians would be able to win an election. Because libertarians are not popular, it demonstrates to us that the economy is not so efficient, and therefore we have to rely on the government to enforce some of the things which we deem to be good.

[Anonymous No.4367386]

>>4367375
Nice elitist attitude.

The problem with people like you is, even though you think you're smarter than the general population, you actually aren't. If you were, you wouldn't rely on robbing them to accomplish your "important" goals.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4367390]

>>4367379

You are right. I think I was dedicating too much effort to argue with OP.

I recognize that in reality people can be benevolent and donate money, and people will collaborate to finance and create awesome things. I dont think that necessarily suggests that we shouldnt fund NASA.

Virgin Galactic is not a good example because:
1. People actually pay to go to space, the benefit from the ride is enjoyed by them and them alone, and there are no externalities
2. Its doesnt actually cost Virgin galactic very much money to go to "near space." Virgin galactic just built a plane that can go super high into the air into "near space" and can offer a moment of weightlessness.
3. Virgin galactic isnt funded by "crowd sourcing." Virgin is a super massive company that is able to throw out money and fund its own operations, and take responsibility for them.

Also I am not actually an economist, I just study econ in school.

[Anonymous No.4367391]

>>4367380
And as you've proved in this entire thread, counter-arguments to libertarian economics usually rely on logical fallacies, emotion and populism.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4367393]

>>4367391

What if I told you that I was a libertarian

[Anonymous No.4367401]

>>4367393
I wouldn't be surprised. I actually just read your reply saying that Ayn Rand causes brain rotting (provide actual counter arguments if you have something against A.R.), and that annoyed me enough to reply. But now that I read the entire thread I see your ideas aren't particularly wrong.

Also, my point remains valid. I'm not saying there aren't proper counter-arguments to libertarian economics, only that they're rarely made.

[Anonymous No.4367404]

Taking a break from bickering for a moment, let us revel in this video of SpaceX's latest engine test.

http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20120201

[Anonymous No.4367415]

>Think about what happens if 10,000,000 people commit $100. You are going to pay a lawyer to sue 10,000,000 people for $100? That doesnt make any sense.

This is actually a good argument, but it could be solved like this: You have services like paypal that lets you have money in a digital account, and your commitment is bound by having enough money in that account. You can change your commitment in real-time as long as the threshold isn't reached, but once it is, the money is automatically withdrawn from your account and used for funding.

Don't know if this could be hacked, but it seems doable.

[Anonymous No.4367420]

>>4367415
You might go want to check out kickstarter.com

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4367430]

>>4367401

On a serious note I very much agree, and I am sorry I annoyed you.

Libertarians rely on the idea that rational individuals can come to a rational conclusion. This is not true. This isnt a statement to mean that we shouldnt have a free market or something, but for our own sake we should recognize the limits to our libertarian values.

[Anonymous No.4367445]

>>4367420
Yes, like this. Now this should have to be scalable with low overhead costs, popularized and applied to serious research projects.

[Anonymous No.4367451]

>>4367386
>space is not important
>space is not important
>space is not important
>space is not important
>space is not important
>saying space is important is elitist
>thinking you're smarter than the general populus is elitist
Now, why are you here? No, really?

[Anonymous No.4367454]

>>4367430
It's possible to arrive at libertarian values just from the premise that "violence is bad" coupled with the realization that by declaring things illegal the state exerts coercion against people (a form of violence).

I do not think people are particularly logical, but it has no bearing on what has led me to libertarianism.

[Anonymous No.4367456]

>>4367451
Saying people generally don't see what's important, but governments do, is elitist. Also unrealistic.

[Anonymous No.4367459]

>>4367454
Libertarian values don't have to be all-or-nothing either. A general understanding that government violence isn't automatically better than any other violence would be a nice first step.

[Anonymous No.4367463]

>>4367456
No, it's realistic. A government advised by experts generally comes to the right conclusions. Notice 'generally'.

[Anonymous No.4367470]

.. you may have presented an interesting point, but it is glaringly obvious you are a bitch. a bitch. i say.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4367474]

>>4367454

You are OP arent you?

If you think violence is bad, you should work to minimize violence I suppose. I dont see libertarianism resulting in any more or less violence than anything else. I dont know why you would believe that people with more freedom are inherently less violent. I just read an essay citing a variety of anthropological studies that demonstrate quite clearly that primitive man in his most free form was violent. So, if you would like to minimize violence, you cant just step out of the picture, you have to impose, perhaps violently, onto others.

With that said, certainly you feel there is more to goodness than a lack of violence ( I am assuming). I am sure you have many values that you consider to be good, in that regard you have to make many trade offs between these.

>>4367459

Yeah I totally agree. I value freedom, but, I recognize that freedom can be damaged by more than just the government for example. Libertarians seem to get this tautology that everything the government does is bad, and what people do is good.

[Anonymous No.4367479]

>>4367474
>You are OP arent you?
No, but never mind.

[Anonymous No.4367485]

>>4367456
It's not elitist or wrong.
People only care about their own interests, while governments are supposed to care about the best for population.
This statement is a proper generalization for American society in this day and age.
The obvious problem is that governments are run by people, which makes them prone to corruption.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4367492]

>>4367485

>while governments are supposed to care about the best for population.

Which is totally relative.

[Anonymous No.4367498]

>>4367474
(I'm not OP)

Libertarianism minimizes violence for the obvious reason that in a non-Libertarian society the government is always and consistently expressing violence toward each individual. I find that a clear moral affront. The government has no right to coerce everyone in society, to forcibly take their wages, etc.

Your argument about violence caused by others is a consequentialist argument, but I am a moral absolutist. If person A is a perpetrator of violence, person B may intervene against person A, but has no right to coerce or otherwise express violence toward uninvolved person C for the purpose of preventing the wrongful act of A. The government does something even worse, because they are not even justified by the imminent violence of the hypothetical but by nebulous hypothetical instances or not even that. What violence is prevented by coercive taking of money from individuals to fund the bailout of an insolvent corporation whose products people evidently don't want?

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4367508]

>>4367498

If you are a moral absolutist than it really doesnt matter if a libertarian government would minimize violence, becuase you just dont think it has the right to be violent at all. If thats the case you really arent a libertarian either than because libertarians believe in some minimal amount of government coercion, as opposed to no amount of coercion.

You are like one of those wacky anarcho-capitalists.

[Anonymous No.4367513]

>>4367492
Not really.
Education, health, security, jobs, technological progress. There is a consensus on these things, GINI indexes and shit like that.
The differences are in the model used to obtain these things.

[Anonymous No.4367525]

You wouldn't see a return on such an investment for at least a century, there's no precedent for private business investing in that kind of endeavor.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4367536]

>>4367513

One could consider public education not good for the population despite what the public thinks. Besides, what the hell does the public know about public policy?

Even if we were all behaving rationally, Kenneth Arrow won the noble prize for proving that rational preferences cannot be rationally aggregated. Meaning even if we knew exactly what everyone wanted, there is no way we could make them happy without violating the democratic principals that our government relied on.

One way or another, the people in charge have to impose their notion of goodness onto others.

[Anonymous No.4367547]

>>4367508
Minarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism are two different variants of Libertarianism. You seem to be under the delusion that only people who share your exact views can be called Libertarian.

For what it's worth, I think that a consent-based society could require contributions from its consenting members for the provision of essential services (including law enforcement).

[Anonymous No.4367554]

>>4367536
>One could consider public education not good for the population despite what the public thinks
Yes, so? It's just incorrect opinions. A lot of people argue that evolution is "a belief" when it's a damn fact. Same with global warming. That doesn't make them right. It just shows they are ignorant on the subject.

>Meaning even if we knew exactly what everyone wanted, there is no way we could make them happy without violating the democratic principals that our government relied on.
The point is not to "make people happy", but making society better as a whole.
There are undesirable traits in society that make the population suffer and struggle. Violence, ignorance, sickness, poverty, etc.
Nobody would agree that a society where these are rampant be better than a society where these didn't exist. Unless they were thinking about their own profit rather than society.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4367561]

>>4367554

>Yes, so? It's just incorrect opinions

There is no correct or incorrect thing to value. There are loads of different kinds of ethical values.

>The point is not to "make people happy", but making society better as a whole.

I certainly agree with this statmenet, however the rest of your comments I am neutral too. My point is only that if one has values they must be imposed onto others. If you are in charge you must impose your notion of goodness onto society, which might differ from the public's view of goodness.

[Anonymous No.4367565]

>>4367561
I'd love to talk this through but I have to catch a bus to be on time for my algebra final.
It's been a pleasure.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4367568]

>>4367565

I understand.

>it's been a pleasure.

Mutual feeling bro.

[Anonymous No.4367580]

>>4367554
>>4367561
General happiness and economic growth are just tools for the biological prime directive of survival. Furthering the continued existence of the species. And ultimately, that's what exploration and space exploration are also about. Making it more certain that homo sapiens does not die out.

[Anonymous No.4367584]

>>4367525
Which means you either fund it through charity or you don't undertake it.

[Anonymous No.4367588]

>>4367580
>the biological prime directive of survival. Furthering the continued existence of the species.
Wtf am I reading. Doing good for the sake of the species is not a biological prime directive. Not even natural selection works that way. NO ONE in the animal kingdom does anything with the motivation, except for a small minority of the homo sapiens species, comparable in their fringe position to those who an hero because they think they'll awake in another dimension.

There isn't even such a thing as a biological prime directive, let alone caring about the whole species. I'd be completely happy if humanity didn't procreate anymore, let alone settle on Mars in 100 years. I have zero interest in that, and I don't want to pay for it.

[Pinkie /sci/ !gUxA0qf6Nc No.4367592]

I don't support the military, yet my taxes still go towards it.

Fuck off, it's not up to you what your tax money goes to, if you don't like it, move to another country.

If I were incharge, I would round up all the people preventing and opposing scientific progress, like yourself, and send them in a giant spaceship straight into the center of the sun.

[Anonymous No.4367598]

>>4367592
What a waste.
Just burn them on Terra, so we keep the precious carbon.

[Anonymous No.4367600]

>>4367592
It's a good thing you're not in charge then. I guess in a very physical sense, might makes right, but I still oppose the disowning of people for the sake of scientific projects whose practical use (for these people) is speculative or predictably non-existent (beyond inefficient entertainment, as pointed out).

How much of your spare income are you donating to science? There are such funds, like www.new-harvest.org etc. I think universities also accept donations.

Re: going to a different country. Apart from the transition costs, it remains the question why people should be punished for having been born in a geographical region without consent. I oppose this, I suggest you do too.

[Anonymous No.4367601]

You know, these space exploration things are not just for entertainment. Take for example the Apollo missions, so many new technologies that have a practical use today were invented/developed during the program. For example, CNC machines and Integrated Circuits were developed, and a multitude of new materials were also discovered. And my favourite, Temper Foam/Memory Foam. I just love having that super-comfortable bed.

[Anonymous No.4367603]

>>4367601
I find it implausible that these inventions wouldn't have been made, more efficiently, if private players could've just kept their taxes and invested in product R&D.

[Anonymous No.4367606]

>>4367592
Responding to a statement of what should be the case with "you don't have any choice!" is a fallacy of relevance. That you combine this with an expression of your desire for mass murder doesn't exactly endear you to the conscientious reader.

[Anonymous No.4367607]

>>4367606
lol

[Anonymous No.4367617]

>>4367603 Then they would claim rights to the invention, preventing new start-ups and probably making the economy more lop-sided than it already is.

[Anonymous No.4367656]

>>4367588
No, not one individual animal works towards it intentionally.
But they do work toward it anyway, and as communities, they do it even more. And in humans, some do it intentionally.

[Anonymous No.4367684]

>>4367656
Relevant read: http://lesswrong.com/lw/l5/evolving_to_extinction/

[Anonymous No.4367687]

>>4367617
I don't know the details of patent law, but this can't be a call for government-controlled collectivism in research. Specifically, it doesn't mean that the individual taxpayers receive a return of investment on their taxes that would justify the expenditure.

[Anonymous No.4368976]

Space travel and colonization is necessary for the continued existence of the species. I dont feel like spending money on the military but we still do that. Deal with it you selfish knob. Be glad you haven't bin terminated.

[Anonymous No.4368995]

>>4367254
>If it exists, I stream, if I have to pay, I don't want it.
nonsense approach to any activity
first judgment should be if it's worth your time, and if it is, then it's worth some money.

that it is free should never be your first choice,
and that it is illegal or inappropriate should NEVER be a positive consideration for anything.

[Anonymous No.4369187]

>>4367281
'unwilling' or 'unapproved' is not nearly the same as 'violent.'

The fact that people do not individually decide how to spend money does not mean they have no say; they got to choose who _would_ have a say.
You are supposed to understand representational government.

[Anonymous No.4369232]

>>4367603
then you don't understand the concept of inventing for a purpose:
private R&D (just looking for something to make money on) isn't pushed to solve specific demands, or thresholds, or uses, and so advances minimally.
That is, they advance only far enough that their investors can see something can be made from it.
having goals set higher makes inventors try new ideas and higher expectations for their development; who would ever have developed a foam that could withstand launch speeds privately if no one needed to withstand launch speeds?
Why would we develop UV protection for beyond the atmosphere if we weren't planning to go beyond the atmosphere?

This is the reason gym coaches are better than letting a bunch of kids just agree what to do every day, too. Somebody has to set the goals high enough to require stretching.

[Anonymous No.4369242]

>corporations are the only ones that spend the money to terraform mars
>suddenly set up a base and claim it for their own and allow only rich people to live there
>set up defense mechanisms so nobody else can go there
oh boy I love sucking corporate dick

[Anonymous No.4369276]

>>4369242
Nah man, they need poor people to do the grunt work. The pay will be shit though, because you'll be living in housing they own, breathing their air, and eating their food. And using their tools. Their fuel.

Join the Red Faction.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4369289]

>>4369276

We should make a rocket that runs off poor people.

[Anonymous No.4369330]

>>4369289
I don't know, how well do poor people burn? Does fat burn? Because we've got a LOT of fat people. Maybe if we can turn fat into fuel, we can start a nationalized liposuction program and pay people for their fat, suck it out of them, and convert it to fuel.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4369401]

>>4369330

I heard that during the holocaust they could sustain the burning of jews using other jews as fuel. As in, a sufficiently large pile of burning jews can effectively be used to burn more jews.

But anyway, as far as the poor people. I was thinking the poor people could be used as a propellant. As in the thrust of hurling poor people downward could lift a rocket into orbit.

[Anonymous No.4369406]

>>4369330

im pretty sure blowing a liquid oxidizer down through a burning tube of adipose tissue would be a semi-decent rocket engine.

[Anonymous No.4369416]

>>4369406
Without even knowing the energy density of that adipose tissue?

People who actually develop fuels and know that there are differences are just shaking their heads:
you just made all of fuel science pointless because you figure everything works.

[Anonymous No.4369432]

>>4367195
>Implying government funding for science isn't in the best interests of the country.
>implying the private sector isn't too short sighted to invest many billions of dollars into an endeavor that is probably decades away from being profitable.

[Anonymous No.4369534]

B-b-bump that thread up.