Trump to NASA: We're going back to the Moon - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14882721
[quote=“starman2003”]
:lol: Unfortunately, the whole point of democracy is to empower the average shmoe that is, to enable him to prevent leadership with vision and intellect. You see, joe shmoe doesn't relate very well to such people, or their priorities, which are contrary to his--lower taxes so he has more money to blow on things which fascinate him, like hustler magazine.....
I don't think Earth will exhaust its resources, given proper management. Space is worthwhile because it’ll greatly increase the extent and power of civilization.[/quote]

If you’re a single issue voter, okay. Space doesn’t divide people like Abortion does so there is no worry act there will be a block of “anti spacers” out there any time soon.

Earth has a finite amount of resources. Logic dictates that it will cease at some point.

Having a leader (or succession of leaders) with vision and an understanding that there is no alternative except to embrace that fact and look elsewhere for more resources and bring them here (moving the mountain to Mohammed) or make us a multi-planet species (moving Mohammed to the mountain)is the only choices.
#14882884
Rugoz wrote:Expanding into space will bankrupt a civilization, not increase its power. Space is expensive because it's incredibly hostile to humans and hard to get to.


But it's not necessary for humans to do it; robots could play a much bigger role over the next half century and perhaps specially engineered cyborgs after that.


You're not having visions but delusions.


I was expressing a very realistic view of the average shmoe. The current, equalitarian view is delusional.

Edit: Adjusted for good manners.


Next time adjust it for realism or sanity. ;)

4cal:
There may not be as many "anti-spacers" as anti-abortionists but that's different. Space requires a lot of funding from taxation, hence backing. You don't have to strongly oppose something to not support it. There's just not enough support in the sense of willingness to accept the necessary sacrifices. History has shown that just because something is essential doesn't mean democratic government can do it. Look what happened to Ghandi in '77 when she tried to implement population control measures. Look at our spiralling national debt.
#14882895
4cal wrote:Ahh, solar planes….that sounds plausible…until you fly under a cloud. Feel free to make a serious retort.


Solar planes :eh:? Fuels can be produced from water (and carbon) with energy. Space colonies would obviously have to do the same. Fossil fuels are the result of past biological processes.

starman2003 wrote:But it's not necessary for humans to do it; robots could play a much bigger role over the next half century and perhaps specially engineered cyborgs after that.


Oh look, goalposts changed.

Unfortunately it's expensive even without humans. Luckily there's something amazing called capitalism which will tell us when it's profitable to move into space.

starman2003 wrote:I was expressing a very realistic view of the average shmoe. The current, equalitarian view is delusional.


Nobody claimed that people are all equal in their capabilities, but everyone has visions and there's per se no reason preference should be given to yours. Democracy is successful because it weeds out visions that only benefit a few jerks who happen to be particularly power-hungry and full of themselves.
#14883001
[quote=“starman2003”]
4cal:
There may not be as many "anti-spacers" as anti-abortionists but that's different. Space requires a lot of funding from taxation, hence backing. You don't have to strongly oppose something to not support it. There's just not enough support in the sense of willingness to accept the necessary sacrifices. History has shown that just because something is essential doesn't mean democratic government can do it. Look what happened to Ghandi in '77 when she tried to implement population control measures. Look at our spiralling national debt.[/quote]

Debt matters all of the sudden?
Didn’t seem to matter a year ago when we were talking about a trillion for infrastructure, $200B for a needless wall, etc….

Anecdotal I know, but I know of nobody who bases their vote on a candidate’s space policy.

My gist is that we should have leaders who unquestionably support Humans becoming a bi-planet species because, as logic dictates, we will at some point, exhaust our supplies of raw materials here on earth. And nobody can answer what do we do then.
#14883002
Rugoz wrote:Solar planes :eh:? Fuels can be produced from water (and carbon) with energy. Space colonies would obviously have to do the same. Fossil fuels are the result of past biological processes.

Your argument was that Solar can replace fossil fuels. Please show us your plans for a solar plane.
#14883194
I'm taking the stance of I don't care who gets the ball rolling on space as long as someone finally damn well does it. I don't even like Trump but this would be something I'd like to see. Hell I even got excited when Newt Gingrich was talking about a moon base and everyone just laughed at one of his few decent ideas. :roll: It's funny to me that certain people want to seize on literally every thing Trump does and dismiss it just because it's Trump.
#14883249
Rugoz wrote:Unfortunately it's expensive even without humans.


Lots of things are expensive. Under democracy, the voters ensure far more is spent on social programs, even for retards or people in the last year of their lives. Great longterm investments. :roll:


Luckily there's something amazing called capitalism which will tell us when it's profitable to move into space.


I doubt a space program would ever have gotten off the ground without government.

Nobody claimed that people are all equal in their capabilities, but everyone has visions and there's per se no reason preference should be given to yours.


Sure somebody who prefers his money be spent on Hustler should have just as much say as environmental or space advocates. :roll:

Democracy is successful because it weeds out visions that only benefit a few jerks who happen to be particularly power-hungry and full of themselves.


Democracy is unsuccessful because it prevents leadership and policies which can actually accomplish something. The Chinese can have an official one child policy. Anybody who advocated that in a democracy would be massacred at the polls, no matter how vital it may be. Look at the national debt, it keeps growing out of control because the real solution-sacrifice--is usually too unpopular to be possible in a democracy. The voters want benefits but taxes as low as possible....
One shouldn't automatically reject the "power hungry" because without power you just can't do what has to be done.

4cal:
Voters don't base their votes on space policy because space is nearly irrelevant--a very minor component of federal spending. If someone increased it to where it should be, plenty of voters, trust me would vote against him. We'll never get leadership willing to prioritize space as long as joe shmoe has as much say as he does.
#14883270
4cal wrote:Your argument was that Solar can replace fossil fuels. Please show us your plans for a solar plane.


Are you dense? Read what I write.

starman2003 wrote:Lots of things are expensive. Under democracy, the voters ensure far more is spent on social programs, even for retards or people in the last year of their lives. Great longterm investments.


Social programs are at least partly a long term investment, and they improve the quality of life of a large part of the population.
Expanding into space is useless because the same can be done far cheaper and better on Earth (unless it's satellite communcation, Earth observation or space science, all of which are already being done).

starman2003 wrote:I doubt a space program would ever have gotten off the ground without government.


Investment in space has been dominated by governments for more than 60 years now. It has certainly made access to space cheaper,
but not nearly enough to justify any large scale expansion. Throwing money at the problem won't solve it anyway,
some things are just hard because of basic physics.

starman2003 wrote:Sure somebody who prefers his money be spent on Hustler should have just as much say as environmental or space advocates.


I guess there are guys who spend money on Hustler and sci-fi nerds out of touch with reality. Most people are pretty reasonable though.

starman2003 wrote:Democracy is unsuccessful...


Well, NASA/ESA absolutely dominate space science (telescopes, planetary probes etc.). I wouldn't want my space program to look like the Russian one or the Chinese one for that matter.
#14883533
Rugoz wrote:Social programs are at least partly a long term investment,


Sure, some, like education, though a lot of it, like vocational training, may become obsolete in the event of machines replacing human employees.

..and they improve the quality of life of a large part of the population.


For example, by enabling people who will be dead anyway in a year or so to be a bit more comfortable...And many others to have extra money to spend on cigarettes, booze and porn. ;)


Expanding into space is useless because the same can be done far cheaper and better on Earth


Well, it may be that abundant supplies of he-3 on the moon or elsewhere may provide ample fuel for future fusion--far better than messing up our own planet with pollutants from fossil fuels. G. K. O'Neil of Princeton suggested moving polluting industries to space, which could enable the environment here to recover.


(unless it's satellite communcation, Earth observation or space science, all of which are already being done).


Space science could benefit from several more missions like Kepler.


Investment in space has been dominated by governments for more than 60 years now. It has certainly made access to space cheaper,
but not nearly enough to justify any large scale expansion. Throwing money at the problem won't solve it anyway,
some things are just hard because of basic physics.


Advances in robotics will help no doubt.


I guess there are guys who spend money on Hustler and sci-fi nerds out of touch with reality. Most people are pretty reasonable though.


I was always contemptuous of sci fi. In any event, there just doesn't appear to be enough public support for space.



Well, NASA/ESA absolutely dominate space science (telescopes, planetary probes etc.). I wouldn't want my space program to look like the Russian one or the Chinese one for that matter.


But Russia, China and India too just don't have the wealth of the US. The Soviet as opposed to Russian program was often impressive, despite that fact. There's no doubt authoritarianism has at least the potential to allocate vastly more resources to space. In a fairly recent year Americans spent over four times more on tobacco alone than on space.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

I think we really have to ask ourselves what t[…]

I dont know if you recall, but la loca MTG at one[…]

How about Russia uses a battle field nuclear we[…]

@Tainari88 , @Godstud @Rich , @Verv , @Po[…]