Yes, let's spend all our money on feeding the hungry. I'm sure those following us will appreciate it a lot when the world goes totally to shit thanks to a massive overpopulation and a lack of food to feed us all. Not to mention they'll greatly appreciate the human species going to shit when the sun explodes, destroys our planet and we don't have the technology to get the hell out before this solarsystem goes to bits. If you're gonna be a real pragmatic asshole about it all; the human race can handle 1 billion people starving to death. The human race cannot handle the sun imploding and destroying the earth before we have the technology to get the hell out.

This is the most selfish point of view possible and it's neither moral or ethical to think like that. But since the human race evoveled we have also gained the possibility to discard the need for helping everyone in the flock to survive. Individuality is a sign of evolution, either we like it or not. I give money to charity even though I really haven't got the money for it, but there are several reasons to why we need to build up the technology so we can go to other planets.

1) In the future the sun will blow up and even though it's a long way ahead we can't hold back technology just to feed EVERYONE on the planet. If all money went to that there wouldn't be anything left for us humans to evolve as a species. Remember; it was competition and sacrificing other groups and either killing or letting them starve that allowed the survivors to come to the point we are at today. It's the way the world works. We can say that it's shit and unfair, but sadly that's the way of life. Kids dying from cancer is unfair too.

2) What if we discover other planets where it's actually possible to grow food? What if we can start terraforming mars into one massive farm where the food can be shipped back and actually feed the entire world. The earth's population is so big that it's not possible to feed the entire planet if you're gonna please every environmentalist and save the rainforest treehugger out there.

When you win the lottery you might give some money to charity and to family, but you'll keep a good portion of it to give yourself a better life. We in the West did win the lottery by being born here, and like human nature dictates us, we give some of our winnings to the less fortunate but our main priority is to make our own lives better. It's the way it works. Don't like it, then it sucks to be you.

People need to get their head out of their arses and have a look in how the real world actually works. One thing is how we'd like it to work. I'd love to not having to see pictures of starving kids in Africa, kids used a human shields in Syria and so forth, but there's only so much we can do. It sucks big time, but that's just the way it is.

---

Lush has added a new feature! This link allows you to see who has viewed your profile lately and who might be interested in you. Please click it and give feedback for improving the site :)

So you get your chronic from a dude named Science? Where does this Science post up? I need a hook.

---

Lady, you remain my heroine....

Did you have that in reserve waiting for this moment? If so, then obviously you are even more astute then NASA!

---

Haha. That reminded me of this one scene from Mean Girls (chick flick).




To put it bluntly, we're not morally obligated to ensure the well being of others. We do this because we can/want to or are seeking some sort of gratification. No one has to help someone when they're down. The well being of someone else isn't my problem unless I make it my problem. And anyone who doesn't spend their time helping others who are down shouldn't be judged for it. Or made to feel like shit because they don't feel obligated to do so. I personally wouldn't want someone to feel obligated to help me get my shit together if I was down.

But back to the issue at hand: I believe Curiosity's landing is amazing. And those complaining about money that could be used elsewhere should consider all of the opportunities this is creating. Even if this money weren't spent sending this little guy to Mars, I can guarantee you that it sure as hell wouldn't have been spent feeding the poor...at least not ALL of it.

---

Thank you.

---

It's really hard to see how it could possibly rank above SS and Medicare, so you just might want to pucker up. Given that we would have spent as much or more on a military equivalent of NASA to help us gain and hold control of the high ground during the Cold War, it's hard to see how NASA wouldn't deserve a good chunk of the credit for ending that. The USSR probably would have fallen much sooner if we hadn't abandoned the Apollo program in favor of federal entitlement programs.

Imagine if we found ourselves 5 years away from developing the technology needed to confront and deflect an asteroid or comet that was one year away. Maybe it wouldn't seem so wasteful then. We've probably all seen Space Cowboys, Armageddon and Deep Impact. Sure, those are Hollywood movies, but that doesn't mean we won't face a huge chunk of something falling on our heads one day. We can't exactly trust the private sector or the rest of the world to protect us from that.

Of course, we could have gotten a lot more for our money. Government programs always fall short of expectations for the price we pay for them. But part of that is our own fault. One NASA oops cancels a thousand attaboys. They have to spend so much preventing oopses that it brings new meaning to the term gold-plating. But there's always some yammerhead pointing out the negatives and ignoring the positives.

---

My latest story is for cheaters, Marriage Rehab.

There's the key word in your entire post above. Now if you're insinuating that I am a yammerhead, that's fine by me. I've stated my beliefs and positions repeatedly on this site and many others since 1998 and frankly, I've flushed bigger turds than you down the internet toilet and out to the www lagoon, as well - both here and elsewhere. I got my bigboy pants on, 1ball, let's discuss.

Point out all the true realized positives of the 50 years of the NASA program. Don't gloss over things with Imaginary what ifs and fictional scenarios - I mean concrete 'things' which are now contributing to our civilization (aside from thousands of groovy color and B&W photographs) - many of them - doctored with false color images for our bling/bling viewing enjoyment.

Give me five pointed positive examples (and one of those can't be Tang).

I suppose you also think man landed on the moon. Let's say that mankind did land on the moon. What benefits did humanity receive from that? 800 pounds of moon rocks? That has really solved a lot of problems within our civilization since 1969, hasn't it?

Has NASA prevented wars, staunched famines, defeated any cancer or one of the other 4000 various afflictions unique to humanity?

If so, I've missed those memos.

*edit ( if you wish to get into a flamewar where all we do is fling inventive invective back-n-forth - like monkeys throwing feces @ each other - we should reserve that for private emails...the owner of this site isn't into flaming, and in almost 3 years here, I've yet to earn a suspension...I'd rather keep that record intact ).

---

The best thing you can do for your fellow,
next to rousing his conscience, is - not to give him things
to think about, but to wake things up that are in him...
to make him think things for himself - George MacDonald

Is it not the responsibility of governments to imagine the consequences of failing to prepare for possible catastrophes? Is it not their responsibility to weigh risks and prepare for worst case scenarios? Those are not rhetorical questions, so please don't avoid answering them. Please give them the respect they deserve by providing answers that are not evasive, irrelevant or dishonest.



It wouldn't be at all difficult to believe you've been a yammerhead since 1998, but the yammerhead remark was directed to all of those who yammer away about irrelevancies when there's a real topic to discuss. Sure there were failures. Learning from failures is part of the process of achieving progress. Demanding perfection is a tool that yammerheads use to cause analysis paralysis. So yeah, let's discuss. We'll see if you can commit to a discussion rather than just tactics of avoidance.



That would take more work than I'm prepared to commit. For me, it was sufficient that the province of Space stayed in civilian hands. Factions of the USN and the USAF wanted it. US Space Command would have been a much bigger reality, because the Soviet Union (remember them?) could not be trusted to not use space for strategic military advantage.



Again, answer my questions. You might choose to believe that NASA never had a national defense purpose or a foreign policy purpose. It had and still has both. Much like the British navy in the 1800s, NASA is an extension of US policy for the protection of US interests. Isn't that a valid role of a government?



Why should I let you dictate the terms of validity? One big one should suffice. The US knew that the Soviet Union was on a path to developing the capability to launch nukes to Lunar orbit, where they could sit, cold and dark, and be a threat to MAD (remember that?). They could execute a burn on the far side of the Moon and come screaming into Earth virtually undetectable and unstoppable unless we kept up in technology. We were in an arms race and while you might believe we didn't need to win it, we had people we hired for that express purpose. By proving we were ready and able to beat them in launch capability, we took the Moon away from them. We also caused them to spend a lot of money and while that may not have been the sole cause of their economic collapse, you would have a hard time proving it wasn't a factor.



The landing was to claim the Moon as US property. It's the high ground. Ever read "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress"? The Moon is still US property and will be until some other country gets there and presses a claim that we've abandoned it. There's a flag there. That's what that flag means.



Maybe. Many advancements in many sciences are traceable to NASA expenditures. Many of those would have happened eventually anyway, but timing, as in my aforementioned big rock from Space example, might make all the difference as to whether the society survives.



I have no doubt that you might have missed much.



Then I would suggest you stop talking about flushing turds. I have no interest in a flame war. I am interested in why you would ignore the strategic benefits of gaining and holding the high ground from capture by a totalitarian enemy. I'm also interested in why you think NASA hasn't advanced many of the technologies we might need in the future. So why don't we keep this discussion out in the open? We'll see who does the better job of keeping it in the realm of a valid discussion for a think tank.

---

My latest story is for cheaters, Marriage Rehab.

As callous as they choose to be. There's that whole freewill thing, remember?



Nope. You're not obligated to do a damn thing.



Umm...what?



Says who?



That's a nice opinion you got there. Let's see some facts. Survival of the fittest doesn't mean survival of the strongest. It's survival of the most resourceful. Ever heard of the fable of the bird and the pebbles? The bird was thirsty, but the water level was too low for him to reach down and drink. What did the bird do? He added pebbles to the water until it rose high enough for him to drink. Did he use strength? No. Did he use camouflage? No. He used his knowledge and immediate resources.


That's totally up to you. If you wanna take that route, knock yourself out.



Will law permit cannibalism (you know, the eating of your siblings and offspring as referenced in your previous statement)? Of course not. And law also can't force me to help the less fortunate. I'm an American. By law, I pay taxes. A portion of my tax dollars go to welfare programs and health programs that take care of the "less fortunate" as well as those who like to exploit the system. That's as far as the law can go in making me help the less fortunate. The law can't force me to look at the homeless guy on the side of the road and offer him a dollar or a sandwich or a sip of my water. And as far as society's approval goes, what's that got to do with anything? If society's approval meant anything, there wouldn't be homosexuals, transsexuals, interracial relationships, desegregated schools, mini skirts, etc.



Yes, because those same reporters were directly involved in the accident. If you remember correctly, the crash was caused because she and those involved were fleeing the paparazzi.


Yes. Human beings are individuals. With their own morals and their own standards. I have a set of morals and standards that I live by that others may or may not agree with. I can't judge another based on the standards that I hold myself to, and vice versa. Some people were raised to lend a helping hand to those in need. Others were raised to believe that those in need had every opportunity to help themselves but failed to do so. Human law/obligations are different for everyone. You can't expect everyone to conduct themselves according to the way you conduct yourself. That's absurd. Everyone has their own....wait for it....MORAL OBLIGATIONS! See? We've come full circle.



Umm...what?



I personally help the less fortunate as much as I can and to the best of my ability (I don't like doing anything half-assed). But that's because of MY moral obligations and standards. It's not fair for me to point my fingers at others and suggest that they assume the same mind as me. Everyone lives according to their own morals and standards and the only outside influence is the laws that are sanctioned to every single one of us. You want to be a hero and save everyone? Great. Kudos to you. That's quite noble of you. But it's completely unfair and absolutely ridiculous for you to want everyone to think and feel as you do. You shouldn't go around dumping the burden you CHOOSE to carry on everyone else.

---

Did I claim to have? That's not a rhetorical question either, so...



Well, this might be a case of whether the shoe fits.



Again, this might be a case of whether the shoe fits. You're dwelling on the irrelevant.



More dwelling on the irrelevant.



I admit to becoming more convinced that the shoe fits.



I'm pretty sure I'm actually posing questions and I'm pretty sure you're avoiding answering them, at least so far.

WellMadeMale wrote:
Point out all the true realized positives of the 50 years of the NASA program.

1ball wrote:
That would take more work than I'm prepared to commit. For me, it was sufficient that the province of Space stayed in civilian hands. Factions of the USN and the USAF wanted it. US Space Command would have been a much bigger reality, because the Soviet Union (remember them?) could not be trusted to not use space for strategic military advantage.



I asked two questions. I anticipated that you would avoid answering them (which turned out to be true so far) and I took away a common excuse for not answering questions by pointing out that they weren't rhetorical. Where is there an accusation in any of that?

By the way, that was not a rhetorical question either, so...



Do you see a question in "Point out all the true realized positives of the 50 years of the NASA program."? I don't. I see you trying to avoid a truth.



I'm more than willing to commit the time to engage in civil discussion, I'm just not willing to commit the time it would require to research "all the true realized positives of the 50 years of the NASA program." Especially when that would be irrelevant.



Relevance?



Relevance? I seem to remember some shuttle payloads that were private. And there was that Intelsat repair mission.



Is this just filler to avoid answering my two questions?



You seem to be babbling over semantics.

WellMadeMale wrote:
Don't gloss over things with Imaginary what ifs and fictional scenarios

1ball wrote:
Again, answer my questions. You might choose to believe that NASA never had a national defense purpose or a foreign policy purpose. It had and still has both. Much like the British navy in the 1800s, NASA is an extension of US policy for the protection of US interests. Isn't that a valid role of a government?



Yes I did, but I see they went right over your head, so I'll ask them again.

Is it not the responsibility of governments to imagine the consequences of failing to prepare for possible catastrophes? Is it not their responsibility to weigh risks and prepare for worst case scenarios?



Finally something that comes close to answering my questions. So protecting the US from Soviet nukes was a valid role of NASA? And becoming prepared for big rocks falling from Space is a valid role for NASA?

Those questions aren't rhetorical either, a simple "Yes." to each would do.



Babbling?



Seems like a role for state governments to me. Did Europe get it wrong when it didn't put those under control of the EU government? Not a rhetorical question.



You seem quite anxious to tell me what I think. Perhaps you should ask more questions if you're interested in what I think.



It seems to me that you're only spouting opinion there.



Straying a bit off topic. I wonder why.

WellMadeMale wrote:
Give me five pointed positive examples (and one of those can't be Tang).

1ball wrote:
Why should I let you dictate the terms of validity? One big one should suffice. The US knew that the Soviet Union was on a path to developing the capability to launch nukes to Lunar orbit, where they could sit, cold and dark, and be a threat to MAD (remember that?). They could execute a burn on the far side of the Moon and come screaming into Earth virtually undetectable and unstoppable unless we kept up in technology. We were in an arms race and while you might believe we didn't need to win it, we had people we hired for that express purpose. By proving we were ready and able to beat them in launch capability, we took the Moon away from them. We also caused them to spend a lot of money and while that may not have been the sole cause of their economic collapse, you would have a hard time proving it wasn't a factor.



No actually. The launch of Sputnik showed that the Soviets were close to being able to militarize space. They also launched probes to the Moon and neighboring planets. IIRC, one of them crashed on the Moon just before the Apollo 11 landing. They were planning to have the capability of Lunar orbit insertion for nuke-sized masses. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon were all made aware of that threat to MAD. I first heard about it when I was in high school, considerably before 1980.



Babble.



By 1975, our flag was on the Moon and the USSR knew they couldn't outspend us to take control. They still put up MIR and spent a lot on it. They built the Energia and the Buran, in an attempt to stay competitive with the US.



Quite the contrary. Not only do I know that, I know that those launches did much to convince our strategists that the USSR's space program was a threat to MAD.



Babble.



We got there first. Correct? We were the first to step away from a craft and then use the Lunar surface to get back to the craft. Correct? That act employed the lunar surface to sustain human life. Correct? A US flag was planted. Correct? Please review the requirements for making a claim by right of discovery. I'm pretty sure we filled in all the boxes.

WellMadeMale wrote:
I suppose you also think man landed on the moon. Let's say that mankind did land on the moon. What benefits did humanity receive from that? 800 pounds of moon rocks? That has really solved a lot of problems within our civilization since 1969, hasn't it?

1ball wrote:
The landing was to claim the Moon as US property. It's the high ground. Ever read "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress"? The Moon is still US property and will be until some other country gets there and presses a claim that we've abandoned it. There's a flag there. That's what that flag means.



Please review the requirements for making a claim by right of discovery. I'm pretty sure we filled in all the boxes.



I have no idea about the legal claims to Antarctica, other than the one made by Chile.



You should read it. It mentions yammerheads. It also mentions bombarding the Earth with big rocks.



Why do you think the US refuses to ratify it? Wouldn't ratifying it be giving up the high ground we acquired at some significant expense? It's pretty clear that you don't understand how nations legally claim new territories.

WellMadeMale wrote:
Has NASA prevented wars, staunched famines, defeated any cancer or one of the other 4000 various afflictions unique to humanity?

1ball wrote:
Maybe. Many advancements in many sciences are traceable to NASA expenditures. Many of those would have happened eventually anyway, but timing, as in my aforementioned big rock from Space example, might make all the difference as to whether the society survives.



I disagree. Big rocks from Space happen. Correct? Some of them could be dangerous to all human life. Correct?

WellMadeMale wrote:
If so, I've missed those memos.

1ball wrote:
I have no doubt that you might have missed much.



Apparently so. Much of what I've said seems to be completely new to you. I'm not surprised. It would be completely new to many people who don't remember the Cold War and don't remember the controversy over planting a US flag on the Moon and the talk of building a permanent base there. The truth doesn't change just because you didn't know about it.

WellMadeMale wrote:
*edit ( if you wish to get into a flamewar where all we do is fling inventive invective back-n-forth - like monkeys throwing feces @ each other - we should reserve that for private emails...the owner of this site isn't into flaming, and in almost 3 years here, I've yet to earn a suspension...I'd rather keep that record intact ).

1ball wrote:
Then I would suggest you stop talking about flushing turds. I have no interest in a flame war. I am interested in why you would ignore the strategic benefits of gaining and holding the high ground from capture by a totalitarian enemy. I'm also interested in why you think NASA hasn't advanced many of the technologies we might need in the future. So why don't we keep this discussion out in the open? We'll see who does the better job of keeping it in the realm of a valid discussion for a think tank.



A big rock from Space is a make believe enemy? Well, it's a good thing we pay people to imagine them, because the minute one becomes real, people like you will be yammering about how we should have been ready for it.



I've been nothing but rational this whole time. Pretending otherwise just makes you seem like a typical yammerhead. Just because you've been surprised by the depth and breadth of my understanding of the the issues doesn't make me irrational. Our reasons for staying in Space are now somewhat different from our reasons for getting into Space. If China launched a manned mission to the Moon before we got back there, they could claim we abandoned our claim. Do you know how a World Court might rule on that?

The question now is not "Who is threatening our way of life now?" as much as "What is threatening our way of life now?". Excessive Federal entitlement spending is one of those things. Not knowing enough about our solar system might be one of those things.



What we could all do is recognize which roles it is safe to allow a central government to have and which roles should be left to regional governments for the sake of promoting competition. Planetary defense, should there become a need for it, can't be trusted to the UN yet. Maybe one day. In the meantime, the US has to protect its interests and I think exploring for threats from Space and possibly getting some of our eggs out of the Earth basket is reasonable. Much more reasonable than having the Federal government do what state governments should do.

---

My latest story is for cheaters, Marriage Rehab.

Thats a welcome statement.
If you or anyone does it, its because he is HUMAN and does feel HUMANLY.
I too want to feel human like you and wish that all humans do feel as humanly as you do.
If you think its good to help other human beings who are less fortunate, why not urge others to adopt the same course as you have addopted?
Surely its a good course of action as you follow it; so let others also follow suit.
Thats what I wanted nothing more nothing less.
And as for your and mine taxes, its what the debate is. Should we spend on the NASA futuristic programs or not.
Please follow the threads.
I discussed that only, keep spending on the development of NASA future explorations and keep helping less fortunate throughout the World.

If by mutual cooperation you mean form a bigger gang to oppress minorities and individuals, yes that has genetic advantages and can be seen in most lower primates. It drives individuals and smaller groups away where they either become better survivors or perish. That has been repeated throughout human history. Societal evolution has been toward valuing and embracing individuality, and protecting minorities and individuals from predatory and parasitical majorities, but the old ways die hard.

---

My latest story is for cheaters, Marriage Rehab.

It is a false assumption to think that money not spent on NASA will go to help the poor, fight wars, or anything else. The only thing I remember from high school economics is the term "opportunity costs" and that certainly applies here.

The money we've spent on NASA has not been spent so we could watch astronauts play on the moon or look at pictures of Curiosity roving in a crater. Those things allow us to build new technologies and discover better ways to live.

Throw away your cell phone, stop using velcro, rip out your insulin pump and pace maker, and get off the computer right now if you don't see the benefits of NASA research!

GO NASA!!

---

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/voyeur/danis-dilemma.aspx

Yay NASA, yay exploration, boo coerced charity. Boo, self-supported ignorance.

---

My latest story is for cheaters, Marriage Rehab.

I did not back out.
I still hold that the more fortunate and wealthy nations must contribute to develop less fortunate people and nations.
Even in self interest; to create and develop a market for our products, we need to develop less developed to be able to buy our products.
That is besides the humanistic values, a self interest based decision.
And if we can start by sending a nickle to a kid in Africa today; maybe soon you will urge your government to do much more for all the poor kids in Africa and elsewhere.
One has to take a start to feel for others; soon one will feel compelled to urge the government to help the less fortunate nations too.
A begining in the right direction is half achievement.