🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3pqcsu$7i2@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com>,
rex i beard <c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> wrote:
>In article <D8txzH.CzA@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>,
>Alan Scott <ascott@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
>>You also pay taxes which are used to pay the salaries of university 
>>scientists.  A lot of this research is not commercially viable at present.
>>Do you feel that all non-applied fields of science should have their 
>>funding cut?
>
>I don't think that research should be directed by politics. There are
>an infinite number of things humans can research. I think *what* a person
>researches should be decided by what they think stands to return
>the greatest reward. Politics doesn't do this. The free market does.

The greatest *monetary* reward is not necessarily the greatest reward in the
long run.

>
>>It all comes down to this.  Some people feel that there is intrinsic worth
>>in knowledge.  Perhaps it will not pay us back immediately in profits.
>
>And some people think there is intrinsic worth in lots of things.
>What makes *your* life choices more valuable than someone elses?
>

The free market makes any material, greed-based motives more valuable.
Some people see a need for non materialistic returns and therefore they
urge the government to level the playing field for these other ventures.
(At least in theory).

>I pay a premium for knowledge. Others pay a premium for entertainment,
>food, housing, cars and all the other things free peaceful human beings
>desire. And the "knowledge" you are seeking others to subsidize for
>you is very close to "entertainment".

Perhaps.  I feel reasonably confident however, that I am not the only one
who is interested in knowledge for knowledge's sake.  Of course the majority
of people who agree with me are probably in a scientific field as well by
a logical consequence.  So here we are producing something of value while
people of your materialistic stripe hold the reins.  The only way we can
make our choice known is through the democratic process since we are not
endowed with vast sums of money.  I am not saying that our choice is right
or better than the immediate profit scenario which you embrace.  I merely
ask that you recognize the possibility that our value system has some
intrinsic worth outside of the free market.

>
>*Your* choice for directing *my* money should not have greater (or even
>equal) weight to *my* choice. Remember, you might be wrong.
>
>>One needs the long term commitment that a government can provide before
>>the more obvious returns start flowing in.  Companies do not have the 
>
>Empirically we can show that governments aren't concerned with
>the long term. Look at federal funding of science for one. How
>about over grazing in the west? The national debt? Environmental
>damage in the Eastern block? You're wrong.
>

I didn't say the government was concerned.  I merely stated that it is
able to provide a long term capital commitment without seeing immediate 
returns.  It is the people who must keep the government commited to a
course.  That is why I am speaking up for this issue.  TO show that there
is interest and people do feel the need for the space program.

>>necessary patience to put the money into such a venture at this point in
>>time.  Rest assured that space will become commercially viable as the
>
>I happen to agree with you, but we certainly don't know the future.
>You could have said the same thing during Roman times. Should
>the Romans have invested 10% of they're GDP in space exploration?

Who knows, maybe they'd still be around today if they had.

>
>If you are certain it will become viable then wait. Why push it at the
>expense of other things which are viable *today*?
>
>My point is, we should wait until it *is* commercially viable, just like
>the Romans should have waited.

I feel that it is commercially viable.  It's certainly technologically
viable.  Give me a billion dollars and I'll have space-ships mining the 
asteroid belt.

>
>My whole thesis for this thread has been "Opportunity Costs". When you
>choose to follow path A you necessarily can not follow path B.
>
>By government mandate you have decided to follow path "Space
>Exploration". The free market (Which naturally gravitates to the paths
>with the highest return on investment) did not choose to be so
>heavily invested in path "Space Exploration".
>

The free market tends to favour the materialistic philosophy.  The 
democratic process is the only way the middle class can speak up for
themselves and participate in something on such a large scale.  
The space program is therefore by mandate of the people through their
elected representatives.  
This is also the problem of the free market since it doesn't operate well
with democracy.  It tends to concentrate wealth in only a few pockets.
It would prefer `one dollar, one vote' rather than the present system.

>-rex-
>-- 
>
>Work phone: (317) 451-0358  (8-322-0358)
>Internet:   c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com   (Ick. It's suppose to be ahw.)


-- 
"If I get good enough at insulting anybody who questions my
bullshit ideology, I might only have to defend one untenable
piece of bullshit at a time, instead of two..."  Ted Holden Himself.
Al Scott--The Bard  Company of Dreams