🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3oqj6j$187@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com>,
rex i beard <c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> wrote:

<deletia>

>
>Just like NASA the money spent on welfare is done so for a reason. The "value"
>we get is relief from a guilty conscience and hopefully a reduction in
>crime. And the money *IS* going back into the economy just like all the NASA
>spending someone recently glorified.
>
>Now I agree with you. Welfare spending is counter-productive. It allows
>people to work less. It creates a culture of dependency and actually seems
>to *increase* crime (despite the desires of its proponents), it encourages
>people to do exactly what it pays them to do, nothing. It does produce
>value: relief from a guilty conscience.
>
>But NASA has created a culture of dependency (how many companies would
>fail without it?) It also encourages people to divert resources to
>space en devours. It does produce value: entertainment, & knowledge.
>
>Both NASA and welfare have negative effects. Welfare (and other transfer
>payments) are so *HUGE* that the side effects are very noticeable.
>
>What if NASA were allotted $600 billion? We might land on Mars, heck
>try to terraform the thing. BUT at what expense? I would most likely be
>working for NASA and therefore your car (notice the address) wouldn't
>run as well. My nephew, a math teacher, would instead have gone into
>engineering and your kids would be dumber. Scientist doing medical
>research would be working on life support systems instead. Video game
>developers would be doing flight simulators. The developers at Intel
>would be designing space robot arms. Bill Gates would have made
>SOS (Shuttle Operating System) instead of DOS... (Wait a minute.
>maybe it wouldn't *all* be counter productive)

More likely, your car would run better because it would run on hydrogen
fuel which does not pollute the environment as badly as fossil fuels
which have become an ingrained part of a stagnating society.  Math students
would have added incentive to learn because they realize that rocket 
scientists get more money than drug dealers.  Likely they could be taught
by an artificial intelligence system devoted to the single pupil (an
obvious offshoot of the unmanned exploration missions to Mars which will
pave the way to manned colonies).  People who were previously forced to
live in sterile bubble rooms will be able to move around in their new
space-suits and interact with the rest of the world.  Scientists would
be forced to gain a better understanding of how ecosystems interact to
produce a self-sustaining habitat.  Solar energy systems would improve
so as to supply energy to all the orbiting hardware with needed power.
Non-bulky insulating thermal wear will be cheaply available on the common
market (oh, wait it already is  *thinsulate* is an offshoot of the space
industry).  Asteroid mining will produce huge quantities of metals and
minerals.  These can be used to produce satellites in situ without the
need for costly booster rockets.  Potentially dangerous research could
be carried out in locales where they would not threaten humanity in 
general.  Video game developers would be able to design more realistic
space flight games.  The Martian Operating System (MOS) will be better
than anything ever produced (who knows what new discoveries will be made?).

>
>The counterproductive nature of NASA would be more obvious, just like
>the counter productive nature of welfare is obvious today.
>
>What have we given up because of the resources that were diverted to
>an endevour that could not sustain itself in the market place?
>Economically these are called "opportunity costs".

You have overlooked what we have already gained.

>
>-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