🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <D8txzH.CzA@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>,
Alan Scott <ascott@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>In article <3pge6o$p9o@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com>,
>rex i beard <c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> wrote:
>>In article <D8q8JA.Fx3@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>,
>>Alan Scott <ascott@sciborg.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>The space industry requires a huge initial investment.  Most companies are

>>So do the air, rail, sea and auto transport industries. Free people seeking
>>profit are willing to invest vast sums if they think they've got a good
>>chance of being worth while. If people don't think it has a good
>>enough chance of success *WHY* should they be made to invest in it?

>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.

>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?

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".

*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.

>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?

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.

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".

-rex-
-- 

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