It isn't an either/or, that's just implicitly accepting the liberal "limited resources" framing. We can and should both send people into space and prevent people from freezing to death.
We live in a reality where resources are literally limited, and all of them should go to stopping people from freezing to death until none of the people are freezing to death.
Then there's a few more things to fix before considering Mars.
It has to do with out allocation of limited resources, doesn't it? If we wouldn't spend so much on the military ventures (including space armament) we could be funding infrastructure and aid.
This project is in no way "space armament". And importantly, you're missing the point: we easily have the resources and technology to eliminate poverty and want, be environmentally sustainable, and explore space all at the same time. We don't because doing so would not be profitable.
The only rationale behind funding NASA in the government's eyes is to develop space technology for US dominance. They don't just throw money away to go to Mars for national morale. Our satellite program is space warfare.
Obviously, that could be the only thing my comment implies when it states how the Military Industrial Complex is a waste of funds. That we should only defund NASA. Great critical reading skills.
Space propaganda exists to mold children in that way, when we could have propaganda targeted towards encouraging kids to become people who contribute to society on a real level.
technologies like solar panels and hydrogen fuel cells that might have a real chance of helping us decarbonize our society were largely developed for the space program.
Your false premise here is that those things could not have been developed without a space program.
I mean yeah, let's go for limitless growth and start mining asteroids in two decades (two decades being a fantasy estimate at our pace), I'm sure the people dying then will be thankful we put our funds into a Mars colony.
Jesus, what's up with the bad faith discussion, I literally fucking said that.
NASA is an extension of the MIC, it's funded so that we can extend to space dominance, any funding secured for NASA is because we've managed to sneak something not directly harming the global poor into getting part of the military budget, as long as they develop technology that can be used to harm the global poor.
It's ultimately a waste to do that along with all the other MIC shit we do. A NASA independent from the incentive of our war machine would be good, and a goal, but isn't what our NASA is.
So at the moment we have all of these pressing societal issues where people are freezing to death in their homes, as we send metal into space to find water on Mars, for some reason, as if that helps someone.
You can't be extremely bad faith and then accuse everyone else of bad faith. I mean, you can, it's what you're doing, but it sucks and you should stop.
Seems sort of like a forfeit enterprise while our people in developed cities freeze to death.
CMV but dumping billions into space exploration isn't very helpful
It isn't an either/or, that's just implicitly accepting the liberal "limited resources" framing. We can and should both send people into space and prevent people from freezing to death.
deleted by creator
We live in a reality where resources are literally limited, and all of them should go to stopping people from freezing to death until none of the people are freezing to death.
Then there's a few more things to fix before considering Mars.
this framing is honestly bizarre. the people feeezing to death have absolutely nothing to do with any limitation on resources
It has to do with out allocation of limited resources, doesn't it? If we wouldn't spend so much on the military ventures (including space armament) we could be funding infrastructure and aid.
This project is in no way "space armament". And importantly, you're missing the point: we easily have the resources and technology to eliminate poverty and want, be environmentally sustainable, and explore space all at the same time. We don't because doing so would not be profitable.
The only rationale behind funding NASA in the government's eyes is to develop space technology for US dominance. They don't just throw money away to go to Mars for national morale. Our satellite program is space warfare.
Your argument doesn't make sense then, how is exploring water on Mars profitable in your vision of the world?
You've already given the rationale for went the US funds these programs elsewhere in this thread so why are you asking me?
Because you're making the argument that "This project is in no way “space armament”"
So what is it? Why do we fund it? Seems like you agree that it's for the MIC, like I've been saying.
ah doing the "sustainability isnt possible because thermodynamics" ben shapiro thing are we?
Yeah, Ben Shapiro advocates for aiding the poor a bunch.
deleted by creator
Or we could spend the money on developing technology for education directly, instead of this tech bro MIC trickle down system.
Think outside the box
yes, if we take money away from anything in order to pay for education, it should be from NASA 🙄
Obviously, that could be the only thing my comment implies when it states how the Military Industrial Complex is a waste of funds. That we should only defund NASA. Great critical reading skills.
says "CMV" and then refuses to entertain any critiques of their view
deleted by creator
Space propaganda exists to mold children in that way, when we could have propaganda targeted towards encouraging kids to become people who contribute to society on a real level.
Your false premise here is that those things could not have been developed without a space program.
deleted by creator
Could also focus on reducing our consumption first of all rather than stripping all the lithium out of the planet and space to keep up.
deleted by creator
I mean yeah, let's go for limitless growth and start mining asteroids in two decades (two decades being a fantasy estimate at our pace), I'm sure the people dying then will be thankful we put our funds into a Mars colony.
deleted by creator
Yeah, that's how allocation of funds works. Where we put a trillion into the MIC, we don't put that money into other programs.
deleted by creator
Jesus, what's up with the bad faith discussion, I literally fucking said that.
NASA is an extension of the MIC, it's funded so that we can extend to space dominance, any funding secured for NASA is because we've managed to sneak something not directly harming the global poor into getting part of the military budget, as long as they develop technology that can be used to harm the global poor.
It's ultimately a waste to do that along with all the other MIC shit we do. A NASA independent from the incentive of our war machine would be good, and a goal, but isn't what our NASA is.
So at the moment we have all of these pressing societal issues where people are freezing to death in their homes, as we send metal into space to find water on Mars, for some reason, as if that helps someone.
Turn it into a strawman again I guess, fuck off
You can't be extremely bad faith and then accuse everyone else of bad faith. I mean, you can, it's what you're doing, but it sucks and you should stop.
deleted by creator