eejit wrote I can show you millions who were inconvenienced by the decision to spend money on those endeavors and many others like them.

eejit wrote This approach condemns potentially hundreds of thousands of people to poverty and death over theoretical science which may or may not come to fruition.

eejit wrote There's no point in prolonging the inevitable death of our species by bouncing from planet to planet and condemning more people to suffer and die for untold numbers of generations when we can give people alive right now lives worth living here on Earth.

speed wrote

eejit wrote I can show you millions who were inconvenienced by the decision to spend money on those endeavors and many others like them.

I would love to see proof of a space program directly inconveniencing millions of people.

eejit wrote This approach condemns potentially hundreds of thousands of people to poverty and death over theoretical science which may or may not come to fruition.

No it doesn't. This is an extremely naive and frankly uneducated view on the world's problems.

The truth is, the issues you're referencing are not solved by throwing endless amounts of money at it. The US provides billions in aid every year to African countries, on top of dozens of humanitarian charities providing direct support, and yet the conditions in these countries has not improved in any significant manner. We provide aid to North Korea, a country that is threatening to attack us with nuclear weapons, but yet they are only becoming more hostile, and famine is still destroying the country.

eejit wrote There's no point in prolonging the inevitable death of our species by bouncing from planet to planet and condemning more people to suffer and die for untold numbers of generations when we can give people alive right now lives worth living here on Earth.

Are you sure about that? Look at it this way, if a human here on Earth is diagnosed with cancer, but has a reasonable chance at survival with treatment, are you going to deny them treatment in lieu of making their remaining days enjoyable because "hey, you're going to die some day anyways"?

I would love to see proof of a space program directly inconveniencing millions of people.

On the other hand, I would be happy to provide several examples of space programs have improved the quality of life for millions.

No it doesn't. This is an extremely naive and frankly uneducated view on the world's problems.

The truth is, the issues you're referencing are not solved by throwing endless amounts of money at it. The US provides billions in aid every year to African countries, on top of dozens of humanitarian charities providing direct support, and yet the conditions in these countries has not improved in any significant manner. We provide aid to North Korea, a country that is threatening to attack us with nuclear weapons, but yet they are only becoming more hostile, and famine is still destroying the country.

Are you sure about that? Look at it this way, if a human here on Earth is diagnosed with cancer, but has a reasonable chance at survival with treatment, are you going to deny them treatment in lieu of making their remaining days enjoyable because "hey, you're going to die some day anyways"?

eejit wrote That would be a great response if I meant directly.
Of course the people who organize these things aren't purposefully trying to inconvenience millions of people, but they are still doing it whether they mean to or not.

eejit wrote If you are walking past a pond where two children are drowning and one of them happens to be yours of course you save your child but as a result the other drowns.
You indirectly inconvenienced that other child because of where you applied your attention.
Enough money is spent on space exploration each year by the world to save millions of starving children if it is applied correctly.

Indirectly they are letting these children starve to death.

A more accurate analogy in relation to what I'm saying would be where every single human on Earth is diagnosed with cancer and every single one of their descendants will be diagnosed with cancer and the treatment will work for maybe 10% of those people who can live in comfort for their lives, but the rest would be condemned to pain and suffering until they eventually die.

So no, I wouldn't cure 10% of the humans alive today.

In this analogy - If I were the psychopath in charge of making these decisions - I'd spend all the money in the world making a cure for this cancer which worked for everybody alive today and make everyone infertile at the same time.

Trust me speed, I have looked into every single counter argument to this view that I have been able to get my hands on, all the way down to the very specific wording in some of the premises made by the philosophers who 'invented' this worldview and I haven't been convinced by any of them and I want to be convinced by them because of course this is a terrible way to see the world.

So you're welcome to try debating this but I think you're wasting your time. Like I have said already, I think it comes down to personality and more than simple rhetoric to determine whether or not someone is convinced by this.

speed wrote

eejit wrote That would be a great response if I meant directly.
Of course the people who organize these things aren't purposefully trying to inconvenience millions of people, but they are still doing it whether they mean to or not.

Again, please provide proof.

eejit wrote If you are walking past a pond where two children are drowning and one of them happens to be yours of course you save your child but as a result the other drowns.
You indirectly inconvenienced that other child because of where you applied your attention.
Enough money is spent on space exploration each year by the world to save millions of starving children if it is applied correctly.

Indirectly they are letting these children starve to death.

That is a horrible argument. Using your logic, I could say that you are indirectly responsible for a person dying in Africa this week because you bought a new pair of shoes rather than buying them food.

A more accurate analogy in relation to what I'm saying would be where every single human on Earth is diagnosed with cancer and every single one of their descendants will be diagnosed with cancer and the treatment will work for maybe 10% of those people who can live in comfort for their lives, but the rest would be condemned to pain and suffering until they eventually die.

So no, I wouldn't cure 10% of the humans alive today.

This might be a valid point, except 90% of the world is not in life threatening poverty, nor are they "condemned to pain and suffering". I agree that for the other 10% that are in that situation, it is terrible, but again, it is not as simple as throwing money at the problem.

In this analogy - If I were the psychopath in charge of making these decisions - I'd spend all the money in the world making a cure for this cancer which worked for everybody alive today and make everyone infertile at the same time.

Again, throwing more money at a problem doesn't work. For yet another example, let's look at actual cancer, which is arguably the most dangerous disease humanity is currently facing. Based on a quick search, global spending for cancer research is sitting somewhere around 100 Billion dollars per year. While we are definitely making progress, we are very far from any real cure.

However, NASA has a budget of ~18B per year. Of that, 8B is allocated towards space exploration.

So if we're throwing 100B/yr at cancer research and only making modest progress, how do you expect diverting 8B in funding would make a difference in a much larger problem like global famine?

Trust me speed, I have looked into every single counter argument to this view that I have been able to get my hands on, all the way down to the very specific wording in some of the premises made by the philosophers who 'invented' this worldview and I haven't been convinced by any of them and I want to be convinced by them because of course this is a terrible way to see the world.

So you're welcome to try debating this but I think you're wasting your time. Like I have said already, I think it comes down to personality and more than simple rhetoric to determine whether or not someone is convinced by this.

Fair enough. If arguing with facts isn't going to change your view, I won't continue. I will only say that taking a stance like that is dangerously ignorant.

Again, please provide proof.

That is a horrible argument. Using your logic, I could say that you are indirectly responsible for a person dying in Africa this week because you bought a new pair of shoes rather than buying them food.

This might be a valid point, except 90% of the world is not in life threatening poverty, nor are they "condemned to pain and suffering". I agree that for the other 10% that are in that situation, it is terrible, but again, it is not as simple as throwing money at the problem.

Again, throwing more money at a problem doesn't work. For yet another example, let's look at actual cancer, which is arguably the most dangerous disease humanity is currently facing. Based on a quick search, global spending for cancer research is sitting somewhere around 100 Billion dollars per year. While we are definitely making progress, we are very far from any real cure.

However, NASA has a budget of ~18B per year. Of that, 8B is allocated towards space exploration.

So if we're throwing 100B/yr at cancer research and only making modest progress, how do you expect diverting 8B in funding would make a difference in a much larger problem like global famine?

Fair enough. If arguing with facts isn't going to change your view, I won't continue. I will only say that taking a stance like that is dangerously ignorant.

Roblox wrote Y U NO BAN YET NO ARGUE WITH STAFF

ip wrote And people still believe that we are the only things in the universe...