Mars Mission: $2.5 billion - Worth It Given Alternatives?

[emp]

Never understood the US hardon for guns and wars.

The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the form of the Costs of War project,[1] which said the total for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is at least $3.2-4 trillion.[2]

Source:Financial cost of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and you complain about 2.5 billion for a project that advances science, creates spin off technologies, creates new companies and ideas?

I always wonder what would have happened if all that money would have been spent on - well... renewable energy and technology.

Build huge desert solar power collectors
http://www.landartgenerator.org/blagi/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/AreaRequired1000.jpg

All of the US gets free energy, no pollution.

Spend the rest on education, infrastructure, technology infrastructure (wireless, phone networks, etc..), etc, etc, etc.. Don't forget electric cars.

After the last 10 years, all of the US would have free fucking energy today.

But more important, be independent from the oil industry and the oil bearing fuckhead states in the middle east.

Just the idea of never having to meddle in that cesspool again would be worth a few billion, no?

But yeah, continue on being MURRIKAN! complain about NASA spending, be OK with spending trillions to kill people.

Edit:
Yes, I have the same gripes about my own country of birth (Germany) who I'd love to be independent of the shitheads in the east (russia, etc..) and get rid of pollution.
But at least we are moving there. Waaaay to slow tho.

::emp::

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

Think of the wild west. As close to anarchy as you could get, yet the historical facts on the western frontier show it to be FAR more peaceful than we have today. Neighbors watched out for each other, never looking for ways to kill them.

Then go move to the Amazon, and live with an indigenous tribe. Or we still got some up here in the mountains of NW Thailand too, so you can go live with them if you'd like.

What's happened since then but a tech upgrade to make that better? How much more tech could we have today without government regulation?

I really don't feel like writing a 60+ page essay on how humanities' standard of living has improved over the past 140 years.

Silly socialist, aggression is for your folk, not people who believe in the NAP.

That's about as brilliant as saying, "if everyone just believed in Jesus, then we'd have world peace!".

Wouldn't dream of it. But you think anarchy will take mankind in a direction he was never headed in, while I say it will lead mankind to simply keep on evolving in the direction he was going before Government placed chains around his neck.

No, I'm saying if you dismantle everything we have in place, and drag humanity back by 500 years, history will repeat itself. You want to live through that shit? I know I don't.

Wow, you just used a gang of drug and prostitution merchants to illustrate your point.

You don't think there'll be organized gangs that control various areas in an anarchist society? Gangs that easily out number your private security firm, making them untouchable? Gangs that say, "anyone caught selling this or that in this area, will find themselves donning a new pair of cement boots at the bottom of the ocean"?

If you don't believe that would happen, you're simply delusional.

You really don't have what it takes to get this, do you?

And you simply don't seem to understand the fundamentals of human nature. We do not, and can not operate on a "non-aggression principle". That's Alice in Wonderland fairy tale shit.

This thread was originally about NASA, so let's use them as an example. Several rovers on Mars now, with aims to send man there. Once we have a manned mission to Mars, you think that's going to be the end of it? Of course not. Then we'll be looking towards Jupiter, Saturn, other galaxies and solar systems, etc. That's the essence of human nature. Always striving, always trying to perfect, become bigger, better, etc. That's why we've achieved what we have. This has also worked in the opposite way, hence our Pol Pot's, Hitler's, Ghengis Khan's, etc.

The only way for an anarchist society to work is by removing that natural human drive that, well, makes us human. Evolution isn't going to do it anytime soon, so you're going to have to genetically modify every human on the planet to live in a successful anarchist society.

Are you claiming that shoe salesmen would use guns to kill their competitors just because there is no government?

Shoe salesmen? Nah, probably not. They tend to be pretty simple folk. Bankers, land owners, mineral right owners, etc...? Most definitely.

And since you mentioned them, Goldman Sachs & Halliburton are both perfect examples of companies that aquired UNGODLY amounts of power from the government and the government alone.

Whatever. Considering the absolute splendid job a private entity such as Halliburton did of providing the troops in Iraq with fresh water, I don't want them anywhere near my fresh water supply.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeIxHQ-lkuM"]Halliburton provided contaminated water to Soldiers - YouTube[/ame]

And if you don't believe that would happen in an anarchist society, once again, you're delusional. It takes a huge investment of capital to provide 10s of millions with fresh water, so don't expect a large number of companies to be ponying up the capital, and vying for the customers. If not immediately, within decades a monopoly would be formed, and from there the management would begin looking at ways to increase their bottom line.

 

[Tall_Building]

Matt, you are arguing using something that people can see now with all of its benefit and its drawbacks. Off course the drawbacks will keep getting attacked.

While Lukep talking about some kind of utopian state that never existed, don't exist and will never exist, for every drawback you see, he can always find an answer for it, and there is no way for anyone to prove it otherwise, because IT DOESN'T EXIST.

Privatized bridge doesn't work?
that's not free market, you don't know that, we don't have a free market and never have since 1926

Man are greedy?
you don't know that, if evil government doesn't tax them, they'll be nice, minding their own business and pay more to charity

But what about people that down on their luck and cant afford to pay 160 bills? they're fucked right?
you don't know that, without the government chained they'll evolve and turn into super saiyan

 

[lose lose win]

I would rather pay one tax bill to a corrupt govt that's elected by the people every few years, versus paying 90 bills to private entities such as Goldman Sachs and Halliburton to provide the essential services.

Uhhh... this one statement alone should disqualify everything else you posted in this thread.

 

[WhatupG]

Helluva lot better than spending insane amounts of money to go kill people all over the world and create more terrorist and enemies.

 

[MSTeacher]

Excepting for the technology the old west was a PARADISE.

Are you claiming that shoe salesmen would use guns to kill their competitors just because there is no government?

That's not at all a fair example. Think about the raw materials that built the store the shoes are sold in. The property the store is built on. The energy running the store. The leather used to make the shoe. The currency used to buy and sell the product. Those are the things in question.

 

[lukep]

Then go move to the Amazon, and live with an indigenous tribe. Or we still got some up here in the mountains of NW Thailand too, so you can go live with them if you'd like.

No thanks, I like it plushy. Anarchists can do plushy just fine.

I really don't feel like writing a 60+ page essay on how humanities' standard of living has improved over the past 140 years.

Awesome, I don't have the time to read it. Regardless, there has been a tradeoff for them all.

That's about as brilliant as saying, "if everyone just believed in Jesus, then we'd have world peace!".

If you think so, then you clearly don't understand what the NAP is and what a society created around it would become.

No, I'm saying if you dismantle everything we have in place, and drag humanity back by 500 years, history will repeat itself. You want to live through that shit? I know I don't.

There are ways to dismantle without going back 500 years. Nobody wants that.

You're only afraid that things will be set back 500 years because those in powers want you to think that this is what Anarchy means. It does not.

You don't think there'll be organized gangs that control various areas in an anarchist society? Gangs that easily out number your private security firm, making them untouchable? Gangs that say, "anyone caught selling this or that in this area, will find themselves donning a new pair of cement boots at the bottom of the ocean"?

Their own property? Of course. Other peoples' property? Of course not.

And you simply don't seem to understand the fundamentals of human nature. We do not, and can not operate on a "non-aggression principle". That's Alice in Wonderland fairy tale shit.

I understand there are bad people, but in a society where the majority understands and agrees with the NAP (Which would be like we do now with the golden rule) and everyones' packing heat, and nothing is illegal but harming others, then lots of things change in a society. For one, the INCENTIVES go away for them to do things like form gangs and do illegal stuff like sell drugs and pimp hookers. If those things aren't illegal anymore, then there's no longer an incentive to go against the law of the land. -So crime rates plummet from that alone.

Then you've got the fact that stupid kids that want to rob someone else will know that everyone else has a gun and it's not so damn easy as we make it today.

Crime rates plummet even further. Not a whole lot of aggressions against others happen outside those two main drives. Perhaps some drunken barfights and domestic disturbances... No biggie there.

How you people can't see that this is an obvious Utopia compared to what we have now still boggles my mind.

The only way for an anarchist society to work is by removing that natural human drive that, well, makes us human.

Wrong. You still don't understand that to be human is a product of evolution... And anarchy is a natural product of evolution. I could argue that the exact opposite of your statement is true in fact, that if you remove the natural human drive that makes us human, that Anarchy would become impossible.

Shoe salesmen? Nah, probably not. They tend to be pretty simple folk. Bankers, land owners, mineral right owners, etc...? Most definitely.

Drug dealers and Pimps that aren't hunted by any laws would easily become 'pretty simple folk.' Bankers & mineral rights owners, without the power bestowed upon them by the government, would be restricted by the free market too, and would therefore also become 'pretty simple folk.'

You just don't understand what a free market is... What the world would be if we had one.

Whatever. Considering the absolute splendid job a private entity such as Halliburton did of providing the troops in Iraq with fresh water, I don't want them anywhere near my fresh water supply.

Me neither... & that's the government's fault though for giving them so much power.

Power corrupts. Free markets heal corruption.

It takes a huge investment of capital to provide 10s of millions with fresh water, so don't expect a large number of companies to be ponying up the capital, and vying for the customers.

Thanks for proving my point there. Only governments do such things, not companies who only answer to the free market.

If not immediately, within decades a monopoly would be formed, and from there the management would begin looking at ways to increase their bottom line.

Monopolies under a free market are toothless. You still don't know what one is.

It takes a government to give a company enough power to make a monopoly dangerous.

 

[lukep]

That's not at all a fair example. Think about the raw materials that built the store the shoes are sold in. The property the store is built on. The energy running the store. The leather used to make the shoe. The currency used to buy and sell the product. Those are the things in question.

Why on earth could you possibly assume that a legitimate product or service provider would structure his business differently than other product and service providers?

If there were no laws against hookers for instance, then brothels would boom, and those require all the things you just listed. As would a storefront to sell drugs from. And then these businesses would find themselves in competition with other similar businesses, and have to run ads and offer coupons and all that shit. They'd very literally become just another business sector like piano repair or dry cleaning.

I fail to see how those resources would be in question.

 

[Moxie]

Several rovers on Mars now, with aims to send man there. Once we have a manned mission to Mars, you think that's going to be the end of it? Of course not. Then we'll be looking towards Jupiter, Saturn,

Jupiter and Saturn are composed primarily of gases, making man landings there about as probable as Ron Paul being sworn in as president.

(sorry lukep)

 

[pfgannon]

Never understood the US hardon for guns and wars.


Source:Financial cost of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and you complain about 2.5 billion for a project that advances science, creates spin off technologies, creates new companies and ideas?

I always wonder what would have happened if all that money would have been spent on - well... renewable energy and technology.

Build huge desert solar power collectors
http://www.landartgenerator.org/blagi/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/AreaRequired1000.jpg

All of the US gets free energy, no pollution.

Spend the rest on education, infrastructure, technology infrastructure (wireless, phone networks, etc..), etc, etc, etc.. Don't forget electric cars.

After the last 10 years, all of the US would have free fucking energy today.

But more important, be independent from the oil industry and the oil bearing fuckhead states in the middle east.

Just the idea of never having to meddle in that cesspool again would be worth a few billion, no?

But yeah, continue on being MURRIKAN! complain about NASA spending, be OK with spending trillions to kill people.

Edit:
Yes, I have the same gripes about my own country of birth (Germany) who I'd love to be independent of the shitheads in the east (russia, etc..) and get rid of pollution.
But at least we are moving there. Waaaay to slow tho.

::emp::

I don't really understand why Americans are so willing to go to war either. It's likely an willingness to kill strangers overseas (while being so removed from the horrors of war) in exchange for a more comfortable lifestyle and disgusting nationalism.

I feel this is enough of a black and white issue that I can speak for the anarchists here:

It doesn't really matter what the money is being spent on.

Of course we'd be more interested in investing in technology rather than murdering people. In fact, I was just thinking how amazing it is for us to touch down on ANOTHER FUCKING PLANET for only $2.5B. Of course a private entity would be able to do it for much less. But really, none of that matters.

The problem anarchists have with investing in government programs (regardless of how noble their causes may be) is that they're funded through taxation.

I can't speak for the average Republican. They'll oppose anything Rush and Glenn Beck tell them too (as long it's a Democrat initiative) and support practically any war.

I'd fucking love to get all my energy from the sun, but if it requires blackmailing, kidnapping, and murder to do so, I don't want any part of it.

I too wonder what would happen if we spend all those resources on technology. Though I'm far more curious about what could happen if resources were invested in technology and energy on a voluntary basis. I don't know what the end result would be, but I do know it would be astronomically better than whatever the violent monopoly is offering.

Guns are another issue, and don't have much of anything to do with war. The freedom to own guns is about having the ability to defend yourself from bad people, rather than rely on the government to protect you, which will always come up short.

 

[Fatbat]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZX5GRPnd4U"]Complete MSL Curiosity Descent - Full Quality Enhanced 1080p + Heat Shield impact - YouTube[/ame]

People will one day be moaning about the USA being the galactic police, landing motherfucking dropships with troops and assault vehicles on far away planets like a boss!

 

[ShadowCaster]

Well at least we now have this stunning shot of Milky Way from Mars