Thoughts on Reconciliation

John Creighton · 2005-08-08 14:43:48

This thread will begin with questions rather then answers. Whenever the discussion arises where we are asked how do we justify spending money in space when so many people go hungry, the answer always is that we need to spend money on the future in order to move forward. It is claimed that poverty is either A unsolvable or B only solvable with the development of technology.

It is culturally accepted yet often unspoken that goods are in a short enough supply that there must be the haves and have nots and in order to maintain being a have we must develop superior technology and infrastructure to better be able to extract the limited quantity of resources. This unspoken way of thinking is routed in the Malthusian philosophy. Some space advocates take this attitude one step further and say that not only can we use technology to help us gain a bigger share of the limited resources on earth but we can use it to tap into the unlimited resources of space.

Thus one may conclude without spending money on science the amount of haves will fall defeating any effort to end poverty in the long run. One may also conclude that without spending money on space the same fate is also true.

Now without arguing whether or whether not we can reasonably exhaust the available goods on earth in any reasonable time frame let us assume this philosophy is true and then ask the question how much should we spend on science, how much should we devote to social welfare and how much should we devote to personal consumption and pleasure.

After accepting the truth in what some may see as a tenuous position we find far more questions then answers. First what is the best way to promote science. Should we invest in university research, technical schools, industry? Do we need more university students? Do we need better educations at high schools? If people had to worry less about money how much more freedom would they have to devote their intellection faculties to academia? How do leisure activities effect productivity and how many of the people that go hunger every year could be the next Einstein?

Can we really separate the social equation from the innovation equation? Will, the people left hunger be sympathetic and understand that they starve so your great grandchildren won't. And if they don't understand what will the price be of order. Do we really pursue since and technology with altruistic ambitions or do we peruse it with other motivations like feeding our need to always have something new, demonstrate that we are smatter and appease our curiosity.

I've left this thread with more questions then answers. Perhaps it is a reflection of my feelings of orderless chaotic world with more half truths and have answers then things we can really know. A world of bumbling politicians that only know vaguely what they are doing but not necessarily due to any failing in their part. For often all we are left with to make decisions after considering all the information is our gut feeling of this is best.

srmeaney · 2005-08-09 04:34:33

It is claimed that poverty is either A unsolvable or B only solvable with the development of technology.

Both are fraudulent claims.

The wellbeing of a civilization is built on the wellbeing of every one of its citizens.
The only reason things dont happen is that they arn't being done.

Mundaka · 2005-08-10 12:50:57

Stormrage · 2005-08-28 13:02:47

Screw poor people. Most of them mainly in Africa get the largest amount of Aid in the world yet they are still hungry? Why? Because of there stupid greedy government. When they can elect government that doesn't care about "tribes" but the people has a whole then things might change. the only thing rich countries have to do is change the trade laws to make it more fairer for poor countries to trade.

John Creighton · 2005-08-28 16:23:20

the only thing rich countries have to do is change the trade laws to make it more fairer for poor countries to trade.

But then America becomes, "a nation of consumers and not producers" because they cannot compete with the "slave labour", of "third world countries". I agree that aid alone is not the solution but is trade the solution. Maybe, but for who?

Anyway what Africa needs is not food. They need infrastructure, more engineers, more roads, more telephone lines, more airports, more power plants and better access to the internet. They also need more peace and more stability.

reddragon · 2005-08-28 18:28:18

The only reason things dont happen is that they arn't being done.

Very true. But that doesn't mean it's easy to just do them. We have a finite amount of resources and a lot of things to use them for. (And often they are poorly allocated.) People often advocate one cause that they beleive is good or productive or promotes advancement such as feeding the poor, exploring space, finding a cure for cancer, etc. All these things are important, so we spend some of our resources on each of them. But spending all our resources in one place would be a mistake, because other things wouldn't get done at all. The world could fairly quickly and effectively solve one or two of its problems if it put all its resources towards that goal, but at the expense of leaving all the other problems unattended to (and probably worsening for lack of care). Thus we advance slowly in a number of areas.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-08-08 14:43:48

Re: Thoughts on Reconciliation

#2 2005-08-09 04:34:33

Re: Thoughts on Reconciliation

#3 2005-08-10 12:50:57

Re: Thoughts on Reconciliation

#4 2005-08-28 13:02:47

Re: Thoughts on Reconciliation

#5 2005-08-28 16:23:20

Re: Thoughts on Reconciliation

#6 2005-08-28 18:28:18

Re: Thoughts on Reconciliation

Board footer