Be your own satellite

Palomar · 2006-07-24 12:31:54

[URL=http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/07/24/spacewalk.for.sale.ap/index.html]Spacewalks for sale[/URL]

*For an additional $15 million you can get a 90-minute space walk.

You know...everyone can do what they want with their own money, but I have to admit there's a part of me which detests such blatant selfishness. $35 million is a lot of money to spend for one's own personal gratification. I'd be thinking about AIDS, emaciated children trying to sleep in the dirt with hungry stomachs. I couldn't spend that much money on myself; it's abhorrently selfish, imo.

--Cindy

Commodore · 2006-07-24 18:48:15

$15 million to get crammed into a body shaped spacecraft and pee in a diaper?

I think not.

clark · 2006-07-27 07:59:02

one always pays for the view.

i would do it. from that distance, you can't see starving people anyway.

Josh Cryer · 2006-08-01 17:35:36

We spend $100 +/- a month on our internet connections, while people in the third world starve. If you have $35 million to blow, I don't see why not. It's about proportion, someone in the third world could spend $2 to see a movie, money which would be "better" spent on food. Does that make them wasteful? Hardly, we do like to enjoy stuff every now and then.

RedStreak · 2006-08-01 21:11:27

If you have $35 million to blow, I don't see why not. It's about proportion, someone in the third world could spend $2 to see a movie, money which would be "better" spent on food. Does that make them wasteful? Hardly, we do like to enjoy stuff every now and then.

Selfishness rules!

Palomar · 2006-08-02 08:08:49

We spend $100 +/- a month on our internet connections,

*We do?? I only pay $21.00 per month for internet connections. You're getting ripped off.

while people in the third world starve. If you have $35 million to blow, I don't see why not.

Easily enough said when it's not YOU who is starving.

It's about proportion, someone in the third world could spend $2 to see a movie, money which would be "better" spent on food.

That's choice, though. Most hungry 3rd-worlders don't have a choice [and I'd bet most would spend that $2 on food].

Kinda surprised by your attitude, Josh.

Frankly I think anyone who would spend $35 million for their private selfish enjoyment is a pathetic swine.

Rational self-interest is okay and everyone's selfish to a point [some of which is tied in with the survival instinct]; some selfishness can be beneficial. But this? It's over the top, tacky and ... disgusting.

TwinBeam · 2006-08-02 10:34:53

Palomar - Where did that $35M come from?

Unless it was stolen, that money theoretically represents $35M worth of value that they've created and provided to others, for which they have not yet demanded any real benefit in return. E.g. the founders of Google have created massive value for others.

What you're saying amounts to "Society has got it's value out of you - now don't you dare ask for equal value in return, you greedy person!"

Now you might rationally argue that some jobs these days are vastly overpaid due to the distortions created by mega corporations that still organize themselves internally as if they were sole proprietorships (i.e. a few persons at the top of a pyramid, as if they owned the company, rather than distributing corporate guidance - for example by using market dynamics within the company).

No argument there... but until some corporation invents that method and makes it practical, and stockholders of other companies wise up and demand the same, the management pyramid scheme will continue. Of course, for an alternative method to be implemented in an established corporation would require approval of the CEO and board of directors - i.e. those guys at the top of the pyramid, who naturally believe their contributions fully justify their salaries. About the only chance we could see that system changed would be if some far-sighted company founders decided to intitute such a system.

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-02 11:14:45

Rational self-interest is okay and everyone's selfish to a point [some of which is tied in with the survival instinct]; some selfishness can be beneficial. But this? It's over the top, tacky and ... disgusting.

Spoken like a true socialist

Socialism doesn't work by the way, if you limit what people are allowed to do for their own self interest, no matter how selfish, you remove their drive to be productive so that they can earn money to enjoy themselves. It ruins everything, and causes more poverty than it eliminates.

RedStreak · 2006-08-02 14:50:03

Frankly I think anyone who would spend $35 million for their private selfish enjoyment is a pathetic swine.

If I wanted to be bold I'd add, "That's what a poor person would say."

However I think anything that delves into the millions for personal amusement is a bit gross safe to say.

Josh Cryer · 2006-08-02 18:02:57

Palomar,

*We do?? I only pay $21.00 per month for internet connections. You're getting ripped off.

I said plus/minus. Most people with their high speed internet connections (not faux "high speed" where they limit your connection considerable) do pay a bit for their internet.

Easily enough said when it's not YOU who is starving.

People indulge themselves. What's wrong with that?

That's choice, though. Most hungry 3rd-worlders don't have a choice [and I'd bet most would spend that $2 on food].

The ones who actually have $2 theaters to go to (like in Brazil) get paid a bit more than the sweatshop workers of the third world, and they will invariably indulge themselves any way they can.

Kinda surprised by your attitude, Josh.

Just seeing it from a different perspective, you know dang well that in the end I would wish we all could afford to go to space.

Frankly I think anyone who would spend $35 million for their private selfish enjoyment is a pathetic swine.

Their spending such loads of money is motivational for the future of space tourism and private space ventures. Even if it is on the back of governments, it serves a useful purpose. Yeah, sure, ideologically, I might be against it, but I'm a dreamer, and one must be realistic here.

Rxke · 2006-08-03 02:05:16

Frankly I think anyone who would spend $35 million for their private selfish enjoyment is a pathetic swine.

don't agree.

I mean, it's their hard=owned money, right, they can do with it as they please.

I'm not a rich people admirer or something like that, but I mean: if you got the brains and working ethic to build your own wealth, who are we to say how you got to spend it? We 'normal' people spend preciously little money we earned on poverty, through taxes and gifts ourselves, so why would they be obliged to do differently?

I forgot his name, the guy that gave his fortune to Bill Gates Foundation... He didn't have to do that, it's his money, he earned it, but kudos for doing it, though there are a gazillion other things he could spend it on for his own pleasure, and it wouldn't make him a lesser man, per se.
Does it make you a lesser person if you buy a new TV, knowing you could still do with the old one, except it's getting old and fuzzy? You could give the money away, couldn't you? But yet noone in his/her right mind thinks about the poor when buying a telly... It's part of how our economy runs, If we all stpped buying luxury stuff, and instead donated all our 'spare' money, the economy would collapse quite quickly, I'd imagine...

And I hope the money from the Gates foundation will be spent wisely, not on simple handouts to the poor, but on stuff like AIDS research, building roads etc. Not on just giving free food and upsetting the local markets when it is not neccesary (famine crisis excluded, of course) Now a lot of the 'good-doers' actually wreck poor countries' economy, by making them dependable. And putting local industry out of a job, because they get inundated by free or cheap stuff from overseas. Much better to, say, build simple but good roads: providing local jobs, improving travel and hence trade etc... Or improve sewer-systems, two projects now starting in DR Congo, and experts say these are projects that put nobody out of a job, au contraire, and will be a significant, even fundamental improvement in livingconditions and opportunity for the locals. Basic infrastructure.
(aw, offtopic)

errr... The money spent by these rich bastards on spaceflights, it's not like they just shovel a heap of money on a pile and burn it, it goes back into the economy, providing jobs again, paying engineers, even cosmonauts etc. So in effect they sponsor spaceflight, a good thing IMHO...

clark · 2006-08-03 05:59:47

Would it be okay if a charity set up a non-profit corporation that offered the same thing, but the money goes to feed starving children?

Would it be okay if it went to a for-profit venture, which used part of the profits to fund agricultural projects in the 3rd world?

I find the premise that it is somehow wrong to indulge ones self in these personal desires as a bit disenguine. Taken to its logical, and absurd, conclusion, we would all be guily for every choclate bar, every trip to the ball game, every cruise to the hills to see that spectacular sunset because it does nothing to alleviate the misery of others.

This premise reduces acceptable behavior to one of bare, drab, utilitarian selflessness to the the degree where we all serve others, but never serve ourselves.

publiusr · 2006-08-11 16:01:25

Rational self-interest is okay and everyone's selfish to a point [some of which is tied in with the survival instinct]; some selfishness can be beneficial. But this? It's over the top, tacky and ... disgusting.
Spoken like a true socialist
Socialism doesn't work by the way, if you limit what people are allowed to do for their own self interest, no matter how selfish, you remove their drive to be productive so that they can earn money to enjoy themselves. It ruins everything, and causes more poverty than it eliminates.

I'll split the difference. Farming is best done by private companies--but spaceflight is best done by gov'ts who understand infrastructure. A lot of cyberlibertarians get their electrical power from TVA after all.

My problem is that both the Left and the Right have gone anti-industry due to the influence of Greens on one side and outsourcers on the other.

With tax-breaks against illegals voting themselves more of someone elses money--the best and brightest go wanting.

ironically--if an alt.spacer were to defect to the DPRK--he would never have to beg for funding ever again. Yes, he is just as apt to get shot at any time.

Then too--if he asks for a roll of steel--he gets it. He might have the power of a chief designer if he has Kim's favor.

We saw Gerald Bull get ignored by both the DNC and GOP--and he went to Iraq.

Who knows--a space start up might head for North Korea.

Now that's a chilling thought--and one more reason technocrats need to run the USA for awhile--and not Greens on one side and Blue-bloods on the other.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-07-24 12:31:54

Re: Be your own satellite

#2 2006-07-24 18:48:15

Re: Be your own satellite

#3 2006-07-27 07:59:02

Re: Be your own satellite

#4 2006-08-01 17:35:36

Re: Be your own satellite

#5 2006-08-01 21:11:27

Re: Be your own satellite

#6 2006-08-02 08:08:49

Re: Be your own satellite

#7 2006-08-02 10:34:53

Re: Be your own satellite

#8 2006-08-02 11:14:45

Re: Be your own satellite

#9 2006-08-02 14:50:03

Re: Be your own satellite

#10 2006-08-02 18:02:57

Re: Be your own satellite

#11 2006-08-03 02:05:16

Re: Be your own satellite

#12 2006-08-03 05:59:47

Re: Be your own satellite

#13 2006-08-11 16:01:25

Re: Be your own satellite

Board footer