I’m very pro-space, however, we need to take care of people here first. If we can’t take care of people here, what makes you think it’ll be any better out there?
You’re so pro space that you’re using the same shallow argument people who are anti-space have used since the Gemini days.
It’s a silly argument with goalposts on Teflon bearings, and ignores the benefits of space exploration to people on earth, and the question of existential threats.
Space exploration (which is not even the target of any reference in the post) is profoundly expensive, and carries comparatively minimal scientific benefit.
Where does this silly notion come from? Elon Musk also said something like anti-science, anti-merit, anti-human thing and he’s not an original thinker. I’ve read some longtermism papers, but have yet to come across this exact wording. Where did you hear it? (Please don’t say Elon, tell me you at least have the primary source…)
In my ideal society, we have a state captured by the need for innovation and invention. We cannot solve our problems fast enough, and the state is driving science and technology at blazing fast speed. Joking a bit, of course.
I see Progressive is more like a political adjective. Someone who’s jumping to Capitalism Bad is probably a Soc. Dem. Or a Communist. But even a Liberal could be Progressive. Those bold argument types are probably never gonna have real power anyway. Don’t let a rotten apple spoil the bunch.
Space ia very divorced from Capitalism. Capitalists don’t pony up the funds for it, the public does. The state collects taxes for it.
Yes, the left has the anti-science streak, not the side that has wholly embraced evangelicals, promoted anti-vaccine nonsense and climate change denial and believed in trickle-down economics.
My dilemma is that when the right is so anti-science, the left should be a bastion for it. We can’t afford the rise of anti-technology sentiment on the left. The streak was always there(crystal healing, the OG anti vaxxers, anti gmo), and now is the worst time for a comeback.
A rich person using government funds to fulfill NASA objectives is not the same as a rich person owning a yacht, but these quips now frequently equate and attack both.
Disclaimer: I am a huge advocate for the sciences personally and politically, but I do think there’s reason to be cautious around new technology, especially with how powerful some new technologies are.
My dilemma is that when the right is so anti-science, the left should be a bastion for it.
I like the sentiment, but I don’t think we should get into the practice of defining political parties or stances as being in opposition to another party’s views. That’s basically how the right got so out of touch; they don’t have a coherent political or philosophical stance on anything beyond “if the libs think it’s good, it must be bad!” Progressives need to be better than that.
We can’t afford the rise of anti-technology sentiment on the left.
It’s not just rising; it’s a fact of human nature that people are scared of change, especially if it involves new science or technology that they do not understand. Even people that are politically and socially progressive struggle with this when it comes to technology and science. Hell, I have an advanced degree in Chemical Engineering and I teach chemistry at a community college, and even I struggle with deciding if certain technologies and trends are going to end up being harmful to my family or humanity as a whole (and I understand most of the fundamental principles behind these issues). So, while I (like you) wish the left was more of a champion for science, I understand why individual people aren’t. I also think that there’s a need to be careful around new technologies right now, as humanity has a well documented history of letting our reach exceed our grasp, and our knowledge around potentially dangerous areas like genetic engineering, neurology, environmental science, AI, etc. is roughly equivalent to a 4-year-old’s knowledge of a handgun.
That said, I don’t think this particular post is really anti-science so much as it’s attacking the personal use of spacecraft for frivolous ends like the space tourism of Richard Branson, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, etc. Personally, I’m thankful that Musk was able to provide an impetus for electric cars becoming more mainstream and the use of private companies to push Earth-to-orbit spaceflight into a seeming renaissance, but I can do without billionaires trying to broadcast their importance to the world by buying rides on rocket ships for no reason. Or, you know, billionaires in general.
I’m not digging this anti-science streak running through progressive movements lately.
It’s to the point where “capitalism bad” is also “space bad”.
They’re not protesting NASA or any other public space agency. It’s the private ones owned by billionaires they have issues with.
Just about every rocket launched for a NASA mission was built by a private firm.
You are implying what I am outright saying, that there is a growing anti-space sentiment growing within progressive movements.
You’re just straight up putting thoughts in people’s heads and getting mad at them for it.
“Look at how little sense this strawman makes!!1”
I’m very pro-space, however, we need to take care of people here first. If we can’t take care of people here, what makes you think it’ll be any better out there?
This is reactionary / luddite logic at this point. We can do both. Easily.
You’re so pro space that you’re using the same shallow argument people who are anti-space have used since the Gemini days.
It’s a silly argument with goalposts on Teflon bearings, and ignores the benefits of space exploration to people on earth, and the question of existential threats.
It does not follow from this that billionaires’ vanity projects should take precedence over paying their employees fairly.
How about both?
Pay employees fairly first.
Ok an iPhone for example was made in China and then you say that Apple is a part of the communist party
Anti-space is not anti-science.
Space exploration (which is not even the target of any reference in the post) is profoundly expensive, and carries comparatively minimal scientific benefit.
Maybe that should change.
Where does this silly notion come from? Elon Musk also said something like anti-science, anti-merit, anti-human thing and he’s not an original thinker. I’ve read some longtermism papers, but have yet to come across this exact wording. Where did you hear it? (Please don’t say Elon, tell me you at least have the primary source…)
Tell me you’re a shill without telling me you’re a shill.
In my ideal society, we have a state captured by the need for innovation and invention. We cannot solve our problems fast enough, and the state is driving science and technology at blazing fast speed. Joking a bit, of course.
I see Progressive is more like a political adjective. Someone who’s jumping to Capitalism Bad is probably a Soc. Dem. Or a Communist. But even a Liberal could be Progressive. Those bold argument types are probably never gonna have real power anyway. Don’t let a rotten apple spoil the bunch.
Space ia very divorced from Capitalism. Capitalists don’t pony up the funds for it, the public does. The state collects taxes for it.
The objection is against the personal thrills of the immensely wealthy paid by the labor of their immiserated workers.
No objection was given against projects that promote the common welfare.
Yes, the left has the anti-science streak, not the side that has wholly embraced evangelicals, promoted anti-vaccine nonsense and climate change denial and believed in trickle-down economics.
My dilemma is that when the right is so anti-science, the left should be a bastion for it. We can’t afford the rise of anti-technology sentiment on the left. The streak was always there(crystal healing, the OG anti vaxxers, anti gmo), and now is the worst time for a comeback.
A rich person using government funds to fulfill NASA objectives is not the same as a rich person owning a yacht, but these quips now frequently equate and attack both.
Disclaimer: I am a huge advocate for the sciences personally and politically, but I do think there’s reason to be cautious around new technology, especially with how powerful some new technologies are.
I like the sentiment, but I don’t think we should get into the practice of defining political parties or stances as being in opposition to another party’s views. That’s basically how the right got so out of touch; they don’t have a coherent political or philosophical stance on anything beyond “if the libs think it’s good, it must be bad!” Progressives need to be better than that.
It’s not just rising; it’s a fact of human nature that people are scared of change, especially if it involves new science or technology that they do not understand. Even people that are politically and socially progressive struggle with this when it comes to technology and science. Hell, I have an advanced degree in Chemical Engineering and I teach chemistry at a community college, and even I struggle with deciding if certain technologies and trends are going to end up being harmful to my family or humanity as a whole (and I understand most of the fundamental principles behind these issues). So, while I (like you) wish the left was more of a champion for science, I understand why individual people aren’t. I also think that there’s a need to be careful around new technologies right now, as humanity has a well documented history of letting our reach exceed our grasp, and our knowledge around potentially dangerous areas like genetic engineering, neurology, environmental science, AI, etc. is roughly equivalent to a 4-year-old’s knowledge of a handgun.
That said, I don’t think this particular post is really anti-science so much as it’s attacking the personal use of spacecraft for frivolous ends like the space tourism of Richard Branson, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, etc. Personally, I’m thankful that Musk was able to provide an impetus for electric cars becoming more mainstream and the use of private companies to push Earth-to-orbit spaceflight into a seeming renaissance, but I can do without billionaires trying to broadcast their importance to the world by buying rides on rocket ships for no reason. Or, you know, billionaires in general.