Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 12 May 2001 18:45:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
839 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> > Daniel Jassim wrote:
> > I think you're missing the point, Tom. Why should the beginnings of a "space
> > based manufacturing infrastructure" be based on military applications?
> Because it will get things done faster, because no one (or consortium of) company is willing to pony up the money to do so at this time?
What's the big rush? As I said, look what happened in the last century
because people rushed into so many things without considering the long term
consequences. It is entirely possible that we may end up creating another
problem for the next generation. I commend your idealism but look at the sad
reality. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.
> Oh, so we shouldn't allow anything to be done if SOME of the people involved are motivated by money and greed? Showing your cluelessness again.
More insults? Is this supposed to impress me? Watch your tone.
> We'd be disallowing a LOT of things in that case.
We don't need more THINGS, we need to work on getting along.
> So we should just give up and stop doing ANYTHING, good or bad, following this reasoning.
Why do you choose to twist what I say? I'm saying that feeding off paranoia
and taking the military or business approach is wrong. That's the greedy
route. Any noble space endevour needs to begin with a humanitarian purpose
and never be perverted by the military. They serve no "greater good" as far
as I'm concerned.
Dan
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
