Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 12 May 2001 19:23:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1013 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> 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.
Circumspection was urged in this idealised "then" you're talking
about too--especially as regards air travel, motor vehicles, and
even medicine. And no mistake, you're absolutely right, we made
a lot of problems (although I'd argue the balance between those
humans solved and those we created is still in favour of the former,
at least inasfar as the top 10 things individual people lived in
mortal fear of in 1900). I think it's a bankrupt comparison,
though, because it argues counterfactuals. It looks like a
strong analogy, and it may be, but without specific comparators
it just looks like the-sky-is-falling rhetoric.
And, of course, just because we should be circumspect doesn't
mean that everyone will be. And the first one to forge ahead
will change the rules of said game for anyone who seriously
intends to play. That said, sometimes we've been reasonably
circumspect; the Mile High Arizona was never built, nor has
any mile tall building, even though we've had the capacity
to do so (meaning the technical knowhow) for over a half
century.
> > We'd be disallowing a LOT of things in that case.
>
> We don't need more THINGS, we need to work on getting along.
This is interesting. I would argue that the exploration and
conquest of a new frontier has the potential, if handled
with care (see above for my pessimistic side's utterance on
that), to heal divisions much more quickly than sitting in
stasis. The most often-visited case is the healing of
North-South rifts following the Civil War occasioned by the
opening of the frontier West (again, this worked for every-
body except the Plains Indians--let's pray we don't find
intelligent life out there, for its sake or our own). But
it's remarkable how struggle and shared sacrifice breaks down
the petty walls of isolation. I have a bajillion examples,
most from this century and the experience of war, to point
to--most notably, the camaraderie between French and German
(and English) veterans of World War I.
The question is whether or not we should gamble on the
unknown or pour yet more money, time, and blood into fighting
the same battles over and over.
> > 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.
I agree that it doesn't serve a greater good, but I disagree
that it must begin with a humanitarian purpose. Very few really
successful paradigm shifts do--the Internet didn't, air travel
didn't, space travel most certainly didn't, and that's just
the things I can think of immediately. Of those that did
start with a humanitarian onus, three of the most notable--
the Red Cross (I can't speak for Red Crescent), the League of
Nations, and the UN--are the direct outgrowth of war, and
despite their stated goal of preventing it, they were shaped
by it and owe their existence to the array of forces at the
end of a major conflict. (Thus, the Security Council's five
permanent seats.)
The reason is that, at least since the end of the eighteenth
century, only the state commands the unified capital and
regulatory authority to underwrite massive new ventures.
Once an infrastructure is laid and the opportunities shown
to a sufficient number of people, then private enterprise can
begin to enter this sphere. But why would any private fund
ever invest when greater profits can be returned without the
risk? Scientific discovery in and of itself just doesn't pay
in the short term, so there's got to be an overriding reason
other than monetary gain.
Granted, this might change in the future, but we're not there
yet. Even a thousand Dennis Titos won't change it, IMHO--
that's still only 20 or so Stealth bombers.
best
Lindsay
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
