Most of us are aware of the most recent successful human mission to Mars via NASA's Curiosity rover. Some of us may even have had the pleasure of witnessing it "live", from the countdown to the approach, to the "7 minutes of terror", to the first broadcast from Curiosity, up to the full transmission of images and data. (The TL thread on this event where various links to pictures, sites, press conferences and related videos can be found.)
For this article, I would like to propose some arguments why the Mars mision, as well as other future explorations (in Mars or somewhere else), are all worth it. I will refrain from investing so much on the dicsussion of the fiscal implications of the said projects in the context of the present global financial crisis, nor on the often convoluted and treacherous path of discussions on the US budgetary alignment (military vs. NASA), so I would encourage the readers and responders to do the same. Instead, I would like to frame my propositions on the philosophy of science, or more spicifically, on the history of knowledge.
Let me now recall an event that happened in 1543. That year, the astronomer Copernicus published what may be considered a 16th century coffee-table novelty book on science title On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres. The book was clear and forward; but conclusion was controversial and, if true, would rewrite the almost the entire history of astronomy, and science and faith: that the Sun, and not the Earth, is the center of the solar system (or universe, as Copernicus stated then, yet was wise enough no to close the possibility that the Solar System may just be one astronomical cluster among the many). Five-year olds now this as a matter of bland automatic fact today, but back then, it was a Revolution.
It lead astronomers and scientists to reconsider their long-withheld dogmas and "truths", often informed by Christian/religious frameworks, with man, as an extension of God, at the center of everything. Scientists had to swallow the bitter unpleasant truth: if the Ptolemic-model, a fundamental, and infallible explanation of the universe until then, was wrong, what else did humanity get wrong? And what else is there to know that will change everything we know about life, truth, and the universe? Copenicus' conclusion single-handedly ushered modernity and the attendant perspective that comes with it. All previous, cherished canonical points in history, the Classics, the Renaissance, the Reformation... were mere episodes, no more than side commentaries to the unfolding of history.
In the case of the Curiosity exploration, and science in general, the real virtue of such endeavors are the discoveries. By discoveries, I do not mean the affirmative ones which prove theoretical models/concepts developed from existing data (having said this, I celebrate the immense achievement in the confirmation of Higgs boson). But by discoveries, I mean the ones where are totally outside the realm of the imaginable, the predictable, and even the possible - one similar to Copernicus' conclusions. It is true that scientific knowledge is often a constructive process. Science builds on information from previous ones to make the system of knowledge more stable and objective. But every now and then, Truth, and the universe, brings in something totally out of field that we are left scratching our heads in bafflement, as we humbly pick ourselves up and laugh at our own folly. Yet this is the greatest challenge for humanity - one that we should have the courage, and humility, to actively seek out.
{CC}StealthBlue United States. August 19 2012 13:33. Posts 15619
While (as you stated) there are a plethora of arguments against the broadening the human perspective and reaching out for the stars, and they are (mostly) worthy of consideration and debate, I whole-heartedly embrace all things done in the name of exploration, in the name of pure science and knowledge-seeking, ESPECIALLY when we are talking about it all without those arguments and issues looming over the discussion. I truly enjoy how you wrote your article, there are few things I've read or heard in my life and agreed with so fundamentally from the start.
Personally, I think that there is NOTHING more dignified, more beautiful, more RIGHT, than for mankind to search, in spite of all the arguments against us, for those moments of revelation where we look back and see how utterly foolish and ignorant we were up until this point in history.
I cannot find the quote, but there was a documentary I watched on the standard model, an older physicist (70ish at the time of the documentary's filming) told a story about monitoring the equipment late one night on a particle accelerator (I don't think it was the LHC, it was before that was built I think... can't remember) when he was going over the latest data, and he found something NEW. If I am remembering the documentary correctly (its been at least 5 years since I saw it), this scientist was looking at HARD PROOF for the existence of the quark, for the few hours before his collegues woke up and read his emails about what he had discovered in the night, he was the only HUMAN who ever lived that knew that there was something smaller than an atom and could prove it. Even when he was telling this anecdote to the camera, the smile on his face was incredible. All I could think to myself watching it was "OH MAN! I LOVE SCIENCE!" It was awesome
"You must enemy don't know, and very good micro" - Bosstoss #Wet4Ret
Twinkle Toes United States. August 19 2012 14:16. Posts 528
I hate to be that one guy to bring this up again, especially in a discussion like this. But since you bring this up, I would like to present counter arguments, in a respectful manner that you presented yours as well.
The issue to me is simple. At this point in my life, in the state of the nation's wealth of which I am directly involved with primarily through my taxes, would I rather know about the origin of life, or that Mars is actually a desert, a star, made up of unknown materials, that space is actually an illusion, or it has a limit, or whatever discovery you might mean,
OR
do I want the government to spend its resources wisely and with constraint, focusing on immediate needs, providing jobs to the unemplyed and under employed, and making it possible for them to provide food for their family. Basic things, in short.
iamperfection United States. August 19 2012 14:24. Posts 4969
On August 19 2012 14:16 Twinkle Toes wrote: I hate to be that one guy to bring this up again, especially in a discussion like this. But since you bring this up, I would like to present counter arguments, in a respectful manner that you presented yours as well.
The issue to me is simple. At this point in my life, in the state of the nation's wealth of which I am directly involved with primarily through my taxes, would I rather know about the origin of life, or that Mars is actually a desert, a star, made up of unknown materials, that space is actually an illusion, or it has a limit, or whatever discovery you might mean,
OR
do I want the government to spend its resources wisely and with constraint, focusing on immediate needs, providing jobs to the unemplyed and under employed, and making it possible for them to provide food for their family. Basic things, in short.
On August 19 2012 14:16 Twinkle Toes wrote: I hate to be that one guy to bring this up again, especially in a discussion like this. But since you bring this up, I would like to present counter arguments, in a respectful manner that you presented yours as well.
The issue to me is simple. At this point in my life, in the state of the nation's wealth of which I am directly involved with primarily through my taxes, would I rather know about the origin of life, or that Mars is actually a desert, a star, made up of unknown materials, that space is actually an illusion, or it has a limit, or whatever discovery you might mean,
OR
do I want the government to spend its resources wisely and with constraint, focusing on immediate needs, providing jobs to the unemplyed and under employed, and making it possible for them to provide food for their family. Basic things, in short.
How much of the money is/was just going to Military/weapons research? I say was since, well the Obama cuts... but a lot of military research has given us many everyday things. Is it the best path, cutting funding there? Obviously also being completely separate from nasa/space funding...
Where will you be when the sun falls?
Alventenie United States. August 19 2012 14:43. Posts 1166
On August 19 2012 14:16 Twinkle Toes wrote: I hate to be that one guy to bring this up again, especially in a discussion like this. But since you bring this up, I would like to present counter arguments, in a respectful manner that you presented yours as well.
The issue to me is simple. At this point in my life, in the state of the nation's wealth of which I am directly involved with primarily through my taxes, would I rather know about the origin of life, or that Mars is actually a desert, a star, made up of unknown materials, that space is actually an illusion, or it has a limit, or whatever discovery you might mean,
OR
do I want the government to spend its resources wisely and with constraint, focusing on immediate needs, providing jobs to the unemplyed and under employed, and making it possible for them to provide food for their family. Basic things, in short.
I highly suggest videos of Neil deGrasse Tyson to persuade you differently.
Spending money to send people to mars means we have to develop new technology for doing so. In doing this we find new things that we can use to improve our current lives for the future. This is evident from the 60's and early 70's when we were advancing a frontier. People lined up to be scientists to advance the frontier. We earned a lot of wealth through this because of the technology that was learned was then used for things on earth. Many items we use today in our day to day lives come from technologies found/invented trying to solve problems on getting further in the space frontier. To say that we need to spend money down here on earth means you have a short sightedness of today, not tomorrow or your future.
And to counter your point (which you will just say the government was unwise on their spending), but the bank bailout we did to save our economy (as they say, not everyone out there has recovered) costs more than the entire NASA budget since its inception. I'm confident that NASA has provided more to our economy multiple times over than what it costs to keep them running.
I will leave with this video of Neil explaining it better than me for view points of saying we should fix things down here (which we should, but bandaids aren't going to work):
yOngKIN Korea (North). August 20 2012 12:33. Posts 500
On August 19 2012 14:16 Twinkle Toes wrote: I hate to be that one guy to bring this up again, especially in a discussion like this. But since you bring this up, I would like to present counter arguments, in a respectful manner that you presented yours as well.
The issue to me is simple. At this point in my life, in the state of the nation's wealth of which I am directly involved with primarily through my taxes, would I rather know about the origin of life, or that Mars is actually a desert, a star, made up of unknown materials, that space is actually an illusion, or it has a limit, or whatever discovery you might mean,
OR
do I want the government to spend its resources wisely and with constraint, focusing on immediate needs, providing jobs to the unemplyed and under employed, and making it possible for them to provide food for their family. Basic things, in short.
I highly suggest videos of Neil deGrasse Tyson to persuade you differently.
Spending money to send people to mars means we have to develop new technology for doing so. In doing this we find new things that we can use to improve our current lives for the future. This is evident from the 60's and early 70's when we were advancing a frontier. People lined up to be scientists to advance the frontier. We earned a lot of wealth through this because of the technology that was learned was then used for things on earth. Many items we use today in our day to day lives come from technologies found/invented trying to solve problems on getting further in the space frontier. To say that we need to spend money down here on earth means you have a short sightedness of today, not tomorrow or your future.
And to counter your point (which you will just say the government was unwise on their spending), but the bank bailout we did to save our economy (as they say, not everyone out there has recovered) costs more than the entire NASA budget since its inception. I'm confident that NASA has provided more to our economy multiple times over than what it costs to keep them running.
I will leave with this video of Neil explaining it better than me for view points of saying we should fix things down here (which we should, but bandaids aren't going to work):
That Tyson video is the science cliche of all ages. I'm sick of it.
jodogohoo Canada. August 20 2012 12:41. Posts 2488
On August 19 2012 14:16 Twinkle Toes wrote: I hate to be that one guy to bring this up again, especially in a discussion like this. But since you bring this up, I would like to present counter arguments, in a respectful manner that you presented yours as well.
The issue to me is simple. At this point in my life, in the state of the nation's wealth of which I am directly involved with primarily through my taxes, would I rather know about the origin of life, or that Mars is actually a desert, a star, made up of unknown materials, that space is actually an illusion, or it has a limit, or whatever discovery you might mean,
OR
do I want the government to spend its resources wisely and with constraint, focusing on immediate needs, providing jobs to the unemplyed and under employed, and making it possible for them to provide food for their family. Basic things, in short.
#1 i love your username #2 i agree but not so much due to the economics of opportunity costs
science is great and shit. i like my longer lifetime, nice food, electronics, internet, and etc.. but a lot of the social issues, the exploitation and alientation of labour, still exists and is actually probably greater now then it was before.
im totally for science, but i think it's a matter of priorities. what we need to do focus on one thing at a time. sending stuff to mars can wait. first we should be worried about the incredible injustice that happens in the world before we worry about mars.
On August 19 2012 14:16 Twinkle Toes wrote: I hate to be that one guy to bring this up again, especially in a discussion like this. But since you bring this up, I would like to present counter arguments, in a respectful manner that you presented yours as well.
The issue to me is simple. At this point in my life, in the state of the nation's wealth of which I am directly involved with primarily through my taxes, would I rather know about the origin of life, or that Mars is actually a desert, a star, made up of unknown materials, that space is actually an illusion, or it has a limit, or whatever discovery you might mean,
OR
do I want the government to spend its resources wisely and with constraint, focusing on immediate needs, providing jobs to the unemplyed and under employed, and making it possible for them to provide food for their family. Basic things, in short.
I highly suggest videos of Neil deGrasse Tyson to persuade you differently.
Spending money to send people to mars means we have to develop new technology for doing so. In doing this we find new things that we can use to improve our current lives for the future. This is evident from the 60's and early 70's when we were advancing a frontier. People lined up to be scientists to advance the frontier. We earned a lot of wealth through this because of the technology that was learned was then used for things on earth. Many items we use today in our day to day lives come from technologies found/invented trying to solve problems on getting further in the space frontier. To say that we need to spend money down here on earth means you have a short sightedness of today, not tomorrow or your future.
And to counter your point (which you will just say the government was unwise on their spending), but the bank bailout we did to save our economy (as they say, not everyone out there has recovered) costs more than the entire NASA budget since its inception. I'm confident that NASA has provided more to our economy multiple times over than what it costs to keep them running.
I will leave with this video of Neil explaining it better than me for view points of saying we should fix things down here (which we should, but bandaids aren't going to work):
technology has been used to do A LOT of bad shit. lots of good shit as well. especially for us since we live in a western country that allows us to fuck around on tumblr and twitter and play video games, but the positive effects of science... do not benefit everyone equally.
On August 19 2012 14:16 Twinkle Toes wrote: I hate to be that one guy to bring this up again, especially in a discussion like this. But since you bring this up, I would like to present counter arguments, in a respectful manner that you presented yours as well.
The issue to me is simple. At this point in my life, in the state of the nation's wealth of which I am directly involved with primarily through my taxes, would I rather know about the origin of life, or that Mars is actually a desert, a star, made up of unknown materials, that space is actually an illusion, or it has a limit, or whatever discovery you might mean,
OR
do I want the government to spend its resources wisely and with constraint, focusing on immediate needs, providing jobs to the unemplyed and under employed, and making it possible for them to provide food for their family. Basic things, in short.
Why does it have to be or?
Becuase resources is not infinite and your country has to decide whether to allocate money on this thing or that.
ElvisWayCool United States. August 20 2012 13:07. Posts 423
On August 19 2012 14:16 Twinkle Toes wrote: I hate to be that one guy to bring this up again, especially in a discussion like this. But since you bring this up, I would like to present counter arguments, in a respectful manner that you presented yours as well.
The issue to me is simple. At this point in my life, in the state of the nation's wealth of which I am directly involved with primarily through my taxes, would I rather know about the origin of life, or that Mars is actually a desert, a star, made up of unknown materials, that space is actually an illusion, or it has a limit, or whatever discovery you might mean,
OR
do I want the government to spend its resources wisely and with constraint, focusing on immediate needs, providing jobs to the unemplyed and under employed, and making it possible for them to provide food for their family. Basic things, in short.
Why does it have to be or?
Sounds like twinkle is saying: work on long-term goals or short-term goals.
I'd rather focus long-term. I'm not here to make my life better, I'm here to make everyone else's better. And more people will be alive after me, than at the same time as me. So, while you all might not feel any effect on what I've done, I'd hope someone down the road will.
Change all the "I"'s to "We"'s and humanity will grow. Change the message from extroverted to introverted and humanity will collapse on itself. I think the people aiming for short-term goals are the introverted ones.
Last edit: 2012-08-20 13:08:15
JacobShock Denmark. August 20 2012 13:09. Posts 1114
On August 19 2012 14:16 Twinkle Toes wrote: I hate to be that one guy to bring this up again, especially in a discussion like this. But since you bring this up, I would like to present counter arguments, in a respectful manner that you presented yours as well.
The issue to me is simple. At this point in my life, in the state of the nation's wealth of which I am directly involved with primarily through my taxes, would I rather know about the origin of life, or that Mars is actually a desert, a star, made up of unknown materials, that space is actually an illusion, or it has a limit, or whatever discovery you might mean,
OR
do I want the government to spend its resources wisely and with constraint, focusing on immediate needs, providing jobs to the unemplyed and under employed, and making it possible for them to provide food for their family. Basic things, in short.
Why does it have to be or?
Becuase resources is not infinite and your country has to decide whether to allocate money on this thing or that.
Because it's impossible to allocate a balanced amount of money on more than one thing right?
Hotbid: I could be a professional terran player! =D QXC: ..................................
NadaSound United States. August 20 2012 13:14. Posts 227
lol, it only took two post for your topic to be derailed. Oh well, these things happen.
Science is a journey of wounder and humility. It amazes me that we can learn anything at all about the universe and the world around us. We should all rejoice at how clever we are. Just think about it. After all isn't learning the most important thing in life? I mean you will not get very far if you do not learn anything.
jodogohoo Canada. August 20 2012 13:16. Posts 2488
On August 19 2012 14:16 Twinkle Toes wrote: I hate to be that one guy to bring this up again, especially in a discussion like this. But since you bring this up, I would like to present counter arguments, in a respectful manner that you presented yours as well.
The issue to me is simple. At this point in my life, in the state of the nation's wealth of which I am directly involved with primarily through my taxes, would I rather know about the origin of life, or that Mars is actually a desert, a star, made up of unknown materials, that space is actually an illusion, or it has a limit, or whatever discovery you might mean,
OR
do I want the government to spend its resources wisely and with constraint, focusing on immediate needs, providing jobs to the unemplyed and under employed, and making it possible for them to provide food for their family. Basic things, in short.
Why does it have to be or?
Becuase resources is not infinite and your country has to decide whether to allocate money on this thing or that.
Because it's impossible to allocate a balanced amount of money on more than one thing right?
opportunity costs and decreasing margins of return probably justify a balanced allocation but i think a successful mars mission distracts humanity from issues that are more important.
to me, when there is a fire, you stop everything and put the fucking fire out before doing anything else. but i feel something awesome like exploring mars is similar to firefighters who take a break in the middle of rescuing people to watch some pretty fireworks in the distance, then afterwords return to putting out the fire.
On August 20 2012 13:14 NadaSound wrote: lol, it only took two post for your topic to be derailed. Oh well, these things happen.
Science is a journey of wounder and humility. It amazes me that we can learn anything at all about the universe and the world around us. We should all rejoice at how clever we are. Just think about it. After all isn't learning the most important thing in life? I mean you will not get very far if you do not learn anything.
learning is absolutely wonderful and i love science. i find physics to be bad ass and it explains shit i care about. biology is also pretty awesome and chemistry also helps me enjoy the magic behind water molecules. but learning is not divorced from morality and justice. i feel we should be spending more resources and effort in the study of human emotion / human happiness. studies on the exploitation of labour, on ecological rape and disaster, then on exploring mars.
On August 19 2012 14:16 Twinkle Toes wrote: I hate to be that one guy to bring this up again, especially in a discussion like this. But since you bring this up, I would like to present counter arguments, in a respectful manner that you presented yours as well.
The issue to me is simple. At this point in my life, in the state of the nation's wealth of which I am directly involved with primarily through my taxes, would I rather know about the origin of life, or that Mars is actually a desert, a star, made up of unknown materials, that space is actually an illusion, or it has a limit, or whatever discovery you might mean,
OR
do I want the government to spend its resources wisely and with constraint, focusing on immediate needs, providing jobs to the unemplyed and under employed, and making it possible for them to provide food for their family. Basic things, in short.
Why does it have to be or?
Becuase resources is not infinite and your country has to decide whether to allocate money on this thing or that.
Because it's impossible to allocate a balanced amount of money on more than one thing right?
I'll make it simple for you: You are starving, like you have not eaten for one week. At this point in time, you have $3. You may have some money in the future, next week, tomorrow, next month. Would you allocate a part of that $3 you have right now to, say, bus fair to travel to the next city to see what's up there and have a look around right now, and not spend it all on food and basic stuff that you need NOW?
jodogohoo Canada. August 20 2012 13:22. Posts 2488
On August 19 2012 14:16 Twinkle Toes wrote: I hate to be that one guy to bring this up again, especially in a discussion like this. But since you bring this up, I would like to present counter arguments, in a respectful manner that you presented yours as well.
The issue to me is simple. At this point in my life, in the state of the nation's wealth of which I am directly involved with primarily through my taxes, would I rather know about the origin of life, or that Mars is actually a desert, a star, made up of unknown materials, that space is actually an illusion, or it has a limit, or whatever discovery you might mean,
OR
do I want the government to spend its resources wisely and with constraint, focusing on immediate needs, providing jobs to the unemplyed and under employed, and making it possible for them to provide food for their family. Basic things, in short.
Why does it have to be or?
Becuase resources is not infinite and your country has to decide whether to allocate money on this thing or that.
Because it's impossible to allocate a balanced amount of money on more than one thing right?
I'll make it simple for you: You are starving, like you have not eaten for one week. At this point in time, you have $3. You may have some money in the future, next week, tomorrow, next month. Would you allocate a part of that $3 you have right now to, say, bus fair to travel to the next city to see what's up there and have a look around right now, and not spend it all on food and basic stuff that you need NOW?
this is not a fair comparison / example. you're comparing a firm "the government" to... an individual... an individual with like no money.
yeah... this doesn't really work in any capacity because the individual is looking out for the individual, while the government is "looking out for society". so even individual investments and responsibilities are different.
On August 19 2012 14:16 Twinkle Toes wrote: I hate to be that one guy to bring this up again, especially in a discussion like this. But since you bring this up, I would like to present counter arguments, in a respectful manner that you presented yours as well.
The issue to me is simple. At this point in my life, in the state of the nation's wealth of which I am directly involved with primarily through my taxes, would I rather know about the origin of life, or that Mars is actually a desert, a star, made up of unknown materials, that space is actually an illusion, or it has a limit, or whatever discovery you might mean,
OR
do I want the government to spend its resources wisely and with constraint, focusing on immediate needs, providing jobs to the unemplyed and under employed, and making it possible for them to provide food for their family. Basic things, in short.
Why does it have to be or?
Becuase resources is not infinite and your country has to decide whether to allocate money on this thing or that.
Because it's impossible to allocate a balanced amount of money on more than one thing right?
I'll make it simple for you: You are starving, like you have not eaten for one week. At this point in time, you have $3. You may have some money in the future, next week, tomorrow, next month. Would you allocate a part of that $3 you have right now to, say, bus fair to travel to the next city to see what's up there and have a look around right now, and not spend it all on food and basic stuff that you need NOW?
uhh that's not what's going on. it's more like this.
you have $1000. you're not starving but you've fallen on some hard times, so money is short and you need to watch your spending. you put five bucks in the jar so that someday you can visit Paradise Falls. you spend $250 to polish your gun collection. your family complains about how much money you're wasting on Paradise Falls.
pretty solid perspective
Last edit: 2012-08-20 13:46:28
NadaSound United States. August 20 2012 13:32. Posts 227
On August 19 2012 14:16 Twinkle Toes wrote: I hate to be that one guy to bring this up again, especially in a discussion like this. But since you bring this up, I would like to present counter arguments, in a respectful manner that you presented yours as well.
The issue to me is simple. At this point in my life, in the state of the nation's wealth of which I am directly involved with primarily through my taxes, would I rather know about the origin of life, or that Mars is actually a desert, a star, made up of unknown materials, that space is actually an illusion, or it has a limit, or whatever discovery you might mean,
OR
do I want the government to spend its resources wisely and with constraint, focusing on immediate needs, providing jobs to the unemplyed and under employed, and making it possible for them to provide food for their family. Basic things, in short.
Why does it have to be or?
Becuase resources is not infinite and your country has to decide whether to allocate money on this thing or that.
Because it's impossible to allocate a balanced amount of money on more than one thing right?
I'll make it simple for you: You are starving, like you have not eaten for one week. At this point in time, you have $3. You may have some money in the future, next week, tomorrow, next month. Would you allocate a part of that $3 you have right now to, say, bus fair to travel to the next city to see what's up there and have a look around right now, and not spend it all on food and basic stuff that you need NOW?
Your analogy seems way out of proportion.
I got to say that there are always going to be problems on this world. We will never live in a problem free utopia. Don't be so foolish to think otherwise. If people were not so damn greedy we would not have so many problems, but greed and suffering will never go away because they are as much apart of the human spirit as love and compassion are.
On August 19 2012 14:16 Twinkle Toes wrote: I hate to be that one guy to bring this up again, especially in a discussion like this. But since you bring this up, I would like to present counter arguments, in a respectful manner that you presented yours as well.
The issue to me is simple. At this point in my life, in the state of the nation's wealth of which I am directly involved with primarily through my taxes, would I rather know about the origin of life, or that Mars is actually a desert, a star, made up of unknown materials, that space is actually an illusion, or it has a limit, or whatever discovery you might mean,
OR
do I want the government to spend its resources wisely and with constraint, focusing on immediate needs, providing jobs to the unemplyed and under employed, and making it possible for them to provide food for their family. Basic things, in short.
Because somehow the jobs at NASA don't count as jobs...?
jodogohoo Canada. August 20 2012 13:39. Posts 2488
On August 19 2012 14:16 Twinkle Toes wrote: I hate to be that one guy to bring this up again, especially in a discussion like this. But since you bring this up, I would like to present counter arguments, in a respectful manner that you presented yours as well.
The issue to me is simple. At this point in my life, in the state of the nation's wealth of which I am directly involved with primarily through my taxes, would I rather know about the origin of life, or that Mars is actually a desert, a star, made up of unknown materials, that space is actually an illusion, or it has a limit, or whatever discovery you might mean,
OR
do I want the government to spend its resources wisely and with constraint, focusing on immediate needs, providing jobs to the unemplyed and under employed, and making it possible for them to provide food for their family. Basic things, in short.
Why does it have to be or?
Becuase resources is not infinite and your country has to decide whether to allocate money on this thing or that.
Because it's impossible to allocate a balanced amount of money on more than one thing right?
I'll make it simple for you: You are starving, like you have not eaten for one week. At this point in time, you have $3. You may have some money in the future, next week, tomorrow, next month. Would you allocate a part of that $3 you have right now to, say, bus fair to travel to the next city to see what's up there and have a look around right now, and not spend it all on food and basic stuff that you need NOW?
Your analogy seems way out of proportion.
I got to say that there are always going to be problems on this world. We will never live in a problem free utopia. Don't be so foolish to think otherwise. If people were not so damn greedy we would not have as many problems, but greed and suffering will never go away.
i agree with you =\ human history has not really shown any sign of improvement. but a problem free utopia makes it sound like we are either close to it or at least in the middle of a continuum from good to bad. i feel like we are more on society is shit side. more reaching for not being assholes, then reaching for utopia.
i just want to live in a society that does not exploit labour / alienate people. this isn't impossible. people in hunter gatherer societies don't have this problem.
Store
{CC}StealthBlue United States. August 19 2012 13:33. Posts 15619
Twinkle Toes United States. August 19 2012 14:16. Posts 528
EffervescentAureola United States. August 19 2012 14:25. Posts 409
