On April 21st, 2012 Andrew Barton wrote:

"I think scientific curiosity is a good enough reason to continue to send unmanned probes into space."

Could you elaborate on why scientific curiosity is a good enough reason to continue an unmanned space program, given the high cost of space launch currently and the assured continued high cost if there is never any motivation to bring it down? If problems on Earth are that bad, wouldn't it be more prudent to pull back from space completely, robotic or no?

On April 30th, 2012 Stephen DeGrace wrote:

That's a good point and a very reasonable position to take. I would take the position that we can still afford some luxuries, and that pure scientific curiosity, including over things with very little application like unmanned space exploration, is not exorbitantly expensive and still within our means, but that manned space exploration multiplies the cost many times with little or no added value in terms of scientific discovery, and that the more ideological reasons for manned space exploration, e.g., making new homes for humanity in space, are entirely specious. It is tragic to me to see some of our most ingenious entrepreneurs with money to burn on pet projects wasting time on this big nothing when energy is the crucial problem on which our whole future hinges.

I think you could very reasonably argue that less money, or no money, should go to any space exploration, though - it's a legitimate point of public policy debate.

On October 29th, 2012 Walter wrote:

Your post brings to mind the thousands of theories and inventions that naysayers said were impossible, until they happened.

It also brings to mind what Teddy Roosevelt said of critics.

It also astounds me, your apparent shortsightedness and simultaneous logical self-contradiction. You say this man would do better by finding efficient and renewable energy. You say space travel of the past is a product of cheap energy. Would it not then follow that to explore space would require that he develop such sources? So what on earth are you trying to complain about? Need you be reminded of all of the technological innovations in our daily lives as by-products of our past exploration of space?

Just about every improvement you have in your life originated as someone's pet project, and not from some idealized, directed mass movement of human consciousness and will (since you seem to be speaking as if the "needs of humanity" have a say in how others should direct their energies, instead of YOU doing something unthinkable such as, maybe, directing your OWN energies to do that which you complain others should do for you). Fortunately for humanity, great men will continue to innovate for their own ends, and rodent-like belly-crawlers like yourself will reap the benefits of it along with everyone else, regardless of whether you deserve it or not.

About the only thing you said that makes any sense is that taxpayers shouldn't fund it. Dare I hope that you are morally consistent enough to extend that sentiment towards other "whack-off fantasy to the tune of trillions of dollars that will never help most of them in any way out of a nebulous sense of ideological accomplishment" such as nationalized health care?

Dare I?

On November 3rd, 2012 Stephen DeGrace wrote:

Walter - Don't be silly. Taxpayers should definitely fund some space exploration, as with any basic science. Similarly, taxpayers should absolutely fund some form of nationalized healthcare. You seem to be some kind of libertarian. Libertarianism is just as nutty and ineffectually idealistic as Communism - the major difference being that (thankfully) libertarianism has never really been taken for a test drive. Let us all pray that remains the case.

The question, as always, is whether to fund some specific priority rather than some other, because resources are always limited, and to what degree. My position is that public involvement in highly expensive manned projects simply does make any sense. There is virtually no pay off for (pardon the expression) the astronomical expense. These things tend to be exclusively exercises in national pride, which are no longer affordable.

Elon Musk can spend his money on anything he likes that's legal, but it's sad that as some kind of idealist he chose the direction he did. That's only my opinion, of course, but I think I stated sufficient reasons why it is a considered and rational one.

Your faith in technology is touching, Walter. Really touching. Heart warming, really. Time will tell which one of us is right, but I'd just like to point out, the year 2000 has come and gone, and where is my flying car!? I think technological innovation cannot entirely cease any more than oil can ever entirely run out, but both have passed their peaks. Technology has limits, and I don't think that is just a failure of the imagination. But again, we'll see. I have to tell you, though, I'm resting pretty easy over here.

On November 7th, 2012 Walter wrote:

Don't be silly? You take it for granted that taxpayers "should definitely fund" this or that based on whatever whim or fancy that appeals to you and which you can validate to yourself with confirmation bias - of course, simultaneously opposing those that may appeal to others for reasons just as (in)valid but which you disagree with. I, however, do not take it for granted that one has a right to decide what will be done with what belongs to another, regardless of any arguments regarding payoffs. You have yet to justify the morality of your premises before moving on to weighing the pros and cons of different proposals that depend on them. The ends don't justify the means, especially when there are so many better and more effective ways to achieve those ends. That is why arguments from effect - such as that taxpayers should fund healthcare or science - are fallacies in every sense.

Yes, Libertarianism is absolutely ineffectual as a system of using force to direct the energies of a populace. That's the point. As for "nutty," that's a personal value judgement - it is not testable, as I can not disprove such a statement any more than you can prove it. Given the number of logical mistakes you've made thusfar, I'm sure you don't know the difference, so here's an example: The statements "the rock weighs 102 grams," or "I do not exist" are testable through logic or measurement, "bubblegum pop music is great" is not.

You mock my "faith in technology" on the same webpage that you say that others should put their efforts towards developing technological solutions to energy problems? Seems as since you have taken both sides on this issue, you're going to be wrong no matter what happens.

As for my own "faith in technology," I don't know how you're coming up with that. I have no ability to predict what the future holds. What I can do is argue from logic, evidence, and morality, and remind those like you that it is historically a losing proposition to project your own limitations onto the rest of humanity. Those who thought communism would work because resources would supposedly be finite and could/must therefore be rationed, those who thought that without slavery cotton would not get picked, those who thought technology peaked 10 years ago, when since computational efficiency has increased more than tenfold. Thank the deities that we did not suppress the "pet projects" of innovators and direct all resources with the expectation that the state of technology would remain stagnant. It would be a solution that created the problem it was trying to overcome, as it did in communist Russia.

Which I suppose leads into repeating a bit from my first paragraph - I do not take it for granted that one has a right to decide what will be done with what belongs to another. As it happens, not only is this a statement of morality (in itself, justification enough, as the fact that slavery is wrong [because, repeat that bit, again!] was enough justification to end it despite the supposedly negative effects on the cotton industry), but the payoffs of following it are have been - and likely will continue to be - much greater than anticipated by those who attempted to control others for the sake of their own limited vision.

You have no right. Not technically, not morally, not effectively, not economically, not socially.

Funny how logic, morality, and reality can converge when pursued honestly and rigorously from first principles, no?

I've overturned just about every point you have. Even if you don't accept my arguments, I think that given the number of logical mistakes and self-contradictions you've made, you should be honest with yourself and admit that your reasons were not well-considered or rational at all. Though, at the very least, I credit you for having the courage to allow my comments on your blog and opening yourself to public criticism - most leftists don't do this.

On November 11th, 2012 Stephen DeGrace wrote:

First off, I check my comments, like once a month, tops. Meaning, you have been checking back periodically to see if I posted your comment and responded to it, because as far as I know, I didn't build email notification into the system. (Did I? It's been a while since I've looked at the source code. Maybe I did! I don't think so, though, at least not for unregistered users. I wrote this whole thing except for the base components that came from Django, though, so there should be few surprises.) I'm not sure whether to be flattered or creeped out.

First of all, there is nothing inherently immoral about the government taking people's money and spending it in ways that some of them don't like. In fact, the government has a right to demand your money, and withholding taxes is immoral. To quote the great Barack Obama, "you didn't build that." You belong to a society, which is represented by your government, and you owe something to it, whether you like it or not. Thankfully, you aren't given a choice about that.

Exactly what to spend the public money on, or not, is always a matter for debate. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just happen to think that my opinions are particularly defensible, and judging by the recent US election, their general tenor are increasingly shared by the hitherto most libertarian nation on earth. Go Obama!!!

Equally, when a public figure takes a public stand about what they want to do with their money, inviting admiration or scorn, everyone is equally entitled to their opinion. You're entitled to your opinion, too, that other people are not entitled to their opinion, WRONG though you may be :)

Anyway, feel free to write back, and when I get around to checking it in a month or so, I'll see if I can wind you up some more! I love baiting libertarians.