Cancel
Comment on Obama: Space program a necessity, not a luxury

BenRayfield Mon, Jul 5, 2010
"We want to leap into the future, not continue on the same path as before, Obama said"

When he says "future", does that mean a future of minor improvements in some areas and continued failures in most other areas, leading to World War 3 and extinction of Humans? Or will we get lucky and do only the minor improvement parts?

I am not impressed by mass-based propulsion. Burning huge amounts of rocket fuel does not result in faster-than-light spaceships, and more research in that area has a "glass ceiling" over it. In general, anyone who chooses to research under too close a "glass ceiling" is mismanaging their resources and should be replaced. It would be more useful to use resources to make sure every person on Earth has a better life than the average animal caged in a zoo, and I think most people are aware that many millions of people have a worse life than that. Why spend resources on that? Because 7 billion Human minds, if they can learn to work together, are much more likely to figure out how to move a spaceship faster than light, than a highly paid team of experts.

I can't blame Obama for spending more on advancing the space program, since that is what many people want, so instead of asking him to go against what the people of USA want, I offer a deviously simple solution to get them to ask for what I wrote above: Do a vote, where there is a section where the voter chooses the dollar amount they prefer the USA government to value a Human life at, but not for all Humans together... instead for each country. For example, you can vote that the USA government, when calculating its actions to maximize its given goals, should value Chinese people at x dollars per Human life and value USAmerican people at y dollars per Human life, and similar questions for every country, always optional to answer anything, but if a voter does not answer anything for a specific country, then those who do answer get to choose that dollar amount instead. The rules of this vote will be the USA government has to obey the will of the people, on median (proven to be a better number combiner in voting than averaging), and spend money to save lives in specific countries up to the supply/demand chosen by the USA voters. This is democracy at an unprecedented level of honesty. Who would dare set the dollar value for some Human lives lower than the dollar value for the life of a caged animal in a zoo (make sure to calculate that for a few species of animal and give those numbers/species on the voting form, so people can make a more informed choice when choosing the value of Human lives per country)? Certainly not the majority of voters. Theres your solution, and it can't fail. Ending world hunger and diseases and most wars etc isn't that hard, just a puzzle to solve at no overall cost to any one group of people or area of government or research (long-term cost, not immediate cost). Its just a puzzle. That's 1 of the many solutions. Try it.