tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post7079429583162973320..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Ryan Murphy on Space ExplorationEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-90832068065033858762013-05-03T12:02:19.847-04:002013-05-03T12:02:19.847-04:00Note the difference between ideal and nonideal the...Note the difference between ideal and nonideal theory. Ideal theory, among much else, theorizes the ideal, the principles to govern an ideal society/world under favorable socio-economic conditions (making assumptions of full compliance, etc). When one transitions to nonideal theory, however, we loosen our idealizations/assumptions (e.g., full compliance becomes partial, favorable conditions worsen) and ask what are our moral responsibilities in the face of partial compliance by others and unfortunate historical realities. So in ideal theory, we can do both (1) fund space exploration, and (2) feed everyone. But in nonideal theory, under conditions of partial compliance (if everyone fulfilled their moral responsibilities of, e.g., beneficence), there are people starving in the world. So we ask ourselves, "is it morally permissible to spend money on space exploration that could be used instead to put food in the stomach of those less fortunate?" In nonideal theory, we recognize the tradeoffs and who is *actually* going to bear the burden of certain policy choices, which individuals and groups of individuals will *actually* be made to sacrifice the most for future benefits. You can will obviously have to make your own moral judgments (that's just constitutive of being a moral agent), but I thought it might be helpful to clarify some of the issues involved, from my perspective anyway.Humehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00471731654454581518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-22145536390058716732013-05-02T22:32:02.040-04:002013-05-02T22:32:02.040-04:00Much of NASA's manned program is oriented at t...Much of NASA's manned program is oriented at the problems involved in exploring and settling space. They are only basic steps, but they are basic steps upon which further steps will have to be built. Should we get that excited about Mars though? What if we discover habitable, or even inhabited, worlds around nearby stars? Meanwhile we will learn about what resources are available in the rest of the solar system. Developing a self sustaining outpost would be a step forward, but would be very expensive one at this point.Lordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06747994571555237739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-44250706716884417652013-05-02T10:58:31.588-04:002013-05-02T10:58:31.588-04:00"I'll agree with Ryan and maintain that w..."I'll agree with Ryan and maintain that we all understand and can skip over opportunity cost. Nobody thinks we should shutter the courts or take bread from the poor to go to Mars."<br /><br />Right, because the <a href="http://pragmatarianism.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-preference-revelation-problem.html" rel="nofollow">preference revelation problem</a> isn't a real problem. Xerographicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14978832439622230018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-17147929220983571422013-05-02T08:25:01.797-04:002013-05-02T08:25:01.797-04:00Glad you liked it Mike. btw - I enjoyed your comme...Glad you liked it Mike. btw - I enjoyed your comments when this came out on importing more financial analysts to depress wages in finance :) It's a really stupid argument IMO.<br /><br />If you ever want to write a snappy guest post making that argument let me know.<br /><br />btw - do you mind emailing me/have a half hour to take a look at something around space exploration I've got? If so, just email at dan dot p dot kuehn at gmail.com.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-36541182808124103982013-05-02T00:23:28.158-04:002013-05-02T00:23:28.158-04:00"a thousand years"? I have my doubts abo..."a thousand years"? I have my doubts about the timing of Kurzweil's singularity hypothesis, but I feel it's highly likely that super-human AI will emerge within a couple hundred years, tops. If that happens, these engineering projects will be child's play.<br /><br />I think this is a really good explanation of recent developments in neural networks. http://spectrum.ieee.org/robotics/artificial-intelligence/moneta-a-mind-made-from-memristors/0<br /><br />Even within 20 years, I think we'll make a shocking amount of progress towards strong AI.John Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-34045321253051475492013-05-01T22:06:30.842-04:002013-05-01T22:06:30.842-04:00Investing in space exploration would greatly benef...Investing in space exploration would greatly benefit the countless humans who will be born long after we die, but it really doesn't directly benefit us. So I think Ryan is mostly right as far as his argument goes... but his argument doesn't go far enough to be complete, in my opinion. I just posted my own take on the discussion :) <br /><br /><a href="http://www.extraordinaryinsignificance.com/space-exploration-and-future-you/" rel="nofollow">http://www.extraordinaryinsignificance.com/space-exploration-and-future-you/</a>Dave Churvishttp://www.extraordinaryinsignificance.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-55629472200584258492013-05-01T21:35:24.552-04:002013-05-01T21:35:24.552-04:00Nice to see spaceflight being defended by an econo...Nice to see spaceflight being defended by an economist and a blogger. It's unusual. (It's also very nicely done, by the way. Remind me to steal from you...)<br /><br />Couple of points: A. There's a reason NASA isn't doing much about colonizing space. The US government pretty clearly doesn't want to colonize space. Think of Antarctica. Space is a good place To Do Science and to demonstrate American Leadership; it is not -- God forbid! -- a place where people might be allowed to live and die and raise kids. I'll not claim this is completely sane, but it's the most cheritable explanation I've come up with to explain US space policy.<br /><br />B. Murphy's "diminishing returns" stuff is bat pucky. I have no doubt that colonizing the moon and planets is going to be expensive and take a lot of technological effort, and a lot of it's going to be more brute force engineeering than science. But the whole damned point of engineering is that you learn to do difficult things easier and cheaper, and you have that knowledge -- in principle, at least, forever. You learn how to build steam engines, and you go on to railroads and steam ships, not back to mules or slaves and guys with whips. And your kids learn this, and their kids, and eventually your friends and your rivals for a thousand years to come. Intellectual capital isn't like an aging factory or inflation-wilted greenbacks, it isn't going to be wiped out by a bank run or a conqueror's knout. In other words, colonizing space ought to get easier and cheaper with time if people choose to do it.<br /><br />Why should it be necessary to explain this crap?<br /><br />mike shupphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08383379836883992742noreply@blogger.com