
Moon Fever - samclemens
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/08/15/moon-fever-apollo-11/
======
detcader
> The first moon landing was at once a historical inevitability and an
> improbable fluke. Inevitable because we had already done it so many times in
> our storytelling and our dreams.

Now, who's dreams? It boggles my mind. When the opportunity comes to talk
about the moon, this magical license to speak for the entire human race
appears in the pockets all of the young professionals everywhere. Someone's
dream can't be to lift up the poor and sick and hated, to make sure no one is
left behind. Surely only the opposite could be true: we _must_ leave those
people behind, and go to the moon. Otherwise "you are a weird radical who
doesn’t know the first thing about Economics. You are a sentimental bleeding-
heart who will never understand how things work. Pick yourself up, bucko, and
if you say you can’t you’re just making excuses, you’re just the kind of sorry
unproductive parasite that the Job Creators and Entrepreneurs have to
generously subsidize through their brilliance and benevolence."

~~~
DoreenMichele
Yeah, no.

I'm a homeless advocate. I'm also pro space exploration.

These are not mutually exclusive interests, geez.

~~~
detcader
I don't understand how space exploration in the US is an "interest" rather
than a commitment of $20 billion per year to something other than
infrastructure, public health and anti-poverty programs... and I prefer Gil
Scott-Heron's more metrical "yea, no" on the question.

~~~
deogeo
> something other than infrastructure, public health and anti-poverty programs

Or something other than military spending. Space exploration is probably the
best way to redirect the efforts of the powerful military-industrial complex.

And once it enables something like colonization of Mars, it'll result in "more
people to figure out solutions for the problems on Earth (and Mars)", as
population growth advocates are fond of saying. More people without further
burdening Earth's ecosystems.

~~~
detcader
Military spending is a function of geopolitics and the world economy-- Moon
Fever isn't even a key in the dictionary of an optional parameter.

Maybe the fundamental disagreement here comes down to whether we think the way
our working society is currently structured alienates us from each other or
not. Human wellbeing may seem like a function of population growth, but I
believe that is an illusion. If what we have now is a healthy society, then
sure, let's expand it to the moon and Mars.

~~~
deogeo
> Military spending is a function of geopolitics and the world economy

It's also in large part a function of military-industrial complex lobbying. As
for human wellbeing - I don't think that's a function of population growth.
But technological progress _is_ a function of the total number of people.

> If what we have now is a healthy society, then sure, let's expand it

I'm sure that by this logic, we never would have left Africa.

~~~
detcader
Yes: that technological progress is the driver of societal health, the
middleman between human population growth and the end of human problems--
techno-progressivism and transhumanism-- looks to be the operating framework
when space exploration is talked about among my peers. It's not (just) that
it's _boring_ to suggest that "missions to Mars should be considered
unaffordable luxuries until everyone has adequate shelter, nutrition, and
healthcare, and is free from violence and exploitation" or "before getting to
put our energies toward the search for other life, and the better
understanding of the universe, we have to avoid boiling the planet alive or
vaporizing each other in a nuclear holocaust [1]," it's impossible, without
more technology.

[1] [https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/this-little-rock-
and-...](https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/this-little-rock-and-all-who-
sail-on-it)

~~~
deogeo
> until everyone has adequate shelter, nutrition, and healthcare, and is free
> from violence and exploitation

I.e. never. See my previous comment about staying in Africa.

But why are we only applying this "unaffordable luxury" logic to space
exploration? Just the film industry spends $136 billion per year. Add
videogames and tourism to that, novels and music and professional sport, and
cancel all of it, until we have achieved this utopia of yours. It's not like
we'll be without - the films and stories created so far will still be around.

You might think it's different, because one is public spending, the other is
private. But public spending is (or should be..) just spending we choose to do
collectively, instead of individually. If 60% of voters decide a space program
is worth pursuing, that's little different than if 60% of moviegoers buy a
ticket. You can even pretend that 100% of your taxes go towards homeless
shelters, while 100% of their taxes go towards space, if it makes you happy.

~~~
detcader
I don't think about art as comparable to space travel, and I don't think all
the artists and schools losing funding in favor of STEM do either...

Sure, I think democracy was the point of Gil-Scott Heron writing his poem, and
N. Robinson writing his essays? To convince who they could to deprioritize one
thing in favor of another? But let's not pretend the current system of
political campaigning in the US is at this moment translating pure public
sentiment into pure public spending.

