From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (no one of consequence)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Subject: Re: Outer space resources, was Re: save
Date: 25 Jan 1993 23:16:14 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: huey.cc.utexas.edu
Keywords: ideology, subsidy, spinoffs, public works

In article <1993Jan24.200250.2195@truffula.sj.ca.us> cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer) writes:
]
]If we are to create a truly new political ideology, we must learn
]to recognize axioms of competing ideologies, so that we can question
]the assumptions on which they are based.  It's the only way to benefit
]from others' errors instead of repeating them.

Hmm.... quite a mouthful. Let's see if I can translate. To make your own 
policy seem flawless, you must search through opposing ideologies and look
for critical and/or critical-seeming errors and draw them out in the open
to criticism? Nah, I'm getting too cynical about politics... wait, was I 
ever *not* cynical about anyone who wishes to gain political power? :)
 
]
]In article <1678600161@igc.apc.org> Dale McMillen writes:
]>[Patrick Chester writes:]
]>> My basic view is that the Greens should do what I think the 
]>> government should do with regards to space: get out of the way, please.
]> 
]>This is my view, too.
]
]Implicit in this line of thought is the assumption that private
]industry is always more competent or more efficient than government
]at tasks which either could accomplish.

Funny, I thought I just said for government to get out of the way. Maybe a
private effort can be more efficient, maybe not. Should I draw from your 
sentence that you are assuming that nobody should launch a bottle rocket
into space unless the government nods?  

NASA space projects can keep on going at their own pace if you wish. I just
want NASA to relinquish it's monopoly on spacelift and let other groups try.
Who knows, they might be more efficient.
 
]That assumption lies at the heart of the arguments for privatization
]made by wealthy elites everywhere, and it's *axiomatic* to libertarian
]ideology also.  You'll never hear it questioned by the Sunday morning
]TV pundits, who work for the wealthy elites. 

"wealthy elites"? Hmmm.... daresay I am reading the words of a progressive?

]But that doesn't make
]it true.  There are powerful arguments that public works projects like
]space exploration are much more economical when the prime contractor
]and many of the subs are government agencies.  (Whether the axiom is
]true has been discussed at length and without resolution in many other
]newsgroups.  I think there are far more pertinent questions for us
]here.)

I.e., I can't provide any answers.
 
]Chomsky and others argue that the purpose of the arms race and the
]space program is to provide a public subsidy to high-tech business.

Oh? Do you know how much the space program costs us every year? Smaller than
you think especially compared to things like defense, welfare, and other
programs. This year's space budget is about 14-15 billion dollars. Compare
that to some other programs or to the budget in general.

At least this is better than "it's all a plot by those trekkies." :)

]Certainly if the end goal of those programs is to give us Teflon,
]integrated microelectronics, and a poster shot of the Earth from space,
]we were gypped, because those advances could have been achieved by
]more straightforward means at vastly lower cost.

I doubt that was the planned end goals. Try again. Maybe finding out what's
out there? But then, that's probably not enough since it is implicit in your
statements that any program has to have immediate, planned benefits or it's
not worth the cost. Oh dear, I think I am making your mistake: translating
the text of someone who's ideas I do not like into a form that lets me 
ridicule it more easily.

The only thing we've been "gypped" on is the usual waste found in any 
government program. By rights, we would be to the asteroids by now if
NASA would stop redesigning spacecraft and try and do something once in
awhile. Like take risks every so often and when an accident happens, try
again instead of spending a year or so covering your ass from any suspicion 
of incompetance. Look at the period after the Challenger disaster.
 
]But those programs have other purposes too, some of which are anathema
]to Green Values and others which (sometimes unwittingly) serve them.

Specifics? This all has nice rhetoric in it but little substance. I don't 
count neo-Proxmire (I can play the fancy label name game also :) claims
since I've heard the same thing over and over again.
 
]We can never untangle a problem like "should Greens support a space
]program" without first recognizing and questioning the assumptions
]underlying the arguments we hear from other ideological perspectives.

Or nit-picking it to death, it seems. What do you have against private
ventures? 

]Only then will we have the intellectual freedom to construct arguments
]based on Green values instead of values inherited from the ideologies
]which dominate our mass media, our elite consensus, and therefore
]our own conscious thought.

Since when has science fiction been considered mass media? From what I've 
seen, many people think it's trash unless it's something with lots of neat
special effects like Star Wars or Star Trek. But then, that is not all 
of what is known as science fiction. In case you haven't guessed, science
fiction is the main reason I became interested in spaceflight. Books like
_2001: A Space Odyssey_ and others (mainly AC Clarke but later Niven, Heinlein,
and Asimov) piqued my interest and I started looking up information on
*real* spaceflight. But then, that is nothing but "proof" of your claim
to you anyway, right Cameron?

Funny though, all I remember of mass media's coverage of spaceflight is
nothing but negative coverage ("Well Tom, this is the third straight attempt
to <launch/recover> <INSERT VEHICLE NAME HERE>") unless it is truly a 
spectacular event. I'll get off my soapbox now and stop hammering you all
with my views.
 
]
]Cameron, aka cls@truffula.sj.ca.us
]"You mean I have to think for myself?  Wow!"

Exhilarating, isn't it?


-- 
/----------------------------------------------------------------------\
|Patrick Chester                             wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu|
|"If the Earth is our Cradle, then why are we still here?"             |
|Everything your side says is Truth. All else is Propaganda....        |
|I only speak for myself. If I *did* speak for UT, would anyone listen?|
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Xref: sparky alt.politics.greens:609 talk.environment:5697