Space Exploration News

True. I think NASA is saying they will be getting out of the "space station" biz. Their view (or that of congress) seems to be that space should be used by commercial enterprise at this point.

Does this mean that future companies that want to run an experiment in zero g (such as they do on in the ISS today) will have to create and maintain their own orbiting space habitat?

I hope not, as this would preclude all companies but those with serious dollars to spend.

 

Well, we certainly don't exhibit much interest in that direction.

Plus, in the interim we made more progress on nihilating the planet than on "loving one another".

 

Hubble sees most distant star ever, 28 billion light-years away

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/world/hubble-distant-star-image-scn/index.html

Another record breaking discovery !!........awesome.

 

The concept of"loving one another"........might work in the high level of abstraction .......and philosophy...........but not in the real , competitive world of daily survival. Human nature being what it is........... it is not realistic. We would be doing great just to learn to accept t each other for who we are. without value judgement.

 

But thats the real trick isnt it. Why do you think it will be able to resist corruption? No other large centralized authority has ever done that... what will be different with this one?

 

Great. We are going to pay a mere 3 Billion dollars to do what we have already done. Is this a firm fixed price contract and what are the deliverables? Or is this some time and materials contract where money can be pissed away with nothing to show for it? Since the OP link was behind a pay wall I couldn't read it. NASA got money in FY 2019 to return to the moon. Considering we went to the moon in 1969, how many years can NASA get funding by promising to return to the moon?

Thirty Trillion in debt and we continue spending like drunken sailors. NASA program managers will do anything to pimp their requests for taxpayer money. For example:

https://climate.nasa.gov/

 

I don't want to get off topic, but your post requires a response. A prophecy, if from a divine inspiration, should be able to state exactly what is going to happen, when it is going to happen, where it is going to happen, to whom will it happen, etc. using specific language. Ever notice how none of the Bible prophecies ever do this?

Back in the days when Exodus 21 was written, slavery was OK. Now it is not. So have we really degenerated?? Also, the rise of science over religion has greatly improved the human condition rather than causing it to worsen.

 

But yet people born outside America continue to pour into this country, legally and illegally. So I am going to make a generalization, i.e., America, is one of the best places in the world to live, if not the absolute best place.

 

Justices of an ICJ concerned with eradicating war and poverty (achievable with present technology) ....is there any motivation toward corruption, as there is in all other systems promoting the self-interest of individuals or groups, eg, national governments?

 

Given how the corrupt tend to prefer to be in charge, the power of authority is thus a primary motivation for corruption. And this thing you want to build would be the most powerful authority in history. It would only would be the greatest motivation for corruption in history...

 

I accept that. However, at that higher level we don't seem to include an analysis of past methods when deciding to apply those same methods again, for example.

 

The corrupt prefer to be in charge? That's your unfounded assertion.

In any case, technology has removed the classic motivation for corruption, namely, resource scarcity.

Today it is possible to house, clothe, and feed everyone; we have a systems problem, not an economic problem.

And the barrier to changing the system is - as I said - unconscious survival instincts in all of us which paradoxically prevents the institution of government (as described) on behalf of collective well-being.

Confucius - in an era of social unrest - proposed government by 'benevolent authority'.

That idea's time has arrived, as humanity is embarking on its journey to explore space.

Continuing with endless wars and poverty on earth is absurd and self-defeating, for a successful outcome of this journey.

 

You seem to be unaware of the very basic and foundational relationship between power and corruption. Perhaps these will help:
https://www.academia.edu/8044381/The_Relation_Between_Power_And_Corruption_in_The_Frame_Of_History
https://www.rightattitudes.com/2018/01/12/power-corrupts/
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/01/frank_herbert_a.html
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptable. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...057ca0-3da5-11ec-8ee9-4f14a26749d1_story.html
"...while narcissistic psychopaths are rare, they are drawn to power and are very good at using charisma, manipulation and intimidation to get it. So they are overrepresented in leadership positions."

Until we can prevent the corrupt from attaining power, we should limit how much power they can attain. The best way to do this is by decentralizing it, so no one person or group of people can exercise their corruption over too large of a region, market or population. Power, after all, is just as valuable a resource as anything else, and monopolization NEVER turns out well.

 

Yes.

No, because decentralized government - (as at present; we have no international law to outlaw war, nor poverty eradication programs via guaranteed above-poverty participation in the economy) - can only maintain the current system of "legal" endless wars between nations, and entrenched systemic poverty at home and abroad.

To overcome these problems requires good governance capable of addressing such problems, at the the national and global level, ie centralized government in the necessary spheres of jurisprudence.

"Power" to create technologies for the advancement of mankind is priceless; power to enforce self-interested - even destructive - policies like war and poverty over others, is pathological.

You are complicit in the latter type, though you can't see it because you don't understand the role of instinct in human affairs, which explains why you are satisfied with the present regime of endless "legal" wars and systemic "legal" poverty.

Whereas Confucius did understand, when he conceived the notion of "benevolent authority", 2500 years ago.

 

Omitting the most pertinent part of my comment because its too inconvenient for you to address is not conducive to productive debate.

 

Not inconvenient at all, I already addressed it, to summarize: scarcity creates corruption.

Your thesis - that government = power = corruption - is nihilistic, paranoid, and fallacious, ie, the fallacy of composition: in fact government officials are not necessarily more corrupt than the general population.

Government need only be a service, like teaching.

But I already addressed the problem of corruption previously, to repeat: scarcity creates corruption.

But today there is no real scarcity.

Therefore government can be instituted to eradicate war and poverty.

The problem is not pathological seekers of power, the problem is systemic, eg the privilege of money creation is confined to self-interested private financiers who demand interest on loans, whereas currency issuing governments ought not be forced to borrow money in the first place.

The task for currency-issuing governments is capable resource mobilization, not constraint by money, debt or deficits (see MMT).

We need to change the system, to outlaw war and poverty.

You?

 

Interesting post.

We do have our priorities in a total tangle.

And, I see only low levels of interest from corporations to move toward solid solutions on this.

 

Please explain your assertion that 'scarcity creates corruption.' It seems to ignore the fact that some people are simply control freaks and they need to be able to in charge of (and often hurt) others and they tend to gravitate to acquiring the positions of authority we create in govt.

Normal people are indeed driven by the instincts you describe. But not everyone is normal. Some people are just flat out evil. How do you plan to keep them from scrambling to co-op these massive seats of power you want to create literally over all of humanity?

Its worth noting that these sorts of people, being overrepresented in positions of govt and heads of corporations tend to be the ones manufacturing the resource scarcity you cite as the cause of corruption. Very likely with the express intent of creating corrupt cronies that will aid them in their control over the rest of us in exchange for a bit of exemption from that control and a larger piece of the pie. This will only get worse as we create more power and more authority for the evil megalomaniac control freak psychopaths to use against us.

 

Let's remember that our whole economic system is based on scarcity - or supply.

When supply is low, prices go up. That encourages more production and makes alternative products more economically viable, obviously far better than a controlled economy.

That all works pretty well until it hits human needs. When price of food and housing go up, people can get caught in a serious bind. The same can hold true when new alternatives are successful - such as automation driving humans out of good jobs at a rate that doesn't allow for smooth transitions.

I would say that outlawing scarcity or poverty aren't going to work, as they are a natural outfall of our fundamental economic system.

But, there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

 

This is classical economics.

But concerning adequate food and housing, there need be no scarcity. These are public goods which any government can guarantee. Food production should be subsidized where/when necessary; eg farmers should still make a profit if a good harvest means low prices in the market; or conversely, failed harvests should be balanced via IMF imports from nations with excess supplies....hence the need for effective global institutions - the current IMF (Instant Misery Fund) is a less than worthless organization.

(eg, currently Sri Lankans are forced to live without electricity for more than half the day or more because the government "lacks the foreign exchange" to buy fuel for generators. Garbage, there is no lack of oil, or indeed - in the future - sunshine, to supply electricity in Sri Lanka).

Certain services, like health and education should not be subject to market processes; currency-issuing governments ought be authorized to fund these things as a matter of course, without taxing or borrowing.

Exactly, and those are the problems which the current classical-based market economy cannot adequately address.

Addressed above. "Our fundamental economic system" is the "systemic problem" I keep referring to.

As you said earlier, corporations aren't dealing with the important issues facing us; and indeed it's not the job of profit seeking corporations competing in free markets, to deal with national and global macroeconomic social problems, which are the tasks which only governments can deal with.

 

"Certain services, like health and education should not be subject to market processes; currency-issuing governments ought be authorized to fund these things as a matter of course, without taxing or borrowing."

Are you seriously suggesting that the US government should just print more money?

 

"Scarcity" is largely a product of classical economics theory, developed at a time when governments had little role in the economy, other than taxing to make war.

Classical economics: Scarcity in the face of unlimited wants, with prices discovered by supply and demand in free markets. No role for government, despite the social impact of market failure resulting in below-poverty wages or unemployment.

Now if poverty is eradicated, the grounds for corruption are much diminished, because everyone can get on with his life according to his own abilities. The corrupt 'control freaks' will have a more difficult time enforcing their corruption on others, in a well-ordered community in which everyone's basic needs are satisfied. Crime and poverty are positively associated.

By observing that most people are NOT evil, they just want to get on with living and raising a family as best they can; and by sheer force of rational argument that war and poverty are unnecessary evils, which can be eradicated by good governance, as previously described.

Is Biden, or Sanders - who let's say are examples of typical politicians - interested in manufacturing resource scarcity?

I'm prepared to say no.

What about Trump?

Well, given the current situation where war and poverty are legal, his 'survival of the fittest' approach makes sense, and indeed explains his own brand of corruption (and Biden's also, if he is corrupt).

But neither Trump nor Biden are actually manufacturing resource scarcity (which is indeed a source of corruption as outlined above), it's the unregulated free market system, operating alongside money creation in which government is forced to tax or borrow its own currency, thereby artificially creating (public goods) scarcity.

eg, the heads of pharmaceutical companies certainly want to maximize their profits, and want access to Biden, to push their own self-interest....but I don't think this necessarily makes these CEOs (or Biden himself) evil or corrupt, when the problem is systemic, ie they CAN maximize their profits in the current free market, to the detriment of health consumers, when in fact pharmaceuticals should be subsidized by (free) government money - NOT "taxpayers' money".

 

Corruption rarely if ever has to do with scarcity. Corruption pertains to the acts of someone in authority, and for such people to be in poverty is rare. Corruption is a rich person's game.

I think your "solution" was for the government to print money - not even borrow. That is not a solution to anything. And, even if the government decided to do that, I don't see you suggesting what they would do with that money to end poverty.

I think this is just a misunderstanding of corporations.

The objective of a publicly held corporation is to maximize return to shareholders. Period.

So, yes, that is what they do!

The reason that pharma is motivated to spend BILLIONS of dollars in their attempts to create amazing healthcare solutions is that they get a return on that investment. If you decide to fix the return on investment to some far lower amount, what would keep the pharma interested in investing the required BILLIONS of dollars in attempts to find new solutions?? Our government has tried to fix prices in the past, with similar objectives of trying to keep certain products affordable. You should look up how that has worked out BEFORE proposing that we do it again - especially with medicine!

The lucky thing about trying to figure out better healthcare organization is that pretty much every country on Earth has such a system. And, they are ALL more cost effective than our stupid system, while delivering healthcare to every citizen - which our system doesn't do.

So, why spend time trying to gin up some crazy economics system? Why not just pick one of the WORKING systems and implement a version tailored to the USA??

 

Paradox issues with FTL travel:

 

Corruption is always worse in poor countries, and the rich (and corrupt) control that corruption.

But since there is no reason for anyone to poor now (since there is no real scarcity anymore), the problem of corruption among government officials can be managed and reduced, as poverty is eliminated.

Correct; currency-issuing governments should never be forced to borrow from self-interested private sector players, which only gives rise to the false "our children will be saddled with debt" narrative.

Meanwhile Sanders thinks he can raise taxes on wealthy people, enough to pay for
satisfactory education and health outcomes, but in practice the wealthy can always hide their wealth from the tax man.

Introduce a Job Guarantee, a central plank of MMT.

Exactly, requiring government intervention to ensure reasonable prosperity among those who are not shareholders of companies.

Obviously healthcare must be state-subsidized in one way or another, to provide universal health care.

It's simple: single payer (government funded); the US doesn't want to pay.

Because the USA doesn't like tax transfers.