mcant Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 A friend and I were putting the world to rights yesterday and the old chestnut of how fast intersteller transport would be possible if we had everyones defense budget came up. It occured to me that maybe there were thingson this planet we should fix first Apart from the moral, humanitarian grounds, in the event of contact, I'ld find it embarressing having to explain to a probably more advanced race, why I was playing around in space while half my species was up to its neck in crap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuages Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 One problem though with things like drought and famine is money won't fix it, its the result of the western mindset, and everyone is going to need to change to fix the problems we have here on earth. But still deffently towards famine and drought, at least it would releave some of the problems, but its deffently not a permenant fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
percy01 Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 more Food and Medicines! Wapens? not man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulreaper Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Good thinking people! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcant Posted March 24, 2005 Author Share Posted March 24, 2005 One problem though with things like drought and famine is money won't fix it' date=' its the result of the western mindset, and everyone is going to need to change to fix the problems we have here on earth. But still deffently towards famine and drought, at least it would releave some of the problems, but its deffently not a permenant fix. [/quote'] Clean potatble water supplies could be assured for all by a full out well digging/irrigation program For famine relief what happened to all the SF ideas of yeast culture, plankton farming, etc. why is non of this getting the big budget treatment. Thats a rhetorical question, I know the answer, no profit in feeding the flat broke i'ld also argue a little about the western mind set, I totally agree with you, but i think its a Human mindset, the i'm all right jack, their problems have nothing to do with me attitude and i think all humans have it regardless of where on the globe they came from, the west just happens to be top dog for the moment, if some other area was I doubt their attitude would be different. Deep down we aren't really a very nice species but i think we try (our 1 saving grace?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mic Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 I would spend it on all 4 major issues and space would get about 25% of the budget, that's fair.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NiteShdw Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 I would spend it on all 4 major issues and space would get about 25% of the budget' date=' that's fair....[/quote'] If we remember Star Trek 'history' correctly, war, famine, and disease were wiped out on earth after First Contact with the Vulcans. [Note: I wrote this, an realized no one will read such a long post, so I'll put my conclusion at the top] I voted for the option to spend the money on solving famine, because I believe that as a species we have a moral obligation to help one another. Famine and disease ARE solveable problems, and the results will come much faster than space exploration. I firmly believe on scientific as well as religious grounds that there are other inhabited worlds, but our best scientific minds have placed even the closest planets are nearly 100 light years away. With that in mind, I believe that mankind could 'get more bang for its buck' if we focused on improving mankind's own situation than searching the stars for something to unite us. I am a student of International Relations, in which I have focused greatly on Development. Development, as I have come to understand it, is more than just 'more income', as economists focus on. "Development is Freedom" said Amartya Sen, a nobel prize winning economist. Freedom is rights, the right to good government, the right to good health, the right to good education, the right to opportunity to follow your dreams. As was pointed out so elloquently by our topic staters, nearly all of mankind on this planet is "up to its neck in crap". As people who are lucky enough to live in the 'developed' world, I believe we have a moral (and spiritual if you are religious) obligation to give of our extra in order to lift the entire human race. The interesting question here was asked, "If you could use the military budget...". That implies that we would no longer use any of it for war, but instead for peace. People have different views about the Iraq war, but without getting into the nitty-gritty details, let me tell you why I believe good will come of it. As I said before, development is freedom. Freedom (in the full sense I previously defined) is core of mankind, the right to choose, and while we may not all agree with the choices that people make, we should all agree that they should have the right to make that choice. Iraq has the opportunity now to take advantage of a freedom of choice that has never before been available in the Middle East. Of all the muslim-majority countries in the world, only 1 (Turkey) is a democracy. All of my instincts tell me that something good will come of this. Now: Space, the final fronteir. Just imagine how many new scientific minds we will be able to put to use once we have eliminated famine and hunger? Once we provide for basic needs, man is able to put more effort into things he enjoys. Right now, only a few developed countries/regions are working on space programs. Imagine if the whole world were full of 'developed' countries, all full of great scientific minds? Look at China and Inda, each with over 1billion people! Combined, they have over 8 times the population of the United States. With that many people able to focus on science instead of hunger, we surely will be able to accomplish anything. If any of you actually read that whole thing, welcome to the end! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcant Posted March 24, 2005 Author Share Posted March 24, 2005 Nice point about the waste of human beings, maybe I should have put education as an option? Wasting a human life is probably the worst waste of natural resources for the species, and that applies to the so called "developed" countries too Touching on Iraq, and I dont want to get into the rights and wrongs, its worrying how many people are willing to pop their heads back into yokes for religious or idealogical beliefs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonHelton Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 "The poor you will have with you always." - Jesus bar Josef (the Christ) :stare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcant Posted March 24, 2005 Author Share Posted March 24, 2005 "The poor you will have with you always." - Jesus bar Josef (the Christ) :stare: yep and his answer involved 3 nails and a couple of railway sleepers (that might be ties in yank talk :)) and quite rightly too with a philosophy of endure this world and get your reward in the next! a great religion to spread if you happen to own slaves! Why should the poor be with us always? it is not necessary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elderbear Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 "The poor you will have with you always." - Jesus bar Josef (the Christ) :stare: Actually, the quote is by Yeshua bar Miryam - a slur in those days, equivalent to saying "Jesus, the Bastard." This text has been so often abused to excuse doing little or nothing to help the impoverished. If you read the Bible carefully, "Old" or "New" Testaments, you discover that YHWH and Jesus both took the plight of the poor very seriously. This same carpenter advised his followers that those who do not care for the poor also abuse Him, and will be damned for their callous indifference. From a non-sectarian viewpoint, yes, we will probably always have the poor with us. And they provide the touchstone to demonstrate our empathy, compassion, and character to help our fellows. Any society that ignores its poor will ultimately be destroyed by that indifference - whether through revolution, internal decay, or the loss of human resources (as Nite pointed out). An individual (or society) that ignores the poor is likely to be focused on the self, making decisions based on short-term self-interest. Ultimately, as Jared Diamond has shown (Collapse), this leads to a set of destructive choices with long-term consequences that can generate social collapse or even extinction! A couple weeks ago I was practicing Bibliomancy, letting my Dad's bible fall open to a random spot. I got Deuteronomy 16, about how to celebrate the holiest annual feast days. Feeding the poor was a part of each one! The implication of this entire section of the Torah was that those with wealth are stewards, not owners. The mindset of stewardship, whether religiously based or humanistically based, demands that we use our resources to care for each other, that we use them sustainably, and that we use them to create more resources. Very different from the mindset of ownership, where the owners are legally and morally accountable to nobody else, and are free to abuse their resources, to acquire the power to gain more, and to abuse their power without immediate consequence. What a fascinating question - thanks for the poll! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elderbear Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 I voted for famine relief. In general, the price of solving problems such as treating/preventing 3rd world childhood diseases, safe water, education, etc, is minimal compared with the United States military budget. Remember, our government still pays people NOT to grow food while others starve. I recognize that their are distribution problems, and that those problems are compounded by politics. But we could go a long way towards improving things for the price of a few stealth bombers! After committing a serious (not necessarily large) chunk of change towards solving the most efficiently solved problems of want and poverty, I'd split the rest between medical research (emphasis on public health (including epidemiology and community psychology) and basic research, not on high-tech solutions for rare problems), space, and basic science. Not sure how I'd divvy it up, but I wouldn't give any of the three fields less than 20%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 If the US put all the money they waste in military spending and put it into the space program, who knows how advanced our society could get. We would already be on the moon, and halfway getting to Mars. No Vietnam, Iraq or other debacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psheldrake1 Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 I'd have to say all of the above. Though it will never happen in my lifetime or you'res. Most of the problems have been solved concerning poverty. It's just that the US Gov. won't put them into production or supply the items needed to the countries. With the last natural disaster. My country forgave all loans and gave money, assitance besides. The US gave no loan forgivness, just supplied some assistance & a photo op for 2 of their bumble cloths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elderbear Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 I'd have to say all of the above. Though it will never happen in my lifetime or you'res. Most of the problems have been solved concerning poverty. It's just that the US Gov. won't put them into production or supply the items needed to the countries. No government rules without the acquiesence of its populace. In a republic or democracy, the populace is even more responsible for government action or inaction. Poverty continues to exist because the "haves" continue to get and to consolidate power while the "have nots" continue to lose and to lose power. A recipe for disaster! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcant Posted March 24, 2005 Author Share Posted March 24, 2005 If the US put all the money they waste in military spending and put it into the space program' date=' who knows how advanced our society could get. We would already be on the moon, and halfway getting to Mars. No Vietnam, Iraq or other debacle.[/quote'] STOP IT, tell me one country you cannot swap in that statement for US, I'm not even American! all countries are equally guilty (even Switzerland has a civil defense budget) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirdick Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 If the US put all the money they waste in military spending and put it into the space program' date=' who knows how advanced our society could get. We would already be on the moon, and halfway getting to Mars. No Vietnam, Iraq or other debacle.[/quote'] As far as I was aware NASA have had to put several things on hold due to that nasty deficit that seems to have sneaked up. I don't keep up on American politics that much so I might be wrong, but I can't see how the gov there can go galavanting around space when there's a country to look after. I like Nite's idea of helping those who will inevitably (hopefully) help you. Also, that bible quote doesn't mean anything to people who don't follow the bible. Although it might be a fact of current situations it is something that can be rectified with co-operation and will. I think I'm rambling, I've had a large bit of home brew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cshawx Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 don't want to sound like a freak, but we should think about saving the planet first. And we need more money on medicine. Each year there seems to be more diseases, the ones we know about are becoming immune to anti-biotics. Sars, every type of flu, millions people will die in Africa alone from aids in a decade or so, half the infected are in their 20's. A question - Why won't the US sign the Kyoto Treaty? (it is reducing the levels of greenhouse gases) everyone else has signed up but Bush announced he would NEVER sign it, (the US produces nearly 40% of the gases alone btw). Look at the weather - it's gone bonkers - the Hurricanes last year, floods, droughts, temperatures are rising, fish stocks are depleted, weather is wiping out crops... once the world has a unified purpose it'll be easier to work on everything else..... maybe I need to change my vote - we need another planet to live on quick..... ok I sound like a disaster film ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcant Posted March 24, 2005 Author Share Posted March 24, 2005 Is there any chance of a topic staying on topic around here! regardless of the above, I have to say i agree with bush, why sign a cut your own financial throat treaty that no one else is going to keep? especially when the whole global warming idea is bullshit, its called a climatic optimum children! we are after all in the throes of the last ice age (what!, someone told you it was over?) and why the hell does everyone keep harping on about America, its only one country, why is no one quoting Monaco or Luxemburg? or if you want the real future world leader, China? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulreaper Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Keep in mind that although space programs and hitech stuff is good, it's useless to "flyoff" anywhere until we've fixed things "here". Read through NiteShdws's post carefully.... It's sort of like the idea about building a tower higher and higher but the foundation is built upon mud with bad bricks.. eventually the high tower will collapse because there was no foundation left to support it - perhaps not the best way of saying that but I'm still a little in shock after warping/losing ALL downloaded/uploaded files I had...-if you see what I mean. I liked what you found, Elderbear.. I think that's the PROPER way of seeing one's abilities and "ownerships". A rich man is a STEWARD of riches so that he can provide and help the less fortunate (be it in financial wisdom, giving money or whatever ((if you teach a man to fish he'll be fed for the rest of his life..))) A talanted person is a STEWARD of that talent(s) and so on. Hm makes me think of this site/tracker/forum :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts