Hello, Mr. Hoel! I am a high school student, and I would like to answer your rhetorical question, "But can you be an Up and want there to be no billionaires?". I do not believe billionaires should exist because there is no way they can get to that status without exploiting others. Besides, they possess more wealth than the world’s poorest 4.6 billion people. However, space exploration can help find new methods of sustainable agriculture, as well as renewable energy. I think it is possible to be an Up (maybe not in the truest sense you describe) and want no billionaires. Also, I have a question: do you think it is easier to be an anti-billionaire Up in other countries?
Great analysis Erik! I totally agree. In a slightly different context, Hugo de Garis refers to Ups and Downs as Cosmists and Terrans. I’m a Cosmist and I want to go Up. Never mind the billionaires, they have a role to play, and so do we.
Oh and btw, the difference between actual Astronauts and space passengers is real. Doug and Bob had little to do during the Crew Dragon flight *only as long as nothing went wrong*. Much of astronaut training has to do with how to save the mission if something DOES go wrong.
Interesting you should bring up the Mayflower and the Plymouth Colony. During 1621-23 they were formed as a collective, what we would now call socialist/communist group. They did very poorly and nearly did not survive. Then they re-formed in what we now call capitalist terms, where each family had their own land and kept the fruit of their own labors, and began to prosper greatly. This is well documented in Bradford's journal, among other sources.
The real contrast to capitalism is not the capitalist state but communism. How convenient for your pro-capitalist argument that you forget to mention the long series of space exploration triumphs of the Soviet Union. They put the much wealthier US to shame, and this is the only reason you got your act together in the first space age. NASA faded because the Soviet Union collapsed.
This billionaire space race seems to me like capital burning up excess. In the early 20th century, that's what led to the first world war. It is of course preferable to throw money out of the atmosphere rather than having millions die, but there is a third alternative that doesn't involve ludicrous wealth concentration or the insane growth imperative beyond the Earth's capacity to withstand. Our resources could be allocated to figure out ways we can live comfortably without literally sacrificing future generations. What use is space colonization if we're so far from having figured ourselves out that we're poisoning paradise and killing ourselves? A big part of our fatal flaw has to do with capitalism. I say get rid of that first, then plan the economy for the long term survival of our living planet, and in parallel to acting on that we should continue exploring the possibilities of space. You can be both Up and Down simultaneously, as you defined them.
Hello, Mr. Hoel! I am a high school student, and I would like to answer your rhetorical question, "But can you be an Up and want there to be no billionaires?". I do not believe billionaires should exist because there is no way they can get to that status without exploiting others. Besides, they possess more wealth than the world’s poorest 4.6 billion people. However, space exploration can help find new methods of sustainable agriculture, as well as renewable energy. I think it is possible to be an Up (maybe not in the truest sense you describe) and want no billionaires. Also, I have a question: do you think it is easier to be an anti-billionaire Up in other countries?
Great analysis Erik! I totally agree. In a slightly different context, Hugo de Garis refers to Ups and Downs as Cosmists and Terrans. I’m a Cosmist and I want to go Up. Never mind the billionaires, they have a role to play, and so do we.
Oh and btw, the difference between actual Astronauts and space passengers is real. Doug and Bob had little to do during the Crew Dragon flight *only as long as nothing went wrong*. Much of astronaut training has to do with how to save the mission if something DOES go wrong.
Interesting you should bring up the Mayflower and the Plymouth Colony. During 1621-23 they were formed as a collective, what we would now call socialist/communist group. They did very poorly and nearly did not survive. Then they re-formed in what we now call capitalist terms, where each family had their own land and kept the fruit of their own labors, and began to prosper greatly. This is well documented in Bradford's journal, among other sources.
So it has come to this.
The real contrast to capitalism is not the capitalist state but communism. How convenient for your pro-capitalist argument that you forget to mention the long series of space exploration triumphs of the Soviet Union. They put the much wealthier US to shame, and this is the only reason you got your act together in the first space age. NASA faded because the Soviet Union collapsed.
This billionaire space race seems to me like capital burning up excess. In the early 20th century, that's what led to the first world war. It is of course preferable to throw money out of the atmosphere rather than having millions die, but there is a third alternative that doesn't involve ludicrous wealth concentration or the insane growth imperative beyond the Earth's capacity to withstand. Our resources could be allocated to figure out ways we can live comfortably without literally sacrificing future generations. What use is space colonization if we're so far from having figured ourselves out that we're poisoning paradise and killing ourselves? A big part of our fatal flaw has to do with capitalism. I say get rid of that first, then plan the economy for the long term survival of our living planet, and in parallel to acting on that we should continue exploring the possibilities of space. You can be both Up and Down simultaneously, as you defined them.