Moderation of Morality Talk in Science Thread

March 9, 2006 1:35 PM

Space exploration topics in just about any online community are inevitably derailed by "why isn't that money being used for worldpeace/hungrychildren/education" bleeding hearts, so that the original subject is lost in repetitive defense of space programs. May I request that if you have a bone to pick with money being spent on space exploration, that you post your own link with discussion on the issue, rather than interrupting a good science discussion with never-ending arguments about the antiphilanthropism of government-funded space flight?
posted by brownpau to Etiquette/Policy at 1:35 PM (53 comments total)

No.
posted by mischief at 1:42 PM on March 9, 2006

I think any time there is a post about spending large amounts of public money there is going to be some contention on how to do it. I, in general, support space travel, but people have legitimate concerns and this may be a price to pay for space travel FPPS. concentrate on what you want to talk about and try and engage people on that, rather than the other. (frustration is an integral part of this place)
posted by edgeways at 1:48 PM on March 9, 2006

I'm sorry. I engaged in a rational discussion that stemmed directly from a phrase in the FPP. I didn't call anyone names, although I was called an idiot, and now a bleeding heart. I was told that my opinion wasn't as relevant because I wasn't american. I was called a humorless puritanical leftist. I was told I was no fun (is that the point of a discussion?)

I did malign Witty. For that, I'm sorry.

As I stated in that thread, maybe the level of discourse could be raised a little?
posted by jon_kill at 1:50 PM on March 9, 2006

I think it's important that people point out that the space program is merely a national distraction. Every time some one shits on it, the response is "But, but Tang! And, well, satellite TV." (and it's really funny because no one drinks Tang.)

If I'm willing to concede that it's interesting, are you willing to concede that it's meant as a government-sponsored distraction? We beat the Russians to the moon. That was a long time ago.
posted by Mayor Curley at 1:56 PM on March 9, 2006

Now that I've actually read the FPP: the poster was asking for just that kind of debate with "Here's hoping space tourism can pick up the pace a little."
posted by mischief at 2:00 PM on March 9, 2006

I'm not singling you out, jon_kill; I thought the FPP could have been a lot better. But the argument you raised is one that is constantly rehashed with much heat and anger everytime a space post is made, here on Metafilter and in many other communities. After a while it starts to sound very like the political axegrinding other Mefites complain about in Newsfilter threads.
posted by brownpau at 2:00 PM on March 9, 2006

Lots of scientific research isn't immediately applicable to improving people's lives. Does that mean we shouldn't do it? What makes the space program any different?
posted by russilwvong at 2:01 PM on March 9, 2006

I drink Tang.

that's not actually true
posted by grouse at 2:04 PM on March 9, 2006

It really is a distraction, and it diverts desperately needed money--it'd be absurd not to mention it. We live in societies with limited resources--many of us feel that those resources (our money, in other words) should be spent on those here now, to improve their and all of our lives--it's a priority thing. You hear the same thing in Iraq posts, and posts on other extraordinarily expensive government things--people complain about the waste of money.

And "space tourism" is no validation of it at all.
posted by amberglow at 2:05 PM on March 9, 2006

1. I can understand why someone would think that the space program isn't the best use for resources. But it is pretty tiresome to have to rehash the argument every time anything space-related is discussed. I wish people could just stipulate, "OK, point taken, but the probe's already up there, let's talk about what it found."

2. If I'm willing to concede that it's interesting, are you willing to concede that it's meant as a government-sponsored distraction? We beat the Russians to the moon. That was a long time ago.

I tried to address that in the thread. I'll stand by what I said. The early space program was largely a pissing contest between us and the Russians, but maybe it was a healthier outlet for nationalism than some of the other options. And I think maybe the same argument stands now with China... I'd rather see resources go into attempting to out-space the Chinese than into some other, less-constructive international rivalry.
posted by COBRA! at 2:06 PM on March 9, 2006

I engaged in a rational discussion that stemmed directly from a phrase in the FPP.

So if the moderators agree to delete the "space tourism" reference in the FPP, will you allow them to delete your 12 comments that "stemmed" from that phrase, as well? Because that would sure help clean up what would otherwise be an interesting thread.
posted by pardonyou? at 2:12 PM on March 9, 2006

I would buy Tang if someone would market something called Poon that I could put beside it in the pantry.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 2:12 PM on March 9, 2006

I have never done this before, jon_kill, but...

I engaged in a rational discussion that stemmed directly from a phrase in the FPP.

I think the phrase you are responding to is "space tourism." Your rational discussion was:

jon_kill: Why, exactly? So the privileged elite can continue to drain our natural resources for no reason other than their own pleasure? So the government can divert funds that could go towards health care and poverty into flights of fancy that only reinforce the military-industrial complex? So that CNN can cram more empty headlines onto their front page and ignore matters of public health?

Ignoring for the moment that the "space tourism" line seemed, to me, to be intended as a whimsical "wow, I'd like to go to space" sentiment as opposed to a "capitalism on the march" sentiment...

Space tourism implies, to me, something that is not sponsored by the federal government anymore than regular tourism is sponsored by the federal government. Your second question is, thus, a derail. It is no longer a response to space tourism.

Similarly, CNN does not regularly cover tourist events. Should space tourism become a succesful venture, CNN will quickly lose interest in covering it. Maybe there will be a link in their travel sequenc. None the less, the third question seems less intended to spark rational debate and more intended to inflame. Whether you intended to or not, the question does not read "let us have a rational discussion about CNN" but rather seems to read something like "you all are buttheads for reading CNN" or, alternately, "this doesn't deserve any sort of coverage." Either way, it is a statement that appears intended to provoke an emotional response instead of a rational response.

IMO, the only question you ask in your rational response that is related to the phrase "space tourism" is the first one, which is also couched in provocative phrasing.

If you wished to provoke rational discussion of this issue instead of an emotional response, you probably would have wanted to phrase your original post as such:

"I believe that space tourism would frivolously deplete the Earth's natural resources. Since this is the case, wouldn't the money the wealthy would use to pay for this sort of trip be better spent on helping people here on Earth?"

To my way of thinking, that would have provoked a rational discussion. Or been ignored.

Since the post was about a NASA mission discovering something, you could have made the same statement about government funded space exploration in a less inflamatory way and provoked a more rational discussion.

In essence, you posted an initial message that seemed to be primarily aimed at provoking an angry response from the supporters of the space program. If this was not your intention, I hope the whole discussion has led you to recognize that your did not choose your words especially well and, intention or no, phrased your post in a provocative way.

Anyhow, I take you at your word that your intention was to engage folks in rational discussion. You just didn't start this rational discussion in an especially rational way.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:14 PM on March 9, 2006

What makes the space program any different?

Value for money, i.e. how little public good is recieved for the billions spent; what type of research is conducted, i.e. mostly military; absolute amount spent on space travel when compared to other goals, i.e. public health, infectious disease, etc.

Public funds spent on space travel is wasted. Don't think that won't be brought up every time one-link NASA press releases are posted.
posted by docgonzo at 2:18 PM on March 9, 2006

You know who else hated NASA, don't you?
That's right, the commies!
posted by blue_beetle at 2:42 PM on March 9, 2006

What other topics are we going to "protect"?
posted by orthogonality at 2:44 PM on March 9, 2006

If we can figure out some way to combine the space program, Christianity, President Bush, and abortion, we'd have the ultimate Metafilter topic, and the Internet could close.
posted by Captain_Tenille at 2:44 PM on March 9, 2006

Ignoring for the moment that the "space tourism" line seemed, to me, to be intended as a whimsical "wow, I'd like to go to space" sentiment as opposed to a "capitalism on the march" sentiment...

Thanks, Joey Michaels for getting the joke. Nonetheless, I apologize that the FPP wasn't better formed -- I was hoping to express a certain joy over the possibility of the existence of new life. It's the same warm fuzzy feeling I've gotten with each of the new animals discovered in the last few months. Unfortunately I was also naive, I honestly wasn't aware of the amount of debate over the space program that was out there. So yeah, just trying to spread the warm fuzzies, space sounds fun, I agree with brownpau...
posted by jrb223 at 2:46 PM on March 9, 2006

Unfortunately I was also naive, I honestly wasn't aware of the amount of debate over the space program that was out there.

You're being far too hard on yourself. This is MetaFilter -- there's a Debbie Downer around every corner, just itching to tell you how bad everything is, and to criticize you for daring to express any sort of optimism or happiness, when the world is so clearly going to hell.
posted by pardonyou? at 3:04 PM on March 9, 2006

Public funds spent on space travel is wasted. Don't think that won't be brought up every time one-link NASA press releases are posted.
posted by docgonzo at 2:18 PM PST on March 9

You understand that if we don't spend money on space travel, humanity will die on this planet, right? Now, I may be a misanthrope, but what's the point of having kids and grandkids when you're going to condemn their descendents to dying here when our star goes red giant?

In the big scheme of things, it doesn't much matter if we begin more space exploration now or in a hundred years. But we have to start sometime. Now is as good as any.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:12 PM on March 9, 2006

Fucking ridiculous. The post invited comments like jon_kills, whose comments, like he said, were relentless but respectful (unlike many other people on many other threads). After his comments, many people engaged him, some substantively, others rudely. This reeks of not liking what someone's point of view is and instead of getting over it, you craft a disingenuous MeTa, followed by transparent attempts to pretend you were not directly calling out someone in particular. I don't agree with jon_kill, but his points were relevant enough. Individuals have no special right to control the nature a discussion takes place, as long as it is reasonable. There was nothing stopping anyone from carrying on a scientific discussion parallel to the discussion on whether it was appropriate to expend funds for space exploration. Well, there was one thing stopping it, which is people's inability to ignore what they don't like.
posted by Falconetti at 3:21 PM on March 9, 2006

The problem with it is basically that it's churlish.

If there were a thread about YourFavoriteBand's new project, it would be rude to wander into it with an obviously angry comment about how YoufFavoriteBand sucks. Saying that the band sucks because all the money that band spends on hookers and blow could be spent on educating small children with big, sad eyes doesn't make it less rude. Even though it is actually true that the money people give to U2 or the Blackeyed Peas could have been given to the UNCF instead.

If there were a threat about a sporting event, it would be rude to wander into it and start deriding people for enjoying a spectator sport. If you said that they sucked because they give money to rich athletes and companies instead of using it to end poverty, that wouldn't make it stop being rude. Even though it is true that the money spent related to Major League Baseball could have been sent to Oxfam instead.

Would there be ways to bring up these topics as they relate to unnecessary or frivolous activities without being rude? Sure, by acknowledging the audience that you're in, and its predispositions. By introducing the topic without rancor.

But jon_kill didn't do that. He wandered into the thread with a big "YOUR FAVORITE BAND SUCKS AND FUCK YOU FOR LIKING IT!" No reasonable person would think that this would lead to anywhere constructive.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:21 PM on March 9, 2006

Now, I may be a misanthrope, but what's the point of having kids and grandkids when you're going to condemn their descendents to dying here when our star goes red giant?

Oh you crazy dreamer. That's billions of years from now and no species has come close to lasting that long. And no other species have ever been as devoted to using everything up and shitting in the leftovers as we have.

You might as well go get castrated now. Because ultimately your family line is doomed. (Not that anyone wants to fuck you anyway.)
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:22 PM on March 9, 2006

I liked it better when we were talking about grocery stores and dead baseball players. Can we go back to that?
posted by crunchland at 3:23 PM on March 9, 2006

(That was supposed to have a smiley face after it because I have no idea if anyone wants to fuck you and a smiley face would soften it if the statement happens to be true.)
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:24 PM on March 9, 2006

Value for money, i.e. how little public good is received for the billions spent--

I don't buy it. A lot of satellite-based global warming research has been done by NASA, for example. To me, that's worth a hell of a lot.

I agree that public welfare is a higher priority than space research. But just because you have a #1 priority doesn't mean that you should allocate all of your resources to it, leaving nothing at all for priorities #2 to #100.

US economy: $12 trillion.
US federal spending: $2.4 trillion.
US federal spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid: 42% of total spending, or about $1 trillion.
NASA's budget: $16 billion, or about 2/3 of 1% of federal spending.
posted by russilwvong at 3:26 PM on March 9, 2006

(That was supposed to have a smiley face after it because I have no idea if anyone wants to fuck you and a smiley face would soften it if the statement happens to be true.)

It's not. :)

Oh you crazy dreamer. That's billions of years from now and no species has come close to lasting that long.

So far, we're the only ones who could come even close. So why not go for it?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:28 PM on March 9, 2006

I can understand why someone would think that the space program isn't the best use for resources. But it is pretty tiresome to have to rehash the argument every time anything space-related is discussed. I wish people could just stipulate, "OK, point taken, but the probe's already up there, let's talk about what it found."

Exactly. And what ROU_Xenophobe said. But people have to demonstrate over and over again how right-thinking and progressive they are, even when it accomplishes absolutely nothing except annoy people who want to talk about a subject of interest. (Of course, to some people, annoying other people is pretty much their entire reason for being here. I name no names.)
posted by languagehat at 3:30 PM on March 9, 2006

Threads like that one only serve to remind me of how overrated the idea of human survival is.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:49 PM on March 9, 2006

[blazing saddles]
I agree with languagehat johnson!
[/blazing saddles]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:54 PM on March 9, 2006

er, shouldn't all this bickering about the validity of space flight be in the actual thread, and leave the bickering about the bickering here?
posted by crunchland at 4:10 PM on March 9, 2006

If we can figure out some way to combine the space program, Christianity, President Bush, and abortion, we'd have the ultimate Metafilter topic, and the Internet could close.

you forgot "fat" - we need fatness in there too.
posted by madamjujujive at 4:29 PM on March 9, 2006

hummm, fat Bush supporting Christians who have abortions in space.
NEXT on MEFI!!!
posted by edgeways at 4:44 PM on March 9, 2006

I would buy Tang if someone would market something called Poon that I could put beside it in the pantry.

Stanton Boyd: By the way, what kind of a name is Poon?
Fletch: Comanche Indian. [.wav]
posted by kirkaracha at 4:47 PM on March 9, 2006

Why did you think this post could possibly help matters?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:48 PM on March 9, 2006

4 out of 5 Declawed Space Kittens on Antidepressants Against Government Waste on Social Welfare Programs for Non-Democratic Countries Without Recycling Programs think sanctimony junkies should be shot into space on the first available environmentally friendly rocket powered solely by the furious wagging of their collective fingers. Their possessions can then be sold on eBay, and the money donated to buy abortions for Atheists.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:53 PM on March 9, 2006

While listening to "My Humps."
posted by Cyrano at 5:02 PM on March 9, 2006

use the money to grow food in space! two bird with one stone, ya heard?
posted by 29 at 5:13 PM on March 9, 2006

Tang is great stuff for cleaning stains out of dishwashers. Thanks, NASA!
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:39 PM on March 9, 2006

humanity will die on this planet, right?

Hell, why leave the timeline hanging, we'll be fucked in a thousand years if we're stuck here--much sooner than six billion...
posted by hototogisu at 6:13 PM on March 9, 2006

One thousand? Well, then we should start tonight and not tomorrow morning.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:18 PM on March 9, 2006

I agree. We can send poor people into deep space first--we do like our fodder.
posted by hototogisu at 6:27 PM on March 9, 2006

*stumbles in, mutters lame "Uranus" joke, stumbles out*
posted by thatweirdguy2 at 9:18 PM on March 9, 2006

humanity will die on this planet, right?

We can only hope so. Or else we drag our polluted asses across the galaxy to find other planets to defile.

I think the most honest use of American space program resources would be to find the planet of the Space Arabs, so we can kill them and take their oil.
posted by Mayor Curley at 9:25 PM on March 9, 2006

I agree that pointing this out is absurd every time there's a thread about space. A lot of the reasons stated above explain my position nicely. (thanks languagehat, rou_xenophobe, et al.) but there's one other reason that I've never heard a decent counterargument against:

people said the same shit when magellan, columbus, de leon and others set out to change human history forever.

we grow too fast, we explore new frontiers. if you were to write a sentence that succinctly explains human involvement in their ecosystem, that would be it. the only reason europeans have survived as long as we have (despite the horrors commited in accomplishing that feat) is because we didn't stay in europe. exploration is progress. it's simplistic, but true. what we understand about physics, what we understand about our planet and the universe and everything that's come from that, it all started with rich folks who could have spent the money feeding the poor either gazing at the stars themselves or paying someone else to do it for them, and then paying folks to sail into unknowable danger to bring back reports on what's out there. yes, there are other things to pay for as well, but it's not just a distraction and there is simply no limit whatsoever to what space exploration can achieve for mankind.

don't even get me started on overpopulation.
posted by shmegegge at 9:39 PM on March 9, 2006

Only if we could kill some more dinosaurs. :(
posted by Dreamghost at 11:02 PM on March 9, 2006

"We can only hope so. Or else we drag our polluted asses across the galaxy to find other planets to defile."

That brings to mind William Barton's science-fiction novel, Acts of Conscience. It's a bucket of cold water in the face of the more typical anthropocentric self-congratulatory and utopian themes of most science-fiction. Your sentence expresses precisely one of the main themes of the book. I recommend it.

[I just had a strange experience. I remembered that the author's name is William Barton, but I had thought the book I wanted to mention was another of his, also pretty good, titled When We Were Real. So I Google that and then follow the link to Amazon, hoping to find the synopsis and editorial review that is usually available. But, no. So I scroll on down to the customer reviews and see one that looks promising. I read a few words and then suddenly I look more closely and realize that it's my review of that book I posted to Amazon six years ago. That was weird.]
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:44 PM on March 9, 2006

there are right-thinking and progressive people want the space program, too, kids. It's hella important that we figure out how to get dirty industry and ourselves off of this rock.
posted by By The Grace of God at 1:29 AM on March 10, 2006

as someone who feels strongly on the "other side", i did start wondering why "cool spaceflight" links make me post things that, apparently, annoy brownpau.

i think it's largely because from my side of the fence the reason that these kinds of projects exist, and continue to get funding, is because there's a self-perpetuating feedback loop. i work in a related industry and i know just how much pressure there is to "sell" things to the public - to produce "cool images".

and once you see that, then "cool spaceflight" links become part of the problem. it's not just an innocent enjoyment - it's also an active part of what sustains the funding.

not that there's anything wrong with using public money to entertain the masses - but maybe there are cheaper ways of doing so.

anyway, that's my take on the reason for "anti-spaceflight" comments in these threads: it's because the advocates and enthusiasts are not just innocent bystanders; their support and approval is what provides these projects with cold hard cash.

maybe a parallel helps clarify things: imagine if pepsi blue actually was popular. and people kept posting about the cool pepsi-blue related sites. it may seem odd, but to me that's how these "cool spaceflight" links appear to me. and it's a pepsi blue funded by the government that only exists because of a feedback loop that includes people saying how wonderful it is, here on mefi...
posted by andrew cooke at 8:36 AM on March 10, 2006

How do you feel about Moleskine notepads?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:40 AM on March 10, 2006

exactly: nasa govt funded moleskine notepads.
posted by andrew cooke at 8:53 AM on March 10, 2006

(insert "is" after nasa)
posted by andrew cooke at 8:54 AM on March 10, 2006

Re: Tang

Please tell me that you didn't oversimplify the Tang reference and take it literally, as if I was literally saying "The space program has lots of great uses, such as Tang!" Please tell me that your interpretation of said Tang reference wasn't the cause of this MetaTalk thread?

If so ... I mean ... wow ... I really need to work on my metaphors ...
posted by frogan at 11:59 PM on March 10, 2006