[zimbatm]

It's kind of missing the point of the article to reduce it back to an American point of view. Maybe we should try to respect and understand the differences instead of trying to "fix" other countries and gauge them at the sole metric of profit.

[pavel_lishin]

He didn't say anything about America; he was trying to understand whether it could support a high-GNP economy, and wasn't suggesting a "fix".

I share his curiousity; would an Icelandic or Somali type government, given sufficient natural resources (and relative peace) be able to do something like develop a space program?

[hutzlibu]

I suppose yes. But maybe it would come later, when the general level of wealth/technology is higher.

Most people want to have a car for themself, before they want to pay for some one else flying to the moon ... So by the time of the real landing ... it might have been approved, too. At least in the US. In the SU they probably would have prefered different things, like toilet paper, first. (there is an old joke in my area in eastern-germany from that time, which pretty much says that ... but its not really translatable)

[pavel_lishin]

> But maybe it would come later, when the general level of wealth/technology is higher.

Sure, that's the whole question. In a place like ye olde Icelande or Ye New Somalia, could the economy develop to the point of a space program being achievable?

[hutzlibu]

I think so. But they don't really have to do it alone.

Even today many nations join forces for space missions. The ISS is the best example. Or CERN. Such big projects just require people who want to do it ... and funding. I think it doesn't really matter if the funding comes from one or a few big pots ... or many small ones (aka crowdfunding)

[zimbatm]

But that's an American point of view. Why is success only viewed as having a high-GNP economy and being able to land on the moon ? I would be more interested in seeing what other things could come out of such a country if the EU/US would stop trying to influence them (as in the article). Maybe they would be able to achieve lasting peace. A much longer lifespan trough healthier lives. Or a much better symbiosis with our habitat.

[tedks]

"That's an American point of view. We should judge them on how they ~commune~ with ~nature~, living in symbiosis with their habitat."

Yeah... only americans want high-GNP, access to technology, clean water, etc.. Everyone else just wants to live in peace in the jungle like a good noble savage.

Are you going to move there and be part of this great experiment to live in symbiosis with our habitat? If so then great, I advise you to move there now, make relationships on the ground and see what sort of economy, government, and legal situation the people near you want to experience. If you get a lot of support for your habitat symbiosis project, I'm sure it'll do great. Otherwise, maybe you shouldn't assume life is more complicated than it is and that everyone wants the nice things you get to take for granted.

[tamana]

Are you reading this forum on a Somali-designed computer, or do you believe that industrial-level productivity is a worthwhile goal?

[zimbatm]

While I enjoy reading HN I don't think that it's the pinnacle of civilization. Also it doesn't always make me happy.

In retrospect I'm not even sure how much nature has irremediably been destroyed to produce all the components that we use today. Is it really worth cannibalizing our planet in the pursuit of infinite growth ?

[ionised]

No, and I'm sure we'll realise that when it's all too late.