[burglekutt]

Calling it a joyride seems like typical rage bait du jour. Space is a worthy project. Projects need goals to rally around, and this was a goal being accomplished. Who cares who was on the ride?

Furthermore, making it all about the richest few people misses the point. More useful to focus on the goal (regain U.S. space capability, and expand human space capability overall) and remember that there are tens of thousands of people involved in this.

Further-furthermore, you could make this same argument about any major development being a waste of resources if you just ignore the ever-expanding light cones of benefit that the whole human race gained from them.

[kiba]

Calling it a joyride seems like typical rage bait du jour. Space is a worthy project. Projects need goals to rally around, and this was a goal being accomplished. Who cares who was on the ride?

Space is a worthy project, but not this particular project.

It could have been impressive in the early oughts, but space projects had moved on. Now we have startups who already launched products to orbits, alongside with SpaceX in which actual commercial products that benefit people worldwide are being launched.

The standard had risen. It's no longer acceptable to only being able to do joyride for billionaires and his friends.

[mandmandam]

Space is a worthy project; the commercialization of space travel is not.

Aren't you tired of billionaires externalizing horrific environmental costs for their own profit?

Isn't asking us to rally behind them because they have " a goal" just a little bit patronizing / condescending / cynical?

Isn't the opportunity cost for such a jaunt just horrific, compared to the "ever-expanding light cones of benefit" we'd get by putting that money into the hands of teachers and janitors?

[throwaway2331]

We could also simply do-away with level-headed discourse, and go back to the tried-and-true:

"Billionaires are not your friends. They don't know you, they don't care about you, and they can do nothing for you -- except allow you to live vicariously through their avarice, as if you're some sportsfan."

To seriously spend any time at all aligning oneself with the workings of reality-disassociated billionaires---much less as anything but a fellow billionaire!---is silly. There really is nothing good that will happen if Jeff Bezos does X, Y, or Z, except parasocial fans will be imbued with energy and celebration.

That's it.

Maddening. I'm of a mind of treating anyone supportive of unaccountable billionaires as enablers, or even missing some basic human faculties of independent thought.

[colechristensen]

Yes, the distribution of resources available to any particular person is governed by a power law. People complaining about it every time one of these people is mentioned just gets boring.

Everything Jeff Bezos does is going to attract people complaining about it and they would complain about it just the same if the wealth inequality in the world was divided by a thousand. It all reminds me of Obama eating a sandwich with fancy mustard was made into a scandal and I care just as much.

Unless you’re loving your life pretty radically different than most people, you’re “enabling” many billionaires in the very real sense of giving them plenty of your money, regardless of whether or not you complain about them on social media.

[neither_color]

"Billionaires are not your friends. They don't know you, they don't care about you, and they can do nothing for you -- except allow you to live vicariously through their avarice, as if you're some sportsfan."

While this is true, it's also true of anyone I don't personally know. They can't care about me. Dunbar's number.

[mandmandam]

I think you'll find that common people care a lot more about the common good than billionaires; in case you'd actually missed the point.

[rowanG077]

This isn't obvious at all to me. Why do you think this?

[mandmandam]

Really? The last few thousand years of history have been pretty illustrative; the last 50 especially so.

The uber-wealthy have no direct dependence on functional public services. They have no need (and even a preference) for corrupt legal and political systems. They (hire people to) work day and night to gut regulations that protect us, and they cover for each other and circle the wagons when anyone starts getting too close to breaking any part of the golden circle.

If people institute progressive tax systems, billionaires find a way to dodge or loophole their way out; going so far as to leave if people demand "too much". Modern billionaires find creative ways to exploit workers and demonize unions.

Compare all that to the decent and normal people you know, assuming you have something like a normal life. The people I know are happy enough to pay their share for the common good, and wouldn't dream of hiring some slimeball tax accountant to figure out how to hold on to as much as possible - see Pandora, Paradise, etc.

No one normal is paying politicians to break regulations, or writing legislation that allows for tax loopholes, or removing any possibility of accountability for "malfeasance" like oil spills or banking crises.

And billionaire owned media is happy for none of this to be in the national conversation. But once you start looking - it's pretty obvious.

[sekai]

> the commercialization of space travel is not.

You'd have to be naive to expect that capitalism will not bring in innovation and improvement to Space exploration / solutions. I'm all for it.

[mandmandam]

That's fine and all, but let's make it a public good from the start. Seems to me that allowing spooks and billionaires to do whatever the fuck they want up there is a bad, bad idea.

And let's keep track of what we're missing out on: How much environmental damage is being done? How many science teachers annual salaries did they just burn?

Is it not a little repugnant to be working towards space tourism for billionaires, at great expense to our natural resources and biosphere? And this while millions die from hunger for the lack of a tenth of Bezos' fortune (built on exploitation and union busting, among other fuckery).

Good things may come of this yet, but think of the opportunity cost. Good things come from science teachers too. Good things come from global stability and not letting hungry people die. Do a cost/benefit analysis while leaving these fuckers enormous egos out of the equation, and explain to me how it makes any fucking sense at all.