[oceanplexian]

Global rates of poverty are 83% lower than they were in 1969 when we landed on the moon.

So actually, millions of lives have massively benefited from science and technology. To be cynical in the face of all that is a personal take, not a reflection of the facts.

[turtlesdown11]

So landing on the moon triggered a reduction in global rates of poverty? do you have any research or citations for this claim?

[oceanplexian]

Vaccines, Mobile Phones, Internet, GPS (How do you think container ships navigate), High yield seeds/fertilizers and the Green Revolution, Weather Satellites, I could go on.

It's really getting tiring repeating this stuff over and over again to the anti-space crowd.

[nandomrumber]

It’s not the anti-space crowd.

You’re arguing against the misanthrops. To them, nothing humans could do would be good enough. We could end slavery in the West and they’d accuse us of not ending slavery enough.

[turtlesdown11]

Vaccines were invented during the moon landings? High yield seeds and fertilizers are due to the moon landings? The internet was invented due to the moon landings?

You didn't provide any citations that show any of the above has lifted people out of poverty. Please go on, and maybe tell us how ships navigated the seas before GPS, sounds impossible.

There are no causal connections between going to the moon and lifting global poverty. In fact, the money spent on going to a dried up satellite could have lifted people out of poverty.

[lapcat]

> Global rates of poverty are 83% lower than they were in 1969 when we landed on the moon.

Obvious post hoc fallacy

[nandomrumber]

It’s only a fallacy if the purported facts are fallacious.

And in the case of lifting most of humanity out of poverty, two things are responsible: capitalism and technology.

You can argue that China is a communist state, but it’s the allocation of capital to things that matter that has enable China to thrive.

[lapcat]

> It’s only a fallacy if the purported facts are fallacious.

These don't appear to be the words of someone who understands what the post hoc fallacy is.

In any case, the subject is not "capitalism and technology" generally but rather manned Moon missions specifically.

[nandomrumber]

Just because one thing happened after another thing, doesn’t mean the first thing caused the second thing.

Happy now?

However, sometimes it is true that the first thing caused the second thing.

Therefore, it’s only a fallacy when it’s fallacious.

My argument is that going to space was an allocation of capital that mattered in driving technology forward and improved the lives of everyone.

[turtlesdown11]

> And in the case of lifting most of humanity out of poverty, two things are responsible: capitalism and technology.

You alleged above it was due to the moon landings that people were lifted out of poverty. Do you understand the difference here?

[nandomrumber]

Was not the space race, and the cold war context it happened it, a driving force in pushing technological advances forward?

[turtlesdown11]

I'm sorry, so now it's not capitalism, technology, or the moon landings, but the cold war context? Could you pick a specific "event" you believe lifted so many people out of poverty, and provide research or supporting documentation?