Global Economies in trouble.

[Bonam]

Legitimately usefull in this case is a subject judgement on your part though. Other members of society will feel different, and theyll think that some of the things you find "legitimately usefull" or not important.

Correct.

[Michael Hardner]

If providing for yourself is freedom then why don't we expand on that idea and bring it to a more global scale, together we have the means to provide for everyone without completely destroying the planet.

We're doing that, I think.

I don't think this is the way we should run society.

I would love to bring forth a new system but I think it is more important to try and change our way of thinking first. We need a new way of looking at what our problems truly are and a new method of arriving at solutions to those problems, once that happens a new system will be born.

I've said this many times before, our problems are not political or financial, our problems will never be solved if we continue to think that they are. Our problems are and have always been technical, once we realize that and apply that knowledge to real world problems, who knows what we kind of society we will become.

Ok.

[M.Dancer]

Some think that freedom is to be able to do what ever you want. I think that is immature. You will always be constrained somehow and stopped if what you want to do is unreasonable.

I think freedom is in part, the freedom to not do what you do not want to do.

[maple_leafs182]

Providing for yourself and providing for "everyone" are very different things. Being able to provide for yourself is earning your own rewards and your own freedoms, being made to provide for others is slavery.

Only if you are forced to work against your will, then that is slavery. Today we have the capability to build machines that can do much of the labour for us, we can free man of much labour.

It's called "problem solving". First you examine the problem and understand what it's all about. Then, you break it down into substeps: smaller problems that are easier to solve. Then, you apply the knowledge you have to solve those problems, and then you put it all back together.

Ya, we should be doing that, we don't solve problems right now. If we did people wouldn't be starving, pollution wouldn't be a problem, people wouldn't be dieing in car accidents.

In that case you should be overjoyed at the exponentially accelerating pace of technological progress.

No, because we aren't using advances in technology to solve major social problems. We all need food, clean water and homes, we should be producing technology that produce those. Instead we spend our time developing new weapons.

We've been doing precisely that and will continue to do that, it just won't lead to the kind of utopia that you envision.

No we haven't and I am not envisioning some sort of Utopia.

We're doing that, I think.

We really aren't.

[M.Dancer]

Only if you are forced to work against your will, then that is slavery. Today we have the capability to build machines that can do much of the labour for us, we can free man of much labour.

In your dreams.

[Bonam]

Only if you are forced to work against your will, then that is slavery. Today we have the capability to build machines that can do much of the labour for us, we can free man of much labour.

Yeah and who makes these machines? Who designs them? Who maintains them? Who builds the machines that extract the resources from the ground to make these machines? Who works on those machines? Where do the resources for those machines come from? Sorry you can't just say "machine" and expect the nature of economics to disappear. This is not Star Trek, we do not have antimatter reactors and replicators (though I am working on it). And even if we did, the antimatter would have to come from somewhere.

Ya, we should be doing that, we don't solve problems right now. If we did people wouldn't be starving, pollution wouldn't be a problem, people wouldn't be dieing in car accidents.

I am not starving. The people around me, who could affect me, are not starving. That problem, from my perspective, has been solved. Now we move on to other problems. For example, how do I get a bigger screen TV, a faster computer, etc.

No, because we aren't using advances in technology to solve major social problems. We all need food, clean water and homes, we should be producing technology that produce those. Instead we spend our time developing new weapons.

Of course we are using technology to solve major social problems. Food is mass produced, an ever shrinking number of farmers can provide for a growing population. Prior to the adoption of modern agricultural technology, the primary occupation of the vast majority of the population was to produce food, and famines were common despite that. Technology has all but done away with that problem. Clean water is also available. Not only is it available on a societal scale (just go to your nearest faucet for proof), but we have portable technologies that allow any individual to filter or sterilize contaminated water sources using small handheld devices. Homes are also produced using technology. How do you think your house was built?

No we haven't

Really? So you contend that no real world problems have been solved through the application of technology?

and I am not envisioning some sort of Utopia.

You envision a mode of existence where there is no scarcity, where one's every need is produced free of any human labour by "machines" that just exist. What you envision is the proverbial garden of Eden, where man's every need grows on trees around him or is provided for by an incomprehensible entity (you merely substitute the word "machine" for "god" but otherwise your faith sounds the same). You are right, that would be boring as hell, not a Utopia at all.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Bonam

[Wild Bill]

Some think that freedom is to be able to do what ever you want. I think that is immature. You will always be constrained somehow and stopped if what you want to do is unreasonable.

I think freedom is in part, the freedom to not do what you do not want to do.

It sounds Morris like he feels he should have the freedom to make his neighbours pay for his ideas, even if they don't want to!

This has ALWAYS been an extremely popular notion, along with being able to tell your neighbour what to do and how to live his life.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Wild Bill

[Oleg Bach]

Tired of economics being governed by "markets" - why should some jerks who have managed to accumulate loot..by any means make more and more money though so-called investment...The reason is greed...that troubles are system of barter...It is not about greed for money but greed for dominance and power. Someone tossing around billions of dollars is NOT interested in cash ...they are habitually facinated by the fact that they can jerk the chain of every human dog on the planet that respects wealth - gotten or ill-gotten...Those that I have met that move large sums of money about..hate people - this hate manifests in a stress that wears down the populace the they simply lose hope...which ironically stimulate the power mongers to MORE bad and abusive sadistic behavior.

[maple_leafs182]

Yeah and who makes these machines? Who designs them? Who maintains them? Who builds the machines that extract the resources from the ground to make these machines? Who works on those machines? Where do the resources for those machines come from? Sorry you can't just say "machine" and expect the nature of economics to disappear. This is not Star Trek, we do not have antimatter reactors and replicators (though I am working on it). And even if we did, the antimatter would have to come from somewhere.

We would build the machines, we would work on the machines. Eventually we can get machines to work on machines but that is down the road. There would be a transition period.

I am not starving. The people around me, who could affect me, are not starving. That problem, from my perspective, has been solved. Now we move on to other problems. For example, how do I get a bigger screen TV, a faster computer, etc.

I know, that is the problem, if it isn't you or someone you know who is starving then it isn't a problem.

I am simply waiting for the global economy to crumble for when it does and peoples lives are destroyed, maybe then they will question the system.

Of course we are using technology to solve major social problems. Food is mass produced, an ever shrinking number of farmers can provide for a growing population. Prior to the adoption of modern agricultural technology, the primary occupation of the vast majority of the population was to produce food, and famines were common despite that. Technology has all but done away with that problem. Clean water is also available. Not only is it available on a societal scale (just go to your nearest faucet for proof), but we have portable technologies that allow any individual to filter or sterilize contaminated water sources using small handheld devices. Homes are also produced using technology. How do you think your house was built?

I said solve problems, if they were solved then they would no longer be a problem. We use technology in order to lower production costs and increase profits but we don't use it to solve social problems.

Really? So you contend that no real world problems have been solved through the application of technology?

Yes, that is what I am saying, tell me one that has been solved.

You envision a mode of existence where there is no scarcity, where one's every need is produced free of any human labour by "machines" that just exist. What you envision is the proverbial garden of Eden, where man's every need grows on trees around him or is provided for by an incomprehensible entity (you merely substitute the word "machine" for "god" but otherwise your faith sounds the same). You are right, that would be boring as hell, not a Utopia at all.

That is exactly what I envision, a world without scarcity. It wouldn't be boring, haven't you ever done anything simply because you enjoyed doing it, not because you get paid to do it.

[Michael Hardner]

maple_leaf, it's not hard to imagine utopia, but it's impossible to imagine how we get there.

[Bonam]

We would build the machines, we would work on the machines.

Yeah, we are already doing that.

Eventually we can get machines to work on machines but that is down the road. There would be a transition period.

Yes, we will create a race of Android slaves that will serve us. That is, until a civil rights movement makes gives them equal rights and they are no longer obligated to serve their human masters.

I know, that is the problem, if it isn't you or someone you know who is starving then it isn't a problem.

It is a problem, just not my problem. Those who feel it is their problem should be the ones to solve it.

I am simply waiting for the global economy to crumble for when it does and peoples lives are destroyed, maybe then they will question the system.

Right, so your real motivation is that of ideology no matter who gets hurt in the way. You would gleefully watch while "peoples lives are destroyed" so long as it proves you right. I, on the other hand, prefer the stable and steady progress of our civilization, where people's lives are gradually improved, rather than being destroyed.

I said solve problems, if they were solved then they would no longer be a problem. We use technology in order to lower production costs and increase profits but we don't use it to solve social problems.

Yes, that is what I am saying, tell me one that has been solved.

When's the last time a technologically advanced Western nation experienced a mass famine?

That is exactly what I envision, a world without scarcity. It wouldn't be boring, haven't you ever done anything simply because you enjoyed doing it, not because you get paid to do it.

A world without scarcity is impossible, that comes straight from the very laws of physics themselves. There is only a finite amount of energy in the universe. The more we harness, the more we will want, the more what was once a luxury will be considered a necessity. Think of internet or cell phones for example, a rare luxury just two decades ago, almost a necessity today.

[maple_leafs182]

maple_leaf, it's not hard to imagine utopia, but it's impossible to imagine how we get there.

I am going to say this again, I am not imagining a utopia, it is impossible to achieve utopia status, we will always face problems.

All I am imagining is a system that is better then the current system.

A world without scarcity is impossible, that comes straight from the very laws of physics themselves. There is only a finite amount of energy in the universe. The more we harness, the more we will want, the more what was once a luxury will be considered a necessity. Think of internet or cell phones for example, a rare luxury just two decades ago, almost a necessity today.

A world without scarcity isn't impossible, it is in a monetary based economy where scarcity is more profitable.

Our resources aren't infinite so isn't the proper management of these resources the most important thing we can do. We should be building products that are the most recyclable and energy efficient possible.

When's the last time a technologically advanced Western nation experienced a mass famine?

I'm gonna say the great depression, I may be wrong. I'm not too worried about the lack of food all though I have herd from some sources that they are expecting food shortages, I am more worried that people will lack the purchasing power to obtain the food.

The World Bank food price index rose by 17% between August and November 2010

Source

Right, so your real motivation is that of ideology no matter who gets hurt in the way. You would gleefully watch while "peoples lives are destroyed" so long as it proves you right. I, on the other hand, prefer the stable and steady progress of our civilization, where people's lives are gradually improved, rather than being destroyed.

What are you talking about, this current system doesn't care about who gets hurt or how many lives are destroyed, I am saying that we don't need to live in a society with recessions and depressions or scarcity. You think I want a depression, no I don't.

It is a problem, just not my problem. Those who feel it is their problem should be the ones to solve it.

Say farms were made automated by technology, lets say the farm broke down, It would become all of our problems if food was no longer being produced, we would have to work on fixing or implementing new technologies so we can continue to produce food for everyone.

Yes, we will create a race of Android slaves that will serve us. That is, until a civil rights movement makes gives them equal rights and they are no longer obligated to serve their human masters.

What are you talking about, have you seen video of an automated car plant.

Edited January 14, 2011 by maple_leafs182

[Bonam]

I am going to say this again, I am not imagining a utopia, it is impossible to achieve utopia status, we will always face problems.

All I am imagining is a system that is better then the current system.

And yet, the technological miracles which you imagine are all only being progressed towards precisely because of the current system.

A world without scarcity isn't impossible, it is in a monetary based economy where scarcity is more profitable.

Scarcity is inherent wherever there is a finite amount of a certain resource. Whatever kind of technology we may have, short of creating new universes and traveling to them, we are constrained by the energy available in this universe. That means scarcity. Yeah, maybe it won't be scarcity of food or of water, but I want to be the sole owner of 15 galactic superclusters just like the next guy damn it. Why is he so rich while I own only a few planets here and there? I am in dire poverty compared to him. I have no security at all, all it would take is a few stars to go nova and I'd be done.

Our resources aren't infinite so isn't the proper management of these resources the most important thing we can do. We should be building products that are the most recyclable and energy efficient possible.

Hmm yeah conserving resources. Sounds good. So how exactly does helping people around the world who consume much less resources than we do to expand their resource usage conserve resources? Let them keep on living their simple lives.

I'm gonna say the great depression, I may be wrong.

That's what I'd say too. And guess what, it hasn't happened since because of technology and its proper application to the mass production of food.

I'm not too worried about the lack of food all though I have herd from some sources that they are expecting food shortages, I am more worried that people will lack the purchasing power to obtain the food.

Then those people should do something about their purchasing power.

What are you talking about, this current system doesn't care about who gets hurt or how many lives are destroyed, I am saying that we don't need to live in a society with recessions and depressions or scarcity. You think I want a depression, no I don't.

You are the one who said "I am waiting for the global economy to crumble... and peoples lives are destroyed". Why are you waiting for it? So you can see yourself proven right. Personally, rather than wait for some economic cataclysm, I prefer to do something useful. Recessions and depressions are indeed unnecessary, and perhaps as we progress the cyclical tendencies of markets will continue to be further suppressed in favor of continuous smooth growth. Scarcity, on the other hand, is fundamental. And no, the current system doesn't care, but growth and progress is inherent to the system, and thus over time the conditions of most people are improved rather than harmed, without the system needing to care.

Say farms were made automated by technology, lets say the farm broke down, It would become all of our problems if food was no longer being produced, we would have to work on fixing or implementing new technologies so we can continue to produce food for everyone.

Farms ARE automated by technology. And when the machines break down, the farmer who owns the farm gets it fixed so he can still grow his crop and sell food and make money. The market incentivizes him to maximize the output of his farm, producing the most food, which can thus feed the most people. If the farm belonged to no one, no one stood to profit from selling its output, why would anyone bother going and fixing it? After all, there are millions of other farms that also produce food. Why fix the one that broke when you can just get food from the others? Surely the machines will take care of everything and we need not actually do any work?

What are you talking about, have you seen video of an automated car plant.

Yes, and when one of the robots breaks or needs maintenance, it is a human who comes and fixes it. You want to replace that human by a robot complex enough that it can do the repair job? Ok. Well what about when that robot breaks, you need an even more complex robot to fix that. Go a few steps up that ladder and the only thing that can fix it is as complex as a human, that is, it can think and analyze a problem and come up with creative and innovative thoughts just as well as a human can (or perhaps better), and thus is intelligent, and thus is deserving of the same rights as a human, which means it shouldn't be compelled to work for free for the benefit of humans.

Edited January 14, 2011 by Bonam

[maple_leafs182]

And yet, the technological miracles which you imagine are all only being progressed towards precisely because of the current system.

No they are not be progressed towards.

Hmm yeah conserving resources. Sounds good. So how exactly does helping people around the world who consume much less resources than we do to expand their resource usage conserve resources? Let them keep on living their simple lives.

Helping doesn't mean simply giving people resources, you can help them threw education. I am not suggesting us being the nannies of the world, different places of the world have different resources and they should develop a sustainable system within the limits of their recourses, a system in which all the people of that community are taken care of.

You are the one who said "I am waiting for the global economy to crumble... and peoples lives are destroyed". Why are you waiting for it? So you can see yourself proven right. Personally, rather than wait for some economic cataclysm, I prefer to do something useful. Recessions and depressions are indeed unnecessary, and perhaps as we progress the cyclical tendencies of markets will continue to be further suppressed in favor of continuous smooth growth. Scarcity, on the other hand, is fundamental. And no, the current system doesn't care, but growth and progress is inherent to the system, and thus over time the conditions of most people are improved rather than harmed, without the system needing to care.

The global economy will collapse, it is no longer a question of if it collapse, my only hope is that when it does people will begin to question the current system when it does.

Growth and progress in the current system are flawed because the current system does not take into consideration the carrying capacity of the earth.

Farms ARE automated by technology. And when the machines break down, the farmer who owns the farm gets it fixed so he can still grow his crop and sell food and make money. The market incentivizes him to maximize the output of his farm, producing the most food, which can thus feed the most people. If the farm belonged to no one, no one stood to profit from selling its output, why would anyone bother going and fixing it? After all, there are millions of other farms that also produce food. Why fix the one that broke when you can just get food from the others? Surely the machines will take care of everything and we need not actually do any work?

I understand how capitalism works and I know farms are to a certain extent automated now.

This is what I was saying, for a second think past capitalism and money. I live in Winnipeg, say we developed automated farms in the outskirts of the city to provide food for the entire city, no individual excluded. Let us say some the machines broke down at a farm, it would become everyones problem for we all rely on the those machines for food. Money wouldn't be our motivation to fix the machines, it would be the need for food.

Yes, and when one of the robots breaks or needs maintenance, it is a human who comes and fixes it. You want to replace that human by a robot complex enough that it can do the repair job? Ok. Well what about when that robot breaks, you need an even more complex robot to fix that. Go a few steps up that ladder and the only thing that can fix it is as complex as a human, that is, it can think and analyze a problem and come up with creative and innovative thoughts just as well as a human can (or perhaps better), and thus is intelligent, and thus is deserving of the same rights as a human, which means it shouldn't be compelled to work for free for the benefit of humans.

Well it would make sense to develop machines that are easy to maintain.

It wouldn't take a more complex machine to fix another machine, fixing a machine is a technical process. All the robot would have to do is scan to identify the problem, then search threw its database to find possible solutions to the problem, similar to how we would solve the problem.

[Bonam]

No they are not be progressed towards.

Technology is progressing faster than ever, don't know where you've been.

Helping doesn't mean simply giving people resources, you can help them threw education. I am not suggesting us being the nannies of the world, different places of the world have different resources and they should develop a sustainable system within the limits of their recourses, a system in which all the people of that community are taken care of.

Sure, they can go ahead and do that.

The global economy will collapse, it is no longer a question of if it collapse, my only hope is that when it does people will begin to question the current system when it does.

What are you a prophet now? Anyway, of course it "will collapse"... nothing lasts forever. But it could last a very long time yet.

Growth and progress in the current system are flawed because the current system does not take into consideration the carrying capacity of the earth.

Yeah, instead it constantly increases the Earth's carrying capacity by developing new technologies.

I understand how capitalism works and I know farms are to a certain extent automated now.

This is what I was saying, for a second think past capitalism and money. I live in Winnipeg, say we developed automated farms in the outskirts of the city to provide food for the entire city, no individual excluded. Let us say some the machines broke down at a farm, it would become everyones problem for we all rely on the those machines for food. Money wouldn't be our motivation to fix the machines, it would be the need for food.

I take it you've never heard of the tragedy of the commons?

Well it would make sense to develop machines that are easy to maintain.

The more advanced something is the harder it is to maintain.

It wouldn't take a more complex machine to fix another machine, fixing a machine is a technical process. All the robot would have to do is scan to identify the problem...

Haha, yes, "scan to identify". Unfortunately, we don't have any tricorders handy. Tell me, what would it scan with? It's on board combination of x-ray scanners, MRI machines, positron emission tomographs, ultrasonics, quadrupole spectrometers, hyperspectral imagers, etc? You know, the kind of stuff that NASA scientists can only dream they could afford to put on a billion dollar space probe? And then to automatically analyze that data and be able to actually understand what it means?

To determine what's wrong with a complex machine takes a lot of work. It could be the software, it could be the circuits, it could be mechanical components. Each of those takes vastly different skillsets to diagnose and to repair. A robot that could do all this autonomously would need to be able to move around, to pick up and use tools, to use machine vision to view and deeply understand its surroundings and the objects it is studying, to requisition the necessary replacement parts, to have advanced algorithms that would let it logically debug code, probe circuits with a multimeter, inspect mechanical components for wear and damage, etc. In effect, this robot would need to be as capable as a highly trained human engineer in both technical and communication skills. Once we can build a robot like that, well, humans will be obsolete anyway.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Bonam

[Wild Bill]

I am going to say this again, I am not imagining a utopia, it is impossible to achieve utopia status, we will always face problems.

All I am imagining is a system that is better then the current system.

A world without scarcity isn't impossible, it is in a monetary based economy where scarcity is more profitable.

Our resources aren't infinite so isn't the proper management of these resources the most important thing we can do. We should be building products that are the most recyclable and energy efficient possible.

Same old Marxist crap with the same old Marxist contradictions. You are arguing from your heart and not your brain!

The Universe runs on its own laws. Cause and Effect is one of them. These laws don't care how you feel about them.

You are asking for a world where everyone will voluntarily comply with your vision. Unfortunately, that vision contradicts human nature. There will always be people who want to excel and expect to reap a reward for it. There will always be people who will take from the system but not bother to contribute.

How about applying your vision to the old story of the "Little Red Hen"? What does your vision offer someone like her?

I can accept that your intentions are good. It's just that your vision is an old one that just doesn't work. It is too simplistic to satisfy the details of human nature and unless a system satisfies those details it will never be practical.

Also, resources AREN'T finite! Stop looking at your shoes and look up! There are INFINITE resources up there in Space! We already have the technology to go get them, if we choose to. It's no longer a matter of knowhow but just of will and if we get hungrier that will be a great motivator.

Of course, given how the USA has decided to drop out of space development it appears that the countries that will grow wealthy and expand into space will be China and/or India.

Thanks a lot, Obama! What vision you show! John F Kennedy must be rolling in his grave.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Wild Bill

[Michael Hardner]

Further to what Wild Bill has said:

You have good intentions, as most people do. But people, including you, also work on self-interest. Your plans don't seem to recognize that. The corruption that comes from our system of money exchange happens because some individuals recognize surpluses and scams that they can take advantage of, and they rationalize "If I don't do it, someone else will"... or somesuch and they take advantage.

The sytem as a whole still does more good than not having money.

It does no good to bother individuals with having to provide food for themselves: it's not necessary. We have specialists that can take care of it for us - it's their job.

[Pliny]

"Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity."

Perhaps good advice. Why believe in conspiracy theories when stupidity explains so much?

[Wild Bill]

Well it would make sense to develop machines that are easy to maintain.

It wouldn't take a more complex machine to fix another machine, fixing a machine is a technical process. All the robot would have to do is scan to identify the problem, then search threw its database to find possible solutions to the problem, similar to how we would solve the problem.

From the tone and content of your posts I would be very surprised if you have any technical background at all. Have you ever soldered an electronic circuit together? Have you even changed a plug on a lamp?

You seem to be trying to use logic to offer technical solutions but your solutions are inappropriate to how the technology actually works. You sound like a teacher trying to teach how to fix an engine by reading the book to his students, when it is obvious he himself has never even lifted the hood of a car!

There is no substitute for 'hands-on' learning. Logic is merely a mental exercise, a very useful tool but you can logically prove anything if you don't have any of the contradictory facts.

"All cats have tails. Every cat has one tail more than no cat has. Therefore, all cats have nine tails!"

Quite logical, except anyone who has actually seen a cat knows it's not true.

[charter.rights]

There is no substitute for 'hands-on' learning. Logic is merely a mental exercise, a very useful tool but you can logically prove anything if you don't have any of the contradictory facts.

Thus: Logic is a delusion. You just said so yourself.

[Bonam]

Also, resources AREN'T finite! Stop looking at your shoes and look up! There are INFINITE resources up there in Space! We already have the technology to go get them, if we choose to. It's no longer a matter of knowhow but just of will and if we get hungrier that will be a great motivator.

Amen. Technically, space resources are not infinite, but from a perspective relevant to current human civilization they are: the resources of our galaxy are sufficient for at least several hundred thousand years of the most optimistic and unbounded exponential growth.

Of course, given how the USA has decided to drop out of space development it appears that the countries that will grow wealthy and expand into space will be China and/or India.

I'd put my money on SpaceX sooner than on any national space agency. It is inspiring what they have done in the last few years. The lunar rover I'm working on is already booked to be launched on a SpaceX Falcon 9 in 2014. I know a few people that work there: it is amazing what you can accomplish with a bunch of 24 year olds straight out of grad school that are willing to work double-triple time for peanuts because they have a passion for the job.

Thanks a lot, Obama! What vision you show! John F Kennedy must be rolling in his grave.

Not really Obama's fault. NASA is in complete disarray, it never received close to the sufficient funding necessary to carry out Bush's Vision. The constellation program that was to return to the Moon has been scrapped, but members of congress care only about keeping NASA jobs in their districts rather than space exploration. As a result, NASA is currently spending several billion this year on a program that is already canceled (in addition to the tens of billions already spent). That money is guaranteed to have no return whatsoever, to achieve nothing, save for keeping people employed while Congress continues its stalled debate on NASA's next budget.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Bonam

[Bonam]

From the tone and content of your posts I would be very surprised if you have any technical background at all. Have you ever soldered an electronic circuit together? Have you even changed a plug on a lamp?

You seem to be trying to use logic to offer technical solutions but your solutions are inappropriate to how the technology actually works. You sound like a teacher trying to teach how to fix an engine by reading the book to his students, when it is obvious he himself has never even lifted the hood of a car!

That's the impression I get from him as well.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Not really Obama's fault. NASA is in complete disarray, it never received close to the sufficient funding necessary to carry out Bush's Vision.

OK...but there is more to American "space development" than just NASA or privateers. The US Air Force quietly takes care of business too on "classified missions". Also, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is scheduled to be launched by 2015.

[Bonam]

OK...but there is more to American "space development" than just NASA or privateers. The US Air Force quietly takes care of business too on "classified missions". Also, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is scheduled to be launched by 2015.

True, the military does do a lot too. Obviously, they mostly do things of practical value for military purposes though... whether classified or unclassified. The military, rightly, has little interest in space exploration for space exploration's sake.

And yeah, JWST is going up, as are a few other robotic missions, most notably MSL and Juno this year. NASA does still have it in it to launch a few decently interesting robotic probes and observatories (though the robotic mission that would have truly been impressive, JIMO, was scrapped to fund the now-canceled Constellation program). But the HSF (human space flight) side of it is nothing but a fiasco now.

I think NASA is going to be going more the way of the CSA... instead of being at the forefront of deciding the nation's approach to space exploration and designing and building systems, they will begin to function more like a funding agency, providing grant money to worthy university & private endeavors. NASA already does do that to a large extent, and that will likely increase once they realize that a next gen NASA in-house HSF program just isn't gonna happen. Which realistically is a good thing, SpaceX can get things done far quicker, cheaper, and better than NASA.

Edited January 17, 2011 by Bonam

[maple_leafs182]

What are you a prophet now? Anyway, of course it "will collapse"... nothing lasts forever. But it could last a very long time yet.

But it won't be a very long time away, it will be soon.

America cannot get out of a recession by printing and spending money, they need a productive capacity.

It should of collapsed by now but the Federal Reserve keeps propping the system up by throwing cheap money everywhere.

To determine what's wrong with a complex machine takes a lot of work. It could be the software, it could be the circuits, it could be mechanical components. Each of those takes vastly different skillsets to diagnose and to repair. A robot that could do all this autonomously would need to be able to move around, to pick up and use tools, to use machine vision to view and deeply understand its surroundings and the objects it is studying, to requisition the necessary replacement parts, to have advanced algorithms that would let it logically debug code, probe circuits with a multimeter, inspect mechanical components for wear and damage, etc. In effect, this robot would need to be as capable as a highly trained human engineer in both technical and communication skills. Once we can build a robot like that, well, humans will be obsolete anyway.

Like I said, no utopia, we will always face problems.

From the tone and content of your posts I would be very surprised if you have any technical background at all. Have you ever soldered an electronic circuit together? Have you even changed a plug on a lamp?

I've done both.

You are asking for a world where everyone will voluntarily comply with your vision.

No I am not.

I really don't know the best approach to developing a sustainable system and it is crazy to think one person does. All I know is that we need to stop thinking that our problems are political or financial and realize they are technical.

Maybe supporting companies like GE or GM won't lead to prosperity, maybe making sure nobody goes to bed hungry is prosperity.