5 ms·

Space exploration seems difficult and delayed enough without this virtue signaling. Supporting disabilities would add a number of new challenges on top of the e

by _u1dn 5y ago

Space exploration seems difficult and delayed enough without this virtue signaling. Supporting disabilities would add a number of new challenges on top of the existing ones, and with marginal practical benefit (increasing the pool of potential astronauts by the small minority that have disabilities). Being an astronaut is a ridiculously selective process, it’s not like disabled people are missing out on something here that’s accessible to any non-disabled person. The opportunity for someone to get into space, whether disabled or not, is almost nil regardless.

anthony_romeo 5y ago
This is a bad take and arbitrarily discriminatory, and I don't like this sort of reactionary anti-virtue signalling I've been seeing a lot on HN recently. You did not establish that the "new challenges" are especially difficult to overcome, nor that they're not worth undertaking. There can be a lot to learn through this process, and that by itself is valuable. YOU seem to believe that there is only marginal practical benefit, but I can't quite understand why you believe that merely increasing the pool of applicants is a bad idea [and the European Space Agency seems to disagree with you as well]. I'm curious on the specifics of your interpretation. It might be a "ridiculously selective process," but the specific restrictions within that process are, to some degree, arbitrary. They're certainly worth reconsidering and expanding from time-to-time as technology/safety improves, especially since we're getting closer to an age of commercial space flight where people with disabilities will have more access to space flight regardless of what any specific space agency will do.
- _u1dn 5y ago
  I didn’t say that increasing the pool was a bad idea. In fact, I said it’s a benefit, albeit a marginal one because it’s a relatively small % of people we’re talking about here. The problem is that it comes at a cost. Furthermore, while we’re on the subject of pool increase, it’s also vastly lowering the selection pool if they favor people from this small group. There may be aspects of the selection process that are arbitrary, but not having physical disabilities isn’t one of them. As the article discusses, this would involve changing a number of aspects about the program to accommodate this one specific group. It’s not just a matter of “reconsidering and expanding” the restrictions, it’s clearly a major undertaking.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - anthony_romeo 5y ago
    You can choose to believe that if you want. I don't see any meat to your argument beyond mere hunchery. For example, you merely identify that a "cost" exists, but you didn't bother to claim it was a meaningful cost in the context of the broader space program.
- me_me_me 5y ago
  My first gut reaction to this initiative is a bit negative. There are handful astronauts in the world for a reason. It is probably the most challenging environment where you need to be at your peak both mentally and physically. I am all for inclusion but as article states only 550 people or so went into space. That's an insanely low number. For comparison world wide on average there are 3000 deaths due to car crashes A DAY. Everyday 6x time people die that went into space ever. I hope this program will not push out people that are a safer option for an astronaut in favour of a PR stunt. And that we are not wasting money on enabling someone's apex dream. I will never play in NBA no matter how hard I will study and train I am too short. Its life. And I am not campaining to have a a single player per team below 5ft because life is unfair.
  - anthony_romeo 5y ago
    Lol, as if you or I can meaningfully tell the difference between a "PR Stunt" and a valid hire. If you see an astronaut with a prosthetic leg in the next five years, are you going to just automatically presume that they are unworthy of the position? I certainly wouldn't arbitrarily belittle an astronaut like that -- doing so would be shameful IMO.
    - ksaj 5y ago
      If the candidate can complete the regular training and other standard screenings, I'm good.
      - me_me_me 5y ago
        100% agree, but then whats the point of this program? They are already passing all merit based required standards. Should then they have higher preference?
        anthony_romeo 5y ago
        This is in part a study to help find out what disabled people might need in space to better inform future designs to accommodate their needs. Space travel isn’t getting less common so it’s a good idea to prepare for this. This is a good thing.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  >I can't quite understand why you believe that merely increasing the pool of applicants is a bad idea That's not the argument. The argument is barrier of entry is lowered to allow these individuals a chance. It's the same argument with the U.S. military and they have in fact lowered their standards to allow women into roles they couldn't get into before. Now, if they don't change the barrier of entry and keep the same standards for disabled individuals I guess your take makes sense. However, if that's the case then you're going to have to admit it IS virtue signaling since they'd actually be changing nothing. You've put yourself in a catch-22.
  - anthony_romeo 5y ago
    That’s absolutely the argument... What other argument was there? You didn’t actually point it out, unless your minor rephrasing of one sentence of what I wrote somehow invalidates my point. And where does the accusation of virtue signaling come in here? It sounds like it’s not a superficial change they’re making. What’s the difference between “virtue signaling” and merely “a press release announcing policy changes”, exactly? Where is this needless cynicism coming from?
    - CountDrewku 5y ago
      I feel like you're not fully thinking this through- 1. Let's say it's not a superficial "virtue-signalling" change which means it cannot be just widening their selection field as you suggested because that alone IS a superficial change unless... 2. They've decided that the they're going to change standards to make it easier for disabled individuals to gain entry which addresses the actual argument that candidates will be of lower quality and possibly cause worse results. 3. Your argument cannot logically hold water because you're presenting two cognitively dissonant ideas. For it not to be virtue signaling they would need to do more than just say they're opening up the program for disabled people. However, if they do that then #2 comes back into play and you've still lost part of the argument where you suggest it won't produce lower quality results. The only way your idea holds water is if the disabled individuals are able to pass the current standards, which doesn't really make sense or they most likely wouldn't have those standards against certain disabled individuals to begin with. >Where is this needless cynicism coming from? This isn't cynicism it's just a logical thought pattern, stop injecting unnecessary emotions into it. No one wants a lower quality space program just so we can make some people feel better.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by _u1dn 5y ago

anthony_romeo 5y ago

This is a bad take and arbitrarily discriminatory, and I don't like this sort of reactionary anti-virtue signalling I've been seeing a lot on HN recently. You did not establish that the "new challenges" are especially difficult to overcome, nor that they're not worth undertaking. There can be a lot to learn through this process, and that by itself is valuable. YOU seem to believe that there is only marginal practical benefit, but I can't quite understand why you believe that merely increasing the pool of applicants is a bad idea [and the European Space Agency seems to disagree with you as well]. I'm curious on the specifics of your interpretation. It might be a "ridiculously selective process," but the specific restrictions within that process are, to some degree, arbitrary. They're certainly worth reconsidering and expanding from time-to-time as technology/safety improves, especially since we're getting closer to an age of commercial space flight where people with disabilities will have more access to space flight regardless of what any specific space agency will do.

_u1dn 5y ago
I didn’t say that increasing the pool was a bad idea. In fact, I said it’s a benefit, albeit a marginal one because it’s a relatively small % of people we’re talking about here. The problem is that it comes at a cost. Furthermore, while we’re on the subject of pool increase, it’s also vastly lowering the selection pool if they favor people from this small group. There may be aspects of the selection process that are arbitrary, but not having physical disabilities isn’t one of them. As the article discusses, this would involve changing a number of aspects about the program to accommodate this one specific group. It’s not just a matter of “reconsidering and expanding” the restrictions, it’s clearly a major undertaking.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- anthony_romeo 5y ago
  You can choose to believe that if you want. I don't see any meat to your argument beyond mere hunchery. For example, you merely identify that a "cost" exists, but you didn't bother to claim it was a meaningful cost in the context of the broader space program.
me_me_me 5y ago
My first gut reaction to this initiative is a bit negative. There are handful astronauts in the world for a reason. It is probably the most challenging environment where you need to be at your peak both mentally and physically. I am all for inclusion but as article states only 550 people or so went into space. That's an insanely low number. For comparison world wide on average there are 3000 deaths due to car crashes A DAY. Everyday 6x time people die that went into space ever. I hope this program will not push out people that are a safer option for an astronaut in favour of a PR stunt. And that we are not wasting money on enabling someone's apex dream. I will never play in NBA no matter how hard I will study and train I am too short. Its life. And I am not campaining to have a a single player per team below 5ft because life is unfair.
- anthony_romeo 5y ago
  Lol, as if you or I can meaningfully tell the difference between a "PR Stunt" and a valid hire. If you see an astronaut with a prosthetic leg in the next five years, are you going to just automatically presume that they are unworthy of the position? I certainly wouldn't arbitrarily belittle an astronaut like that -- doing so would be shameful IMO.
  - ksaj 5y ago
    If the candidate can complete the regular training and other standard screenings, I'm good.
    - me_me_me 5y ago
      100% agree, but then whats the point of this program? They are already passing all merit based required standards. Should then they have higher preference?
      - anthony_romeo 5y ago
        This is in part a study to help find out what disabled people might need in space to better inform future designs to accommodate their needs. Space travel isn’t getting less common so it’s a good idea to prepare for this. This is a good thing.
CountDrewku 5y ago
>I can't quite understand why you believe that merely increasing the pool of applicants is a bad idea That's not the argument. The argument is barrier of entry is lowered to allow these individuals a chance. It's the same argument with the U.S. military and they have in fact lowered their standards to allow women into roles they couldn't get into before. Now, if they don't change the barrier of entry and keep the same standards for disabled individuals I guess your take makes sense. However, if that's the case then you're going to have to admit it IS virtue signaling since they'd actually be changing nothing. You've put yourself in a catch-22.
- anthony_romeo 5y ago
  That’s absolutely the argument... What other argument was there? You didn’t actually point it out, unless your minor rephrasing of one sentence of what I wrote somehow invalidates my point. And where does the accusation of virtue signaling come in here? It sounds like it’s not a superficial change they’re making. What’s the difference between “virtue signaling” and merely “a press release announcing policy changes”, exactly? Where is this needless cynicism coming from?
  - CountDrewku 5y ago
    I feel like you're not fully thinking this through- 1. Let's say it's not a superficial "virtue-signalling" change which means it cannot be just widening their selection field as you suggested because that alone IS a superficial change unless... 2. They've decided that the they're going to change standards to make it easier for disabled individuals to gain entry which addresses the actual argument that candidates will be of lower quality and possibly cause worse results. 3. Your argument cannot logically hold water because you're presenting two cognitively dissonant ideas. For it not to be virtue signaling they would need to do more than just say they're opening up the program for disabled people. However, if they do that then #2 comes back into play and you've still lost part of the argument where you suggest it won't produce lower quality results. The only way your idea holds water is if the disabled individuals are able to pass the current standards, which doesn't really make sense or they most likely wouldn't have those standards against certain disabled individuals to begin with. >Where is this needless cynicism coming from? This isn't cynicism it's just a logical thought pattern, stop injecting unnecessary emotions into it. No one wants a lower quality space program just so we can make some people feel better.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]