7 ms·
> he's spending his considerable capital on things likely to make an impact on the world, not on frivolous applications like social networks. While I agree tha
by falling 14y ago
> he's spending his considerable capital on things likely to make an impact on the world, not on frivolous applications like social networks.
While I agree that the guy is awesome, his projects are inspiring and I dislike this social everything wave as much as you probably do, social networks do make an impact on the world, probably even faster and more direct than space ships.
- datalus 14y agoYes, they do, but we should rename them to social ad networks.
- falling 14y agoDo you call it Google Ad Search?
- waterlesscloud 14y agoDo I think of it that way? Yeah, sometimes I do.
- dos1 14y agoGood point - I guess my biggest complaint is that companies like Facebook and Twitter pull some of the most brilliant minds. These minds, in my opinion, could be better spent finding solutions to big problems like cancer, space exploration, green energy, clean water etc. I guess it's not so much that I dislike social networks, more that I dislike the opportunity cost of having smart people go work for them.
- genwin 14y agoSpace exploration has little benefit to the average person, esp. for the environmental damage it does. For most people it's just interesting news. I'd like to see more of that innovative talent and gov't money applied to environmental concerns. (That said, I'm still looking forward to tuning into Mars via a microphone/video placed there. Just no ultra-expensive humans, please.)
- WiseWeasel 14y agoWhile space travel may be irrelevant to most today, thanks to those like Musk, it may be very relevant in tomorrow's society.
- genwin 14y agoWhy? I see no net benefit to the general public.
- CamperBob2 14y agoThen go do something else.
- genwin 14y agoWhy? I'm not doing space exploration as it is.
- dbaupp 14y agoNot even the offshoot technologies that have been (and will be) invented and improved as part of space exploration?
- genwin 14y agoDoubtful a net benefit. Those come at tremendous cost to the public, like years of extra work per person. We haven't even paid for the Vietnam War yet, and the interest is compounding on that. We're quickly approaching half of every tax dollar spent on interest. Add space exploration, it could reach 90%.
- dbaupp 14y agoExtra work compared to what? Is there any other reasonable way that space-derived technologies (e.g. those on this list[0]) could have been invented? If the US wants to pay off it debts, maybe the first thing to do is reduce the amount spend on, for example, the military. The US spends $700+ billion dollars (or 4% of GDP) on its military[1], on something that is even less of a net benefit to humanity: killing people. Surely the $20 billion[2] currently spent on NASA pales in comparison to that, and the benefit to humanity of non-military technological improvement is far larger. (Clearly, DARPA et al. fund technological improvement too, but the purpose, and first use, of these technologies is normally quite saddening.) [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
- MikeCapone 14y agoYou reminded me of this quote: "It has always appalled me that really bright scientists almost all work in the most competitive fields, the ones in which they are making the least difference. In other words, if they were hit by a truck, the same discovery would be made by somebody else about 10 minutes later." -Aubrey de Grey
- CamperBob2 14y agoIf only there were a way to get the truth of that statement across to patent advocates.