Item — HN Reader

> One country unilaterally decides that it is fine to pollute the sky for everyone else in the name of profit.

One country allows the entire world to use its global navigation system "for free", build businesses on that technology, save people's lives and benefit from it.

One company brings usable Internet connection, the electricity of the 21st century, to anywhere in the world, with a fixed price, often lower than the existing inferior or non-existing ones.

> One company decides to produce more and more without giving a damn about their ecological impact, in the name of profit.

One company will have accelerated our escape from extinction.

> in the name of profit

If Space was such a profitable industry, it'd be as crowded as ad and social network markets. It's the exact opposite. To claim it's all for profit, is to admit you shouldn't be trusted with anything money related, as you'd probably lose it all in a blink.

1 comments

Oh right, the US built GPS, one of the few GNSS systems out there! Yeah my bad, then private US companies should be allowed to pollute space, it's not the problem of the rest of the world!

> One company will have accelerated our escape from extinction

You mean by sending a few chosen people in space? Or do you believe that connecting smart devices to satellites will somehow solve the climate crisis? xD

> it'd be as crowded as ad and social network

What's your definition of crowded? I don't feel like there are thousands of successful social networks or ad companies out there...

But I get your point: SpaceX is a nonprofit with the purpose of solving the climate crisis by launching as many rockets as they can to fill the sky with satellites. No profit planned, no investors, nothing. My mistake.

> Oh right, the US built GPS, one of the few GNSS systems out there!

When US opened up GPS for civilian use, there was NO other GNSS. Other GNSSes exist BECAUSE of GPS.

> You mean by sending a few chosen people in space?

This is how every new thing starts. Do you think people one day had no cars and then suddenly a billion people were driving cars the next day? No! It started with a few who had the money and believed in the future to invest in cars, and further few who could afford to buy cars and were OK with the initial dangerous, horribly unreliable vehicles that the most ill horse of the time would be superior to.

If you read up on the history of literally any tech, that's how they start, and literally that's how they are received (e.g. waste of money, more important things to do, few chosen ones, etc.).

> I don't feel like there are thousands of successful social networks

Your feelings bears nothing on reality. Go do a app search for dating/social apps and you'll see hundreds, with dozens being pretty successful.

> But I get your point: SpaceX is a nonprofit with the purpose of solving the climate crisis

No non-profit will ever solve anything at this magnitude, by definition. This is what it boils down to:

- You need to have a plan to make profit

- in order to attract investors to give you money,

- so you can pay talented people to join your cause.

Yes some of your employees are there because they believe in the cause and they're fine with lower pay. But that's a minority. Majority of your workforce will want challenge and good pay or you'll lose them to the competition making social network apps for iPhone. I'm baffled that most people can't follow this simple logic.

> My mistake.

Never too late to learn.

> No non-profit will ever solve anything at this magnitude, by definition.

So when I say they make that for profit, you disagree, and when I say (sarcastically) that they don't want to make profit, you say the opposite again? Choose your camp. Mine is that SpaceX exists because it is profitable.

Then one thing that would be worth considering is that technology is the problem today. You seem to consider that cars made the world a better place, that's your opinion. But it would be hard to argue that the current climate crisis is not caused by technology. You're just blindly hoping that more of it will magically solve the problem which is: technology is destroying life on Earth. Because we can do something cool (nobody denies that SpaceX is cool) doesn't mean we should do it.

> So when I say they make that for profit

To say someone's doing something for money, is to imply money making is their main motivation and end goal. I'm arguing that money is the means to an end.

> You seem to consider that cars made the world a better place, that's your opinion

I probably can argue for that, but what's more important than cars themselves, is the technology, processes and innovations that came about because of the desire for personal transportation.

> But it would be hard to argue that the current climate crisis is not caused by technology.

True.

> You're just blindly hoping that more of it will magically solve the problem

Trend towards more technological societies has historically solved the issues of the past. In field of medicine alone, it's because of industrial revolution, mass production, integrated circuits, and countless other tech innovations that: we have access to all sorts of medical imaging and measurement devices that help diagnose and save people's lives; vaccine development, patient monitoring to name just a few. You look at cars and see excessive number of people moving machines. I see an entire history of innovation in mass production that high scale car manufacturing has led. Mass production is what has made possible the cheap silicon tech we have today, that goes into everything.

TL;DR you can't just pick one thing and label it good or bad. Technology is general has evidently (as piles and piles of stats show) and increasingly improved the quality of life of the world population in general.

> technology is destroying life on Earth

Earth will be destroyed even with no humans on it. In the long run, technology is the only tool for survival of life. Life will go extinct one way or another, sooner or later. We can either stay in the cave and face our doom, or get out, innovate, make mistakes and extend how long life sticks around. We can obviously make more mistakes than we need to but that's a much more nuanced conversation than "tech is bad, let's stop".

> Because we can do something cool (nobody denies that SpaceX is cool) doesn't mean we should do it.

"Something cool", just like "only for profit", is not the goal. SpaceX'es mission is to extend life beyond Earth. Making Space cool is what's needed to inspire people to join and make things happen.

> Earth will be destroyed even with no humans on it. In the long run, technology is the only tool for survival of life.

I guess that's where we disagree. I don't care if life goes extinct in twenty thousands years. And I don't want to survive on Mars, looking back at how we destroyed most living beings there.

I don't say that technology is bad in itself. Consumerism is.