= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
SarahC comments on Politicians stymie human colonization of space to save make-work jobs - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (70)
Doesn't this post violate the "no politics" rule?
It has always been my impression that there is a "no politics" guideline around here, not a rule. Rightfully so, as it's easy to generate irrational talk about politics which would quickly overwhelm just about anything else and ruin everyone's day.
However, Roko brings up something that deserves serious discussion since there's a lot of interest in existential risk here, but a good historical analog seems like it would difficult to find and might obfuscate more than enlighten (historical colonies are more controversial than space programs).
A rocket that even has a wing-configuration handedness is pretty much screwed anyway ...
Look. I see that previous posts tagged "politics" have been basically anti-political, or a plea for rationality. It's all rather abstract.
This post is not like that. The business with "make-work" is a partisan poke. (One I agree with, but never mind.)
Seconded. This post is "Anti-current party in power" which happens to be Democrat, but even a cursory amount of research would provide examples of Bush-era policies benefiting local individuals at the cost of technology- and the population in general.
This example just happens to be more relevant to our concerns - existential threats and all.
Clinton-
Bush Sr.-
Reagan-
Carter-
Ford-
Nixon-
Johnson-
etc.
See: http://lesswrong.com/tag/politics/