# $104 billion dollars



## astronauta

That is how much the new mission to the moon will cost.

How many of you think we should (and could with that sum) solve some of the many problems we have in planet earth before enganging on exploring the moon?

Or, can anyone justify this expenditure?


----------



## Everness

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> That is how much the new mission to the moon will cost.
> 
> How many of you think we should (and could with that sum) solve some of the many problems we have in planet earth before enganging on exploring the moon?
> 
> Or, can anyone justify this expenditure?



If we continue polluting this world or threatening to blow it up, I think that $104 billion is a modest investment in terms of finding a new home to the few survivors of planet Earth... Sci-fi is becoming reality-sci...


----------



## Papalote

It will probably end up costing lots more, but I hope the USA will go for it!

You do not mention what kind of problems should be solved with that money (not many I would think) but I truly believe that there are a lot more benefits to space exploration than what is shown on t.v. What comes to mind is scientific advances, even medical experiments, etc. which might (will ??  ) eventually help humanity.

I've erased my sentence three times already as I can`t find the appropriate words, but going for a parallel which I hope nobody will take the wrong way , there have been a lot of scientific advances that came out of the war effort than have come from peacetime, at least in a much shorter timeframe.

So I say, go for it! Why should the spirit of adventure be left to all those braindead extreme t.v. programs?! I think Americans should follow their (humanity's) dream.

P

p.s. yep, also bad things came out of the war, like weapons, but as they say in the movies, guns don`t kill, people do. So let`s give the good guys a helping hand, eh?


----------



## Merlin

Well if you can afford it, why not? I would agree that the amount intended to the exploration of the moon will help a lot in solving other problems in the country. Considering the very late response to those who were greatly affected by hurrucan Katrina. The BUSH government was very slow in giving aids to the victims. He already took the blame for what happened. It's not bad to explore the moon however they should consider more important things when it comes to budgets. Calamity funds and help should not be neglected.


----------



## lauranazario

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> How many of you think we should (and could with that sum) solve some of the many problems we have in planet earth before enganging on exploring the moon?


I soooo disagree with this premise... if the US has $104 billion of "expendable" money, it should invest it locally, finding alternate fuel sources, diminishing toxic emissions, cleaning up contaminated sites, improving education, bringing down the cost of healthcare --the list goes on and on.

Why must the US be every country's "savior"???? It's bad enough we have been entrusted the abominable chore of "policing" the world.  

Saludos,
LN


----------



## astronauta

Laura I know exactly what you mean and totally agree with you. The US does not have to save the world with it's money and it has big problems to solve at home. On the other hand, the US affects many countries indirectly and would be "nice" to give something back. I say would be nice, they don't have to but it would be nice. I do, however, disagree with you very last sentence, but that is another topic...

 Papalote, I don't know what you mean, but the mengele experiments come to mind.

  I think that the mission to the moon that will cost $104 billion (BILLION not millions, can you imagine that?) *seems* a little unnecessary when I see things like Katrina, Sofia and now Rita and the health and poverty situation in the US.

  Now, if we really dare to dream and think outside the US, few of those billions of dollars can go a *really* long way in places such as Africa (which is facing the worst of its famines) and countless other places who are indeed desperate.

I don't know, I guess it would feel like deciding to buy really expensive bubbly or make a charity donation locally or elsewhere....


----------



## Benjy

to be honest.. ther are some things that cant be improved just by throwing money at them.


----------



## cuchuflete

Just wondering what Los Reyes Católicos spent, relative to their total budget, to fund the explorations by Cristóbal Colón....

Would their money have had a more lasting impact if spent buying bread for the poorest people of Alcalá de Henares, León and Zamora?

It's a given that governments will not spend what they should where they should.
That said, what are the individual merits of exploration?

PS- Benjy, I know I cannot be improved just by throwing money at me, but you are welcome to throw some anyhow.


----------



## rob.returns

I can hear everybodys singing "FLy me to the moon". 

Well, I think exploration is inevitable. The question is not "how much" but "when"...

If spending it now would mean savings for NASA, then go for it. If not, let them take their time. 

Surely the trip to the moon would be CERTAIN and DEFINITE.


----------



## murena

lauranazario said:
			
		

> I soooo disagree with this premise... if the US has $104 billion of "expendable" money, it should invest it locally, finding alternate fuel sources, diminishing toxic emissions, cleaning up contaminated sites, improving education, bringing down the cost of healthcare --the list goes on and on.
> 
> Why must the US be every country's "savior"???? It's bad enough we have been entrusted the abominable chore of "policing" the world.
> 
> Saludos,
> LN


 
Some comments about this Laura. 

A lot of US money comes from debt payments from developing countries. I know the international debt system is legal, but is it really moral? Is it ethical that a country, on one hand gets billions from african, american and asian countries, as interest payments, and on the other hand, spends an important amount of money sending six guys to the moon? Are the priorities right? 

OK, I agree that US should not be every country's savior. But think about countries that have been affected greatly by US historic interests. Some examples: Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Nicaragua, PAnama, Nigeria, Somalia, Corea, Haiti, Chile, Mexico (not to mention Irak and Afganistan). Now think how many kids in these countries are in some kind of struggle (health, food, education). What do you think is more appropiate, send six guys to the moon or help these countries to improve in some degree their education or health system? Or reduce their external debt? 

Sometimes I just feel that the world is up side down.


----------



## lauranazario

murena said:
			
		

> What do you think is more appropiate, send six guys to the moon...


I never said (or even hinted) that the $104 billion MUST go to space exploration... my view is that there is certainly a "better" use for that money if it's earmarked towards solving a whole slew of local problems in the US.


			
				murena said:
			
		

> ...or help these countries to improve in some degree their education or health system? Or reduce their external debt?


Do you really think that reducing the external debt of places like Nigeria, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo will put a stop to the genocide there??? Do you think it will stop the daily HIV/AIDS catastrophe? I don't think so... not when we have local African governments more interested in weapons and fattening their own pockets. Reduce their debt without changing their idiosyncrasies/priorities and we're back to square one --to the same human quagmire.

Saludos,
LN


----------



## Mariaguadalupe

Check out the new Nicolas Cage movie, "Lord of War". It tackles somewhat this problem. (Lauranazario's comments)

On the other hand, we have polluted our world so much, are we now going for it in outer space? Not to mention the many satellites we have left behind up there. I may say, we have already polluted space too! Then what?

Yes, the space program has brought many benefits that we use daily without even thinking how that technology got to be here. It has benefitted not only the United States but the entire world. However, I'm in two minds about continuing with it. The question is when will we need to leave our home? Will our generation see it? Is it immediately down the road? Or is it a long time from happening?

I'd better stop now.


----------



## murena

lauranazario said:
			
		

> I never said (or even hinted) that the $104 billion MUST go to space exploration... my view is that there is certainly a "better" use for that money if it's earmarked towards solving a whole slew of local problems in the US.


 
I agree with you on this, but I think that US, and other countries that have become wealthier through colonisation or occupations (UK, Spain, France, Holland, Russia) do have some duty to help the countries that have been affected.

[/QUOTE]Do you really think that reducing the external debt of places like Nigeria, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo will put a stop to the genocide there??? Do you think it will stop the daily HIV/AIDS catastrophe? I don't think so...  

LN[/QUOTE]

Of course will not help, I agree, but I think it will make a better difference for some people in need, than sending the money to the moon project.


----------



## cuchuflete

murena said:
			
		

> I agree with you on this, but I think that US, and other countries that have become wealthier through colonisation or occupations (UK, Spain, France, Holland, Russia) do have some duty to help the countries that have been affected.



It's time to put aside any discussion of a trip to the moon, or exploration in general.

This thread, like so many others lately, has been spotted by the eagle-eyed purveyors of opportunities to teach us all the merits of the fad of the decade:

Historical Revisionism

which when blended with
its companion, moralistic
victimhood, leads us to apply
today's standards, as embraced by
some, to the past.



> UK, Spain, France, Holland, Russia



That's just a teaser.  Let's not forget Germany and Italy and Belgium.

What about Rome? Isn't just about every living European and North African owed some form of reparations for the conquests of the Romans.

It would be insulting to leave Turkey off the list. And surely Bolivia and Argentina owe huge sums to the survivors of the wars in Paraguay.

Oh, sorry. I forgot to mention Japan. I believe they also did a little colonizing, as did China. Let's see, that leaves Portugal and a few dozen other colonizers in need of due credit...

So, let's see, if we add the countries of Central and South America that have stolen land from, infected, and exterminated indigenous peoples, we may have enough for a game of moralistic rugby. All the winners get to pay all the losers, including the winners who are losers as well. 

Better yet, let's just turn back the clock on recorded history. Let's all go back a few thousand years, when everyone was peaceful and kind, and there were no wars or seizures of territory. At least that way, we won't have to pay so many accountants to keep track of who owes what to whom.

Ooooops...forgot the Irish in Wellington's armies...they too deserve an honorable mention, along with the Sikhs, Genghis Kahn and a few others.
Tell them all to pay up, or be condemned as deadbeats and scoundrels.

Who needs exploration. We can just rediscover history and guilt and all hold hands and share our collective indebtedness. Ahhhh, joy and peace on Earth.

​


----------



## Mariaguadalupe

Well said Chuchu!  As always, right on the mark!


----------



## rob.returns

I think the comparison exploring other country is quite far from exploring another planet or a satellite for that matter. The idea is there but I disagree a bit, this is for the reason chuchu that we are talking about the whole human race not just another country colonizing others. But you have one good example. 



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> It's time to put aside any discussion of a trip to the moon, or exploration in general.
> 
> This thread, like so many others lately, has been spotted by the eagle-eyed purveyors of opportunities to teach us all the merits of the fad of the decade:
> 
> Historical Revisionism​
> which when blended with
> 
> its companion, moralistic
> victimhood, leads us to apply
> today's standards, as embraced by
> some, to the past.
> 
> That's just a teaser. Let's not forget Germany and Italy and Belgium.
> 
> What about Rome? Isn't just about every living European and North African owed some form of reparations for the conquests of the Romans.
> 
> It would be insulting to leave Turkey off the list. And surely Bolivia and Argentina owe huge sums to the survivors of the wars in Paraguay.
> 
> Oh, sorry. I forgot to mention Japan. I believe they also did a little colonizing, as did China. Let's see, that leaves Portugal and a few dozen other colonizers in need of due credit...
> 
> So, let's see, if we add the countries of Central and South America that have stolen land from, infected, and exterminated indigenous peoples, we may have enough for a game of moralistic rugby. All the winners get to pay all the losers, including the winners who are losers as well.
> 
> Better yet, let's just turn back the clock on recorded history. Let's all go back a few thousand years, when everyone was peaceful and kind, and there were no wars or seizures of territory. At least that way, we won't have to pay so many accountants to keep track of who owes what to whom.
> 
> Ooooops...forgot the Irish in Wellington's armies...they too deserve an honorable mention, along with the Sikhs, Genghis Kahn and a few others.
> Tell them all to pay up, or be condemned as deadbeats and scoundrels.
> 
> Who needs exploration. We can just rediscover history and guilt and all hold hands and share our collective indebtedness. Ahhhh, joy and peace on Earth.​


​


----------



## murena

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> It's time to put aside any discussion of a trip to the moon, or exploration in general. This thread, like so many others lately, has been spotted by the eagle-eyed purveyors of opportunities to teach us all the merits of the fad of the decade: Historical Revisionism, which when blended with its companion, moralistic victimhood, leads us to apply today's standards, as embraced by some, to the past.
> ​


​My point was not to put aside the discussion of a trip to the moon. The original question of the thread was:



			
				astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> How many of you think we should (and could with that sum) solve some of the many problems we have in planet earth before enganging on exploring the moon? Or, can anyone justify this expenditure?


 
As I said, I think the priorities in the world are up side down, when we think that spending money to go to the moon is more important than solving some problems in the world. 

But from this comment:



			
				lauranazario said:
			
		

> Why must the US be every country's "savior"???? LN


 
I said that I think that US, and on the same token, any country which is currently in privileged circunstances due to recent (say 200 years) historic abuses, has some duty to help outside of its soil. 

I avoided saying that just for US, so nobody from that country would feel attacked. Apparently I was not succesful, and sincerely I feel very insulted by the irony and oversimplification done by cuchuflete to my comment.

I was not talking about blaming and guilt. I was talking about world compassion, justice and solidarity. I know we can not change history, but I do not see any sign that history will change its trend in the future.


----------



## Mariaguadalupe

History cannot change itself, _people_ have to change history.  Are we ready to step up to it?  Have we, not only governments, we, mere folk, have done something to change history?

We should seek to change history not only for change itself, but for the betterment of mankind.

Let's mull this one over.


----------



## Lancel0t

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> That is how much the new mission to the moon will cost.
> 
> How many of you think we should (and could with that sum) solve some of the many problems we have in planet earth before enganging on exploring the moon?
> 
> Or, can anyone justify this expenditure?


 
$104,000,000,000 is a huuuuugggeeeeee amount that if it will be used here on earth, it could benefit a lot of third world countries. (I really hope so)  

---
How about this idea, why don't they use that money to find a way to fix the ozone layer or find an alternative way to patch-up the hole? Besides there are a lot of brilliant minds all over the world, they could use that money to save our planet.


----------



## modgirl

Actually, the technology provided by the space program has helped the lives of many average people. I believe the technology for kidney dialysis came from the Apollo program. And, I've read that a new artificial heart came from the technology used in Space Shuttle. 

I'm not a big gung-ho supporter of the space program at all. However, I don't think a lot of people realize what contributions have been made.


----------



## lauranazario

murena said:
			
		

> I think that US, and other countries that have become wealthier through colonisation or occupations (UK, Spain, France, Holland, Russia) do have some duty to help the countries that have been affected.


  What??? So under this premise, Puerto Rico (having once been a Spanish colony) needs to be "paid" some form of "restitution" for having been colonized in the late 1400s? And what would that restitution accomplish??? No amount of money in the world will bring back the indigenous population the Conquistadors *wiped out* either by disease or slavery!!! 
Sorry, but I don't agree with your premise. 
Modern-day societies cannot be forced to "pay" for the sins of their fathers.

Saludos,
LN


----------



## cuchuflete

murena said:
			
		

> As I said, I think the priorities in the world are up side down, when we think that spending money to go to the moon is more important than solving some problems in the world.


 If spending money to go to the moon, or to seek a cure for cancer, or to create economically realistic alternative energy sources, were the only item on the agenda, I would be quick to agree with you. As others have pointed out, scientific exploration, including space exploration, often does result in things that help in "solving some problems in the world.". Until we do the exploration, it's difficult to judge the future contributions that may  result.





> I said that I think that US, and on the same token, any country which is currently in privileged circunstances due to recent (say 200 years) historic abuses, has some duty to help outside of its soil.


 And here I disagree with you. You are attempting to apply today's 'enlightened' standards of good and evil, apply them to the past, and present a bill for payment.
For a start, show me a country that has not been guilty of 'historic abuses', including the two listed in your profile...your countries of birth and of residence. Some of the worst abuses were committed by countries that are not so privileged economically. Do they get a 'free pass' because they didn't manage to combine abuse with commercial perspicacity? 
The argument is like the 'deep pockets' theory of liability lawsuits...just go after those with the ability to pay the most if they lose in court. 





> I avoided saying that just for US, so nobody from that country would feel attacked. Apparently I was not succesful, and sincerely I feel very insulted by the irony and oversimplification done by cuchuflete to my comment.



I am sincerely sorry if you took it personally. I was criticizing the idea presented, which I find ludicrous, and not the presenter.
Anyone who offers such sweeping generalizations of what is morally correct should be prepared to have the idea rebutted. If I offer an idea in a public forum, and the factual or logical underpinnings of that proposition arouse strenuous disagreement and counter-arguments, I am not surprised. Nor am I personally insulted that the rest of the forum didn't simply accept my thoughts as perfect. "Oversimplification" is exactly what I was debating.



> I was not talking about blaming and guilt.


 Horsefeathers!
You have assumed the role of legislator, defining the laws, and then of prosecutor and of judge.  

You have called for reparations, based on what has happened before. Using words like 'abuse' sure seems to be about blame and guilt. 

None of this is in any way personal. I disagree with the premises of an argument, and will not take it as a personal slight if you or any other forero disagrees with me in public or in private. Arguments typically do have more than one side, and a forum is a place to display multiple facets of an issue.


----------



## Swettenham

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> That is how much the new mission to the moon will cost.
> 
> How many of you think we should (and could with that sum) solve some of the many problems we have in planet earth before enganging on exploring the moon?


If by "solve some of the many problems we have on planet earth," you mean improve schools in Washington, DC, then yes.  Those buildings are falling apart.


----------



## Papalote

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> Laura I know exactly what you mean and totally agree with you. The US does not have to save the world with it's money and it has big problems to solve at home. On the other hand, the US affects many countries indirectly and would be "nice" to give something back. I say would be nice, they don't have to but it would be nice. I do, however, disagree with you very last sentence, but that is another topic...
> 
> Papalote, I don't know what you mean, but the mengele experiments come to mind.
> 
> I think that the mission to the moon that will cost $104 billion (BILLION not millions, can you imagine that?) *seems* a little unnecessary when I see things like Katrina, Sofia and now Rita and the health and poverty situation in the US.
> 
> Now, if we really dare to dream and think outside the US, few of those billions of dollars can go a *really* long way in places such as Africa (which is facing the worst of its famines) and countless other places who are indeed desperate.
> 
> I don't know, I guess it would feel like deciding to buy really expensive bubbly or make a charity donation locally or elsewhere....


 
Hi, everybody

Well, yesterday I mentioned the progress that came from war and I had no examples at hand (or in memory, I should say). I had no time to do extensive research, but my memory is somewhat better now and I could mention (to keep within the theme of the $104 billion  ) von Braun and his V bombs which where the stepping stone for USA space machines. Compare it to the millions of dollars which have been poured into cancer research worldwide during peace time and no cure has been found  (I have my doubts about that). Could it be that the pharma industry has found a very lucrative market which it is not willing to give up? Or only gives up when forced by popular (as from the people around the world) outrage? Example, the millions Pfizer has suddently given away in AIDS medication to the African countries. or in Thailand. It seems to me that big biz waits for catastrophes to strike before they make a move to improve our lot!

Come to think of it, IBM kept the records for the Nazis. You mean to tell me that their experience there did not help improve their product to make it what it is now? and that other software (and hardware) companies did not profit from this? and that we aren`t?

And yes, I do think about Mengele, and weep, as well as with the USA's experiment on the effects of atomic radiation on human beings as conducted at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (the government had already conducted experiments in the desert, so the effects on the envrionment only were well known). I never meant to imply that the effects of war were only beneficial. I'm sorry it was taken this way. (But don`t we have atomic energy from that too? Excuse my ignorance on this one  )

It seems to me that humanity, throughout history, has needed to destroy in order to grow, to create. But I am an optimist at heart, and I truly believe that we should put more effort in the mostly human characteristic of longing for adventure, the need for exploring boundaries in order to grow as spiritual and physical beings. There is an innate sense (longing, need ?) in humans to go beyond what we know (okay, perhaps not all humans  ) but isn`t that which has created progress?

I just finished reading a very old book (but younger than me  ) by Josephine Tey (it`s a whodunit) I think first published in 1957. One of her characters, a young adult, describes the heroine (a 40+) as a woman who shouldn`t be forced to become a drudge, becaue she is a woman who should be hacking her way through jungles or scaling precipices or (this phrase really stuck in my mind) *measuring the planets*. Now, doesn`t that describe the USA that we look up to? A little bit, no?

The world has not appointed the USA as its saviour; the various governments since its inception have chosen to self-appoint themselves (the Monroe doctrine comes to mind), but (most of) the world does look up to the USA to fulfill some of its most impossible dreams. After all, it all started with El Quijote, no? 

Not one country by itself can even begin to alleviate the problems that beset the world. But for many of us there is one country (well, until before the Bushes) that could make us dream, and hope.

Well, I've rambled enough...

Take care,

Papalote


----------



## astronauta

Thank you for your answer Papalote, it does seem that way, very very sadly. I just saw The Constant Gardener and cannot help but wonder if there was really another way.

I agree with Murena in the respect that the US benefits immensely from very poor countries and -for example- often breaks international labour laws in order to supply its habitants with very low-priced clothing and things while giving their corporates incredible bonuses, options, etc.

The Corporation movie is the first docco that had made me cry and explains this marvellously.

Cuchu querido, I don't think the moon program is equiparable with Columbus' trip, as we have been to the moon already and know much more than he did about what will be there; also, his expeditions were financed only by providing only the vessels and the food, Spain then benefited on writing of its prisioners of the time and made an unimaginable profit in gold and other goods while raping the colonies.

BTW, other countries, with even bigger problems than the US now have a space program such as India and China.


----------



## modgirl

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> the US [.....] often breaks international labour laws in order to supply its habitants with very low-priced clothing and things


 
Could you please give an example?


----------



## astronauta

Most certainly, there are four documentaries that explain this very clearly:


China Blue: documentary that explains how blue jean manufacturing plants in China operate. Some of the aspects that are reviewed are the conditions in which the workers have to perform their job including the ultra-low wages, crammed shops and 17-hour shifts.
Working man's death: another docco that goes over the conditions in which in which labourers in few countries work.
The Corporation: This one will awake anyone's conscience as it also goes to the environment distructon extent.
The Devil's Miner: how children work the mines of Bolivia.
These are some documents back up my opinions along with independent news sources.


----------



## modgirl

What, specifically, do the international labor laws state?


----------



## GenJen54

> The world has not appointed the USA as its saviour; the various governments since its inception have chosen to self-appoint themselves (the Monroe doctrine comes to mind), but (most of) the world does look up to the USA to fulfill some of its most impossible dreams.


 
Ah, yes! This is part of the great hypocracy. I agree that certain countries "appoint themselves" to be the world's saviours. I also agree the US is among them. But, therein lies the rub. 

If the US steps in to quell a problem in another part of the world, people complain that we are acting arrogant and selfish by attempting to push our democratic agenda. "We don't want you," they cry, "to interfere." However, if the US does not rush to provide immediate assistance for those same coutries, as well as others, when those crises get out of hand, or when natural disasters occur, then we are again criticized for being arrogant and selfish and blamed when we do not do more.

It seems (and I am speaking in generalizations here) that much of the rest of the world wishes to benefit from our riches, yet then wants us to go away when we want to have a say in how those riches are spent, or want to help establish more self-preserving types of governments.

As far as the space program is concerned, while I agree there are other "priority" issues our leaders and elected officials need to explore, the space program has developed, and continues to develop, technologies that are widely applicable in modern society. Here are a few examples I pulled from a page of the NASA website: 

- TV satellite dish;
- Medical imaging using digital infrared images (enhanced CT scans and MRI);
- Bar coding for inventory control in major stores and supermarkets;
- Smoke detectors;
- Flame retardent materials used in fire-fighting suits;
- Cordless tools such as vacuums and power drills;
- Ski boots;
- Joystick controls for video games.

This list is but a small sampling of the types of products that many of us know of and enjoy that were first developed for use in the space program, then re-applied for consumer use.


----------



## astronauta

I don't know specifically Modgirl, but is not certainly 17-hour long days for on dollar a day in a crammed shop with two bathroom breaks a day.

The reason that developed nations resort to third-world countries for manufacturing is because they do not wnat to adhere to the labour laws that they have set for themselves at home for the sake of profit.


----------



## cuchuflete

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> As far as the space program is concerned, while I agree there are other "priority" issues our leaders and elected officials need to explore, the space program has developed, and continues to develop, technologies that are widely applicable in modern society. Here are a few examples I pulled from a page of the NASA website:
> 
> - TV satellite dish;
> - Medical imaging using digital infrared images (enhanced CT scans and MRI);
> - Bar coding for inventory control in major stores and supermarkets;
> - Smoke detectors;
> - Flame retardent materials used in fire-fighting suits;
> - Cordless tools such as vacuums and power drills;
> - Ski boots;
> - Joystick controls for video games.
> 
> This list is but a small sampling of the types of products that many of us know of and enjoy that were first developed for use in the space program, then re-applied for consumer use.



This list may include a few things NASA really helped to develop, but the claim about bar coding is a gross fabrication.  Bar codes were first used in the railroad industry years before NASA got around to noticing them.  Monarch Marking in Miamisburg Ohio invented Codabar for retail merchants, and David Allais thought up Code 39 for purposes that were much broader than any government program.  I could give volumes of facts to make hash of NASA's claim.  It makes me wonder how accurate the other claims are.


----------



## Alundra

In my opinion, all the money investid in science, technology, or any other advance, is good (always).

Of course, there are many necessities they need to be ....covered?, but without investigations, there isn't future.

Besides, we wouldn't are here, talking about this....

Sorry for my mistakes.
Alundra.


----------



## modgirl

astronauta vegetariana said:
			
		

> I don't know specifically Modgirl, but is not certainly 17-hour long days for on dollar a day in a crammed shop with two bathroom breaks a day.


 
I could never argue that those are acceptable conditions. However, if the US is breaking international labour laws, we should be tried in a court of law.

We often hear about the working conditions in other countries, but I'd really love to know what the international laws state.


----------



## astronauta

For Mod: International labour laws


----------



## modgirl

astronauta, thank you very much!  Are there other countries violating those laws, as well?


----------



## astronauta

You are most welcome. I am sure there are, but not as countries but as companies that move a lot of capital and get a blind eye from authorities in sake of economic development and progress. I would suspect that most north-western Europe and Canada are. There is also a market to satisfy too.


----------



## modgirl

Here's what I wonder.  We, as a general society, just love to make rules and regulations and sign pacts and all of that.  Yet, we also seem to violate much of what we've agreed not to do (or to do)!  It all seems like a waste of energy.


----------



## murena

I do not want to be a prosecutor or a legilslator. Neither I am asking for historic repayments and compensation, nor sorting out countries as bad ones or good ones. 

I just think that the money that will be used for the moon program could be spent by the US either to help solving its domestic problems or other overseas priority issues. And specially I think that there are many reasons to spend it on overseas problems. These reasons come from historical and current situations, but from this, I do not mean full compensation.

I give you an example: In Texas, for some degrees, some universities charge tuition to mexican students as if they were american. This gesture comes as a recognition that Texas was once part of Mexico. I know that this is not paying back for the land taken, but I think it is a nice gesture from the Texan universities, something that I relate with the international solidarity that I mentioned in other post. I recommend reading an article called "The Singer solution to world poverty, written by Peter Singer (just google the title and you get it). It helps to understand the moral implications of any spending action (even if is for going to the moon).

And cuchu, sorry if I feel offended. You are right, we are disucussing ideas, it was hard for me at that moment to deal with your irony, but it is ok now. 

Saludos


----------



## cuchuflete

Murena,

Thanks for the recommendation...the article is very thought-provoking and simply and clearly written.  http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/singermag.html 

Un saludo,
Cuchu


----------

