Hacker News Reader

Comment by ethbr0 | Hacker News Reader

Way to sensationalize a quote into a headline, CNN.

Relevant portion from the article (which itself isn't much more than PR reprint and fluff):

Earlier in the day, during an interview that aired on "New Day," Crane asked Bezos, "There have been a chorus of critics saying that these flights to space are, you know, just joyrides for the wealthy, and that you should be spending your time and your money and energy trying to solve problems here on Earth. So what do you say to those critics?"

Bezos didn't tap dance around the question: He said, "Well, I say they're largely right. We have to do both. You know, we have lots of problems here and now on Earth and we need to work on those, and we always need to look to the future. We've always done that as a species, as a civilization. We have to do both." He said this mission is about "building a road to space for the next generations to do amazing things there, and those amazing things will solve problems here on Earth."

View on HN

> you should be spending your time and your money and energy trying to solve problems here on Earth.

I think that largely misses the point, either on purpose or out of sheer ignorance.

So far the main contention is that they should never have been allowed to amass such insane amount of money that they can have this dystopic billionaire space race. Had they paid better salaries to their employees, kept working conditions sane, had lower working hours, etc etc etc. they might have solved (or at least not created / helped with) many of said problems in the first place.

Edit: typo

I find this logic quite interesting.

Amazon is often the best employer many individuals have ever had in their areas.

> many individuals

What's the proportion of those to the total number of individuals employed, directly or indirectly by them?

Yes, most of the world being so shitty that even Amazon is one of the better employers is one of the problems back on earth that needs to be fixed. It's always a little sad to see some researcher work out a ballpark estimate for (say) giving every child on earth proper healthcare and even the pessimistic estimates are no more than 10% of what the western world spends on cosmetics alone.

That said, I don't begrudge Bezos&Branson their space race hobby. Certainly better than the "who has the biggest yacht" type of shenanigans most rich people get up to.

Apperantly Jeff Bezos has a yacht that is so big that it comes with a smaller support yacht. The small one has a helipad.

Rumor has it that the Evergiven was a trial to see if Bezos could cross the Suez canal on his smaller yacht.

Some say that he could see his yacht from space on his flight. Some even claim that is the only way to see it in full size all at once.

Unsure if you intended with that example, but Bezos is among other things building a half billion USD yacht.

Bezos and Amazon aren't the reason children lack access to proper healthcare and taxing them won't fix that problem.

To provide proper healthcare to every child (and adult) on earth we'd need to stop the people who are currently limiting the availability of healthcare: the hospital cartels preventing the construction of new hospitals, the medical associations preventing the training of more doctors, the pharmaceutical companies preventing the free trade of medicines, and the governments colluding in all that.

But they'll fight that every step of the way and one of them most effective ways they fight it is by talking about money, as if lack of healthcare spending was the problem. It's not. We'd actually spend less on a more accessible healthcare system, because all the people sucking the money and life out of the current system wouldn't be getting richer.

> the governments colluding in all that

What possible incentive do governments worldwide have to actively prevent child healthcare? Even a cold-hearted monster who only cares about money has an economic incentive for the population generally to not die of easily preventable causes before retirement, and would know that letting them die before they enter the workforce is literally the most wasteful option. And almost nobody is that heartless about children.

Unfortunately some politicians care more about money from donors, and the healthcare and pharma lobbies donate a lot of money.

For example, why does the US government sanction countries that import or manufacture generic versions of patented drugs? Manufacturing these lifesaving drugs doesn't cost much. They could be sold much cheaper to a lot more people.

These politicians probably don't think of it as actively preventing healthcare, but medications could be as cheap as Coca Cola if not for laws that prioritize profits over lives.

The healthcare industry does a lot of really shady things, but you're picking the worst example.

No doubt drugs could be cheaper, but denying pharma an incentive to ever develop them is not the answer. Of course manufacturing is cheap, but the research and clinical trials are expensive and have to be paid for somehow. Focusing on only the manufacturing costs is a bizarre combination of dumb and disingenuous.

> denying pharma an incentive to ever develop them is not the answer

Research needs an incentive. It doesn't have to include a for-profit pharma company. Quite a bit of the research is publicly funded anyway, so why not publically fund the clinical trials as well? The answer, of course, is that people who are making money off the current system won't let things change.

Ignoring the people dying because they can't afford to pay for the research is heartless. A previous post suggested "almost nobody is that heartless about children", but it appears the people in charge really are that heartless.

Trials also need incentive. Everything does. Is your answer is to nationalize everything? If not, where do you draw the line? The world doesn't work the way you want it to and you're not making a real argument that it should.

More people die if research isn't done _and_ developed. In no way does just not paying improve the situation.

"Think of the children" is just an empty appeal to emotion over reason. Great indicator of a bad faith argument though.

I think it's reasonable to nationalize everything that saves lives. That's where I would draw the line. I support public pharma research (and trials, and drug development, and other expenses) for the same reason I support public healthcare and public firefighting.

Remember that once upon a time, firefighting companies would stand outside a burning building and watch it burn until the owner paid up? That's pretty much the current situation with healthcare - the healthcare and pharma companies just watch patients die if they can't afford to pay.

But nationalization isn't my suggestion for the problem of pharma patents preventing healthcare in impoverished countries. For that, just let those countries ignore US patents. They don't have a lot of money anyway, so allowing them to use lifesaving medications would not imperil pharma research.

Of course you're right, the world doesn't work the way I want it to, but I think saving lives is an excellent argument why it should.

If you think that's "bad faith" or "an empty appeal to emotion over reason", then there's really nothing more to say.

So, you think Bezos is ignorant because he didn't answer a question he wasn't asked? Or is it that the journalist is ignorant for asking the wrong question?

Since I quoted part of the journalist's question and nothing of Bezos's answer, it stands to reason that I was talking about the journalist.

You're pointing out a possible avenue for using wealth to fix problems on earth, which would fall within the realm of possible answers to the journalist's question. That being the case, your comment looks far more like an alternative answer than an alternative question.

No, I'm discussing the dialogue between the journalist and Bezos.

The journalist asked a question with 2 possible scenarios:

- Bezos spends his money on space race; or

- Bezos spends his money fixing problems on Earth.

He also sugests the second option is what the critics are asking for.

I'm saying most criticisms I've seen are much broader than that, and if that world view was true, neither option would exist in the first place.

This is a problem because it lets Bezos off the hook about the bigger issue, and passes the responsibility of solvin humanity's problems to billionaires who shouldn't exist in the first place.

This is the dystopic part - relying on a small amount of people with overwhelming power amassed largely through no merit of their own (inheritance, tax avoidance, neo-feudal-like employment/exploitation of others) to fix the very problems that allowed them to be in that position.

This is the question that should have been asked. I suspect either ignorance of the journalist or pre-screened questions only allowing the ones who wouldn't put Bezos in an awkward position but of course I can't be sure.

> No, I'm discussing the dialogue between the journalist and Bezos

Well, yeah, did I suggest you weren't? I'm aware of the topic we're discussing.

>This is a problem because it lets Bezos off the hook about the bigger issue, and passes the responsibility of solvin humanity's problems to billionaires who shouldn't exist in the first place.

Whether or not they should exist is an opinion. The question was about a different opinion that some people have. What makes your opinion (that billionaires shouldn't exist) more important than the opinion that the journalist was referencing (that since they do exist they should use their wealth to different ends)?

> This is the question that should have been asked.

What answer would you expect Bezos to give that would make it a better question?

At this point I'm just wondering if you're actually serious and didn't read or misinterpreted what I wrote, or just trolling. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and still answer this time.

> did I suggest you weren't?

Yes, you did, here: > You're pointing out a possible avenue for using wealth to fix problems on earth

I was not. I was questioning the scenario posed by the journalist and how it doesn't fit the debate I see happening.

> Whether or not they should exist is an opinion.

Yes, but in this context we're not talking about my opinion, so I don't really understand what you're arguing about.

A more complete quote of that part of the question is: "There have been a chorus of critics saying that these flights to space are, you know, just joyrides for the wealthy, and that you should be spending your time and your money and energy trying to solve problems here on Earth."

So the journalist is acting as a proxy of, yes, the opinion, of "a chorus of critics".

What I'm saying is that this seems misguided/ignorant/malicious (I don't know which) given that most of the criticism I have seen is NOT about how billionaires should spend their wealth but rather criticising the very conditions that make this question or choice exist in the first place - the very existance of a tiny number of extremelly wealthy persons, mostly amassed by

> What answer would you expect Bezos to give that would make it a better question?

I have no expectations, and I am not Bezos to know what he thinks. I imagine he'd just deflect but I can't know unless the question is actually asked and he's given a chance to respond.

Essentially what I'm discussing is how the whole thing seems nonsensical and just a farce to let Bezos mostly off the hook, whereas you seem to be questioning my opinions about the subject matter of the interview.

My actual opinion is that the interview is based on bad premises and should be discarded altogether.

I'm just confused. You're giving an opinion that falls within the realm of answers to the question (it's yours but also not what you were trying to say?), zooming out to a different topic, saying it's the more important debate, then saying that the journalist not being of the same opinion is either malicious malicious or ignorant. Right?

If so, ok. I disagree, but ok.

Not quite. I'm not giving an opinion. I'm stating an observation (that the debate I've seen has been mostly about questioning the existence of this mega-wealthy class rather than about how they should use the money they have).

Based on that observation, I then proceeded to say that the question is based on false premises and as such is not a good question as it can only have a meaningless answer.

Another commenter mentioned the debate they've seen is more inline with what's in the question, and that's a fair observation. If that's the case and my observation is biased in the wrong way, then the question is ok.

> I'm not giving an opinion.

Maybe that's the source of our miscommunication.

> Based on that observation, I then proceeded to say that the question is based on false premises > If that's the case and my observation is biased in the wrong way, then the question is ok.

Because that falls into my definition of an opinion.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions.

> I'm saying most criticisms I've seen are much broader than that, and if that world view was true, neither option would exist in the first place.

Not the case for me

> billionaires who shouldn't exist in the first place

100% your opinion and is completely separate from the criticism that billionaires should spend their wealth solving earth's problems

So you had a completely different question than the "journalist." Get upset that this journalist didn't answer the question you wanted asked, but don't speak for the rest of the viewership.

> Not the case for me

Fair enough. I did say "most criticisms I've seen".

> 100% your opinion

That may or may not be the case. It's not what I'm arguing about though. I'm saying it doesn't match the meat of the debate I have seen.

When you said "not the case for me", that's definitely a relevant data point. The rest of this thread is not.

Journalists today are such hacks. The whole "So and so is saying.... How would you like to respond?" Is so weak.

As a journalist, do your research. If you have a question, ask YOUR question.

He's really trying hard to cast billionaire space hops as something with the same scientific and societal impact as the space race.

But what he and Branson are doing has none of that R&D that defined the space age, where innovations in materials and technology found real-world applications and became everyday objects for common people. All they're doing is spending millions of dollars doing something that has already been perfectly possible for over 70 years.

There's no innovation or societal benefit to their private joyrides.

How much UK tax dollars did Branson end up securing from his tax haven to keep virgin afloat? Anyone know? I'd assume it was zero it was such an hideous thing to try on - your tax should save my wealth while I don't pay it. But we seem to have lost sense about these things at times.

It's worth noting that Elon, for all his faults, does seem to be leading innovation. But I agree with you about Branson and Bezos.

I think it's a shame that people have bundled Elon into the Bezos / Branson battle. What Musk is doing is far more useful (and has been for a while now) than the measuring contest that's happening between the other two.

Don't forget about competition. It's a good thing that Musk has both Bezos and Branson biting his ass from their own rockets, if not only for PR.

Two questions regarding Musk that people should ask more often:

1. If the public money being thrown at SpaceX were redirected, what could NASA (or other private companies) do with it?

2. If the administrators of NASA collected $80B (combined) in salary and bonuses last year, largely from public coffers, would that be considered reasonable?

Isn't the public money being thrown at SpaceX through NASA?

NASA knows exactly what they're buying. They've just become such a bureaucratic, top-heavy, risk-adverse organization (by Congressional design) that it's a better deal to outsource pieces to SpaceX.

They've always outsourced most of their stuff, to Boeing et al. Now they have a company to outsource stuff to that is 10x more efficient and will actually invent new systems.

I would say the difference is fixed-cost vs cost-plus contracts. Paying for the development or paying for the result with less constraints on how it is achieved. Look how hard Boeing has stumbled trying fixed-cost with Starliner.

Except for bigger, better more efficient engines :

Although Raptors are a great achievement, their design if used alone is not made for bigger loads. SpaceX is stacking them now for larger ships. Hopefully the whole system will prove reliable on higher flights, and a different design won't be needed.

Are you saying risk-adverse is a bad thing?

The total NASA budget is 22bn, so how can they be paying 80bn to administrators?

Whilst at the same time endorsing coups because that country's interests didn't align with his private interests.

Elon Musk is not a net positive for humanity.

https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/elon-musk-confesses-to-l...

I don’t like the endorsement of coups. I’ve seen plenty of other boring ordinary people also endorse coups and other political violence in much the same way as that tweet did, so (sadly) that isn’t a differentiator.

(That said, while I’d like to be part of the first wave of Mars colonists, my concern with his politics make me not want it if he’s in charge of much more than the logistics).

> plenty of other boring ordinary people also endorse coups and other political violence in much the same way as that tweet did

Do these people have the same amount of power and influence as Musk? If they don't that's very much a differentiator.

His influence is a multiplier for his attitude, the good-bad-ness of the attitude matches baseline humanity so it makes no difference in that regard.

His power is a multiplier for his actions, which are better than average, and so in that regard makes him a net positive.

If it turns out I’m being overly pessimistic about human attitudes, the result can be inverted.

I do believe that most people don't endorse coups. In fact, I suspect most people actively condemn them, or at least most people who actually have an opinion on the matter. His words have the power to swing this in the other direction.

Regardless, even if the proportions are inverted, his words have the power to strengthen the pro-coup numbers, which is not the same as keeping baseline humanity numbers and certainly makes a difference.

In any case, by condemning an entire country of roughly 11 million people to live under the rule of a foreign-backed government against the people's will is always going to be a net negative, regardless of other endeavours.

Since this is a matter of opinion (what's positive, what's negative, how much weight each action has on either direction, etc. is very much subjective), it seems like we simply disagree.

We haven't even entered the real "Space Age." Commoditization of space flight is an important step. Call it whatever you want, it might be frivolous for Bezos and Branson to be the ones going into space, but who cares? It's such a small aspect of what's going on behind the scenes, where we have several private companies pouring billions into research of space flight.

> But what he and Branson are doing has none of that R&D that defined the space age, where innovations in materials and technology found real-world applications and became everyday objects for common people.

Except that these companies absolutely are doing R&D. We don't know what sort of "real world applications" might come from it in the future. We do know that right now, it's extremely expensive and difficult to go into space for anyone. Hopefully in the future going into space will become more than an expensive hobby for billionaires, but you can't get there without investment into space exploration.

> All they're doing is spending millions of dollars doing something that has already been perfectly possible for over 70 years.

Yet we still haven't returned to the moon and haven't gone to Mars, or to an asteroid, or to really anything else in that time. Being able to do it and it become a thing that we do are two different things entirely. We can't rely solely on NASA for innovations in space flight, especially when its funding can be stripped and killed off on the whim of a President, like Obama's disastrously bad space policy did during his presidency.

All smartphone companies did was the same thing anyone could do in 1970 with a truck sized computer and radio tower.

Doing the same thing but 10x cheaper is progress, also makes the thing that's 10x too expensive that's never been done before possible.

Virgin Galactic and Virgin Orbit are making air launches easy, but they're not the first.

Pegasus first flew in 1990, released at 12km, can launch 443 kg into orbit for $56 million.

Virgin's LauncherOne, releases at 10.7km, can carry 500kg into orbit for $12 million

The entire reason NASA was down-prioritized and had finding stripped is because of wealthy private interests, who wanted that pie to go to them for profit, rather than to a public agency.

And because the US only cares to do anything if there's a competition involved, the fall of the Soviet Union meant that politicians didn't really care anymore, they got lazy and lost their ambitions. Now China (and India) and speeding up and leaving the US in the dust.

The money spent on private space exploration could be spent much better on public research and space exploration, with international space agencies working together, instead of funding billionaire joyrides and further lining their pockets with money they can barely figure out how to spend.

The fact that NASA was defunded on the whim of the president is a strong indication that no, that money couldn't be spent much better on public research and space exploration because that money never got there. Obama's policies set NASA back a lot.

We absolutely need private companies vying for better space capability. We would have to send someone, whether it be billionaires or someone else up into space to facilitate that. That money would be spent regardless, so why does it matter that Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson are doing it rather than any random person?

The goal is to get to the point where it's no longer remarkable to travel through space.

The influence of private corporations are the reason why NASA was stripped of funding, because of lobbyism and having politicians in their pockets.

It's the same old game, lobby for politicians to reduce funding to public agencies and institutions, demand ever-higher profits and put hack-and-slash stooges in charge.

Then after a few years of letting them struggle, publicly declare the public sector horribly inefficient and call for widespread privatization, with the contracts coincidentally going to your biggest sponsors.

The USPS is just the latest in a long lineup of examples of this method. It's corruption, pure and simple.

"possible" has a financial component. They're making a lot of things possible by reducing costs.

Several of the major technological innovations in history are a case of doing something "already possible" at a reduced cost: electric light, printing press, refrigerator...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com