Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacobolus | Hacker News Reader

The point seems to be to cut US scientific capacity (and more generally intellectual research capacity) across the board, as a way of hitting back at "the elites" who have the temerity to call GOP politicians and donors out for their lies and bad behavior.

View on HN

> a way of hitting back at "the elites" who have the temerity to call GOP politicians and donors out for their lies and bad behavior

True for academic institutions. No evidence this is the motivation at NASA. Simpler: science costs money and leadership believes that money is better spent giving folks like me a tax cut than paying for poor folks' healthcare or basic research.

Fortunately, it looks like Beijing is ready to pick up the torch [1].

[1] https://www.fdd.org/analysis/policy_briefs/2025/03/19/aiming...

The cuts to NASA as well as NOAA, NIH, USGS, USDA, FWS, DOE, etc. are not really saving that much money, but are destroying literally trillions of dollars of future economic value (not to mention all sorts of work whose value can't be easily quantified).

Maybe "smashing things and ruining people's lives and work is fun per se" is a better explanation than anything more complicated. Pretty shitty for the rest of us though.

NOAA, NASA, NIH, FWS, and DOE all regularly push how bad the situation is around global climate change. That's likely why they're getting targeted. The GOP's position on climate change is sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming LALALALALA and having credible government agencies pointing out the ongoing effects is detrimental to this strategy.

Meanwhile the USDA, FWS, and DOE do those pesky regulatory things, like making it so you can't torture animals quite as much in the pursuit of profits, can't build coal power plants in the center of national parks, and can't dump raw chemical waste into your local wetlands. Utter killjoys they are.

Like, not meaning to be shitty to you in specific, but it's no secret why these agencies are getting targeted. If you say anything the admin doesn't like, or dare to tell people with money that they can't do literally anything they want at all times irrespective of it's effects on broader society, you've got a target on your back.

I think it’s even simpler: government is seen as bad. The military and some law enforcement are excepted, but otherwise, dismantling government agencies is a goal in and of itself.

I listened to way too much Rush Limbaugh in the 90s and none of this stuff is a surprise. Distressing, but exactly what this particular segment of Republicans have been working towards.

I could buy that argument if it weren't for the disparity in which organizations are being targeted and the degree to which they're being attacked. Getting rid of all government is just the story they use to appease their base.

There's definitely a Venn Diagram intersection of "small government means 'no Science' because it is a 'waste' of money" and "Science is bad because it keeps talking about Climate Change", but it's not clearly all one set or the other of that chart (it's a full union applying pressure here).

> Meanwhile the USDA, FWS, and DOE do those pesky regulatory things

True and that’s awesome. However to put up some of a counter those agencies also over-regulate. Bureaucracy tends to over-expand.

Musks example of SpaceX having to calculate the likelihood of a rocket hitting a shark in the pacific. Musk is certainly exaggerating a bit, but is speaking to a real issue for many businesses struggling to keep up with absurd regulations.

My grandfather fought for years with USFWS to be able to re-build infrastructure for a small town near a popular wilderness area. A small bridge upstream washed away one year and they refused to allow rebuilding it.

The claim was that rebuilding the small bridge would disturb some endangered fish species. So instead hundreds or thousands of vehicles every summer would drive through that small river instead to get to the wilderness area beyond. That created a lot more destruction and impact on the fish. Trucks and vehicles wash off a lot of oil and chemicals like that.

“ However to put up some of a counter those agencies also over-regulate.”

Musk and DOGE had a wonderful opportunity to analyze these issues and address them and improve government efficiency. Instead they opted to cut whatever they didn’t like or couldn’t understand within five minutes. Musk should be deeply ashamed.

I would caveat that further that they seemingly at least in part targeted agencies that were going after his various companies. Coincidentally I'm sure.

Given Space Xs issues in the subsequent years with complying with environmental regulations, it doesn’t seem that ridiculous to me. It’s not as though the shark question was simply posed in a vacuum: it was part of a broader inquiry into potential impacts of launching rockets into space. And Space X wasn’t singled out. Blue Origin had to do the same paperwork, yet bezos didn’t feel the need to whine about it.

Well if the regulators are worried about sharks getting hit by a rocket, then they’re writing terrible environmental review requirements. It makes me skeptical that they’re going to do a good job protecting the environment if they’re asking such ill thought out questions.

Personally I’d hope for competent staff to be creating thoughtful valuable environmental impact surveys. Hence why the pushback on these agencies is valuable. Bureaucracies generally need some sort of pressure to, you know, do a competent job.

  > The cuts to [...] are not really saving that much money, but are destroying literally trillions of dollars of future economic value

I think everyone (or at least the parent) understands that. I mean there's a part that's deeply connected to what I said in another comment[0]

The real issue is essentially: which would you rather have, $1 now or $10 tomorrow?[1]

People see it as savings because they have that money now. That's the way JumpCrisscross used it (and I very much don't think they agree that this is how the gov should be working). But the way you're using it is "I'd rather have the $10 tomorrow".

I'm pointing this out because now people are talking past one another. I'm pointing this out because it is a really common pattern ("now" vs "later") that is used and frequently causes miscommunication due to different assumptions about what we want (e.g. "maximize money now" or "maximize money during x period of time"). Though it doesn't always have to do with money.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44705004

[1] Be careful to not trivialize this. The numbers are abstract as well as the points in time. Also consider that $1 now might be far more valuable than $10 tomorrow. For example, if you get $1 now you might be able to afford a bus ticket to a location where you can get $1m, but only if you get there today. That's worth a lot more than $10 tomorrow. So we have to be mindful of what conditions actually exist if we want to actually communicate. Unfortunately, these are usually assumed and not communicated... The people that want to just take the money are well aware of this tendency...

I'm pretty sure that neither money saved today or tomorrow are factors in these cuts. This administration is out to grief science and scientists--it doesn't matter if it saves money or costs money. The whole point is hostility to science. It's not an economic decision.

  > This administration

I'd like to draw your attention to the last line of [1]

  >> The people that want to just take the money are well aware of this tendency...

Do you think I'm talking about "the administration" or "the people who support the administration"?

If you can't differentiate then we'll only be able to talk past one another

> administration is out to grief science and scientists

Is MAGA messaging on these NASA cuts?

My impression is these cuts are being done in the background. The beasts being fed are the military-industrial complex (specifically, its rotation from legacy providers to Silicon Valley) and ICE.

Grievance politics amplified by an assembly of the most astoundingly dumb people you’ve ever seen behind a podium

That’s it! That’s the strategy!

This apologia for the cuts would be more persuasive if they didn’t come in concert with record-breaking increases to the pentagon budget and historic deficits. There’s no calculation happening here with present or future value, they’re lavishly funding things they like and decimating things they don’t. You don’t place a reality TV ‘star’ as the director of any agency you care about.

  > This apologia for the cut

What gave you the impression I was in favor of the cuts?

Sanewashing would be better word ... it is kneed jerk tendency with anything republicans and especially Trump related. Even when what they do is clearly crap, people find ways to rationalize it and make it sound better then it is.

Sometimes better amounts to "still bad" as in here, but it is still a bunch of claims that make Conservatives lead by Trump sound much better then what they actually are.

And you don't think understanding how people delude themselves is good to 1) convince them 2) not fall prone to the same traps?

I'm not excusing anyone. But you are picking fights with people on your own team. So maybe pay closer attention to what people say and not just signaling. Personally I want to fix things, not pick random needless fights. I want to stop chaos, not create more. Picking fights is just what Trump wants you to do

> And you don't think understanding how people delude themselves is good to 1) convince them 2) not fall prone to the same traps?

I think that if you project wrong motivations on them, you wont understand how they "deluded" themselves nor prevent yourself to fall for the same trap. If their motivation is "scientists are liberals and I want to hurt them" or "I want actually Christian conservative religious state and these institutions are threat to that goal", no amount of theorizing about money saving will get you to the understanding.

If you want to start with understanding someone's motivation, you can not start by projecting best most palatable motivations on them. Nor should you start be projecting worst ones ... but that is NOT where we are or were for years.

For years, conservatives and especially Trump had best possible motivations projected on them. And it only served to their benefit. The whole center ended up not believing their goals, even as they stated or wrote about them regularly. The whole center was busy policing those who actually listened to conservatives and very accurately predicted what they will do. Again and again.

> Personally I want to fix things, not pick random needless fights. I want to stop chaos, not create more.

You are not stopping the chaos by making what is going on more palatable by sane washing it. It just empowers the chaos.

> Picking fights is just what Trump wants you to do

No, Trump want us all to act like republicans do. Never argue with him, enable enable enable. Praise him and kiss his behind.

You're right that's there's a breath of opinions and values but you're wrong to be applying such a broad brush, especially when painting with hate.

If you hate Trump so much I highly suggest not supporting him

This is nonsense. Of course we want to be richer tomorrow than we are today, but we're plenty rich today. We -- the United States -- do not have a cashflow issue. We can meet all of our current obligations -- or could if there were any effort at efficient redistribution at all. The US federal government is maybe the least cashflow-constrained organization in human history. We want the $10 tomorrow, without any question whatsoever.

I'm failing to see what you're arguing against from my comment. What did you think I was arguing?

jacobolus wrote:

> The cuts to NASA as well as NOAA, NIH, USGS, USDA, FWS, DOE, etc. are not really saving that much money, but are destroying literally trillions of dollars of future economic value

You, in reply, wrote:

> The real issue is essentially: which would you rather have, $1 now or $10 tomorrow?[1]

I'm saying you're wrong. There is not a choice to be made. We want the $10 tomorrow. No rational person can disagree with this if the person making the choice is the US federal government, who can spend money into existence. If we have some use for $1 now, just spend that $1 into existence too! Then, tomorrow, we'll have the $10 too!

If you agree with the cuts, you must logically agree that they are a bad investment: that $1 today will net us 75 cents tomorrow.

That wasn't my argument? I think you should look at my last paragraph. It starts with "I'm pointing this out because".

  > We want the $10 tomorrow.

Previously I didn't state my position. You *assumed* my position. So allow me to tell you what it is: I agree, $10 tomorrow is better

  > No rational person can disagree with this

You really should read [1]

Actually, you really should read my whole comment and be careful to not read things my comment doesn't say.

To circle back,

  >> miscommunication due to different assumptions about what we want

A corollary to this is "miscommunication [frequently] happens when we make inaccurate assumptions about the position of others". Let's not go putting words in other people's mouths.

I understood your point. I just couldn't fathom any reason it was in this specific discussion other than as a way to legitimize the cuts as one of several "choices" that could be made depending on the assumptions or predilections of the party choosing. In this case, there are no choices to be made (one of the "choices" is literally better in every way and only a fool wouldn't take it), so any suggestion that there are "sides" to this "argument" is de facto an argument in favor of the cuts, regardless of what you claim to believe.

I understand now that you are just making a semi-wanky abstract point about the nature of rhetoric and descisionmaking for its own sake, and I apologize for misunderstanding this.

I appreciate the apology, even with the snipes. I hope you now can fathom a reason, even if it's hard

NASA is “the elites” in a key area: they’ve done a ton of research confirming climate change is real and impactful. I think the general antipathy for education intersected strongly with the wing of the Republican Party which sees climate change as the enemy both because many of them are funded by fossil fuel companies and because they see all forms of collective action or addressing externalities as an existential threat.

> Simpler: science costs money and leadership believes that money is better spent giving folks like me a tax cut than paying for poor folks' healthcare or basic research.

That's a simple explanation but not a good one. All government salaries across all jobs everywhere in the federal government are about 4% of the federal budget.

The DRPs going on are 100% about "draining the swamp", not saving money. This is literally what the administrators of these agencies are saying on TV news. They think science is biased against their worldviews and they want to replace them.

>that money is better spent giving folks like me a tax cut

The federal government now accepts donations if you don't want the money.

> federal government now accepts donations if you don't want the money

This is silly. I prefer the money be spent on things that have a larger ROI, collectively, than I can attain individually. Destroying the money doesn't achieve that aim.

Well, the rest of us disagree. You need consensus for public institutions and no one on the left or the right has been willing to build that.

Actually, the "rest of us" largely agree, as reflected in the laws our elected representatives have established. We have collectively appropriated the money and set up the institutional framework for spending it. Folks smashing down that system are doing a significant part of it illegally, with no credible justification or public support, in several recent cases in contemptuous violation of direct court orders.

> the rest of us disagree

Irrelevant to the silliness of suggesting destroying money as a solution.

The federal government has, pretty much always, accepted donations, but recently the time and effort were spent to make those contributions available via digital instead of the old check and mail method of yesteryear.

The current government would take any money you give them and give it back to rich people in the form of tax cuts.

So no, I don't want to Venmo cash to somebody who doesn't need it.

That has always effectively been how government programs work, even if they launder it through poor people and immigrants first.

Except for in your example, the poor people and immigrants get to eat and sleep indoors and maybe one day become educated.

I won't make any assumptions about your politics, but I'm assuming that doesn't move the needle for you.

I'd definitely donate if it meant that billionaires also had to give a proportionate amount of their wealth.

I think NASA cuts are about giving money to billionaires, so they can build or expand their capitalist version. Obviously, this will be more efficient because it funnels money to the wealthy directly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com