that man meat rocket is blasting off shortly. Regardless of what you think of Bezos this is a pretty cool moment, particularly for Wally Funk. She was part of Mercury 13 in the 60's which Nasa cancelled before the women finishing training. By the time she qualified she was too old (in the 90's I think) and now she finally gets to go to space at 82.
Side note I just watched "For All Mankind" on Apple TV which goes into the backstory of that program in part (blended with alt-history) - excellent show.
Live Feed - (
New Window )
We're probably another 60 years from the 'common man' going to space.
Not just that, but what's the point of the "common man" going into space if it is just to fly up, have some weightlessness and come back? If it is to visit a moon colony or something, I get it. To take a joy ride? Not anything the "common man" is ever going to do before there are other reasons to fly up there
Or they just want to take joy rides.
Quote:
common folks going to space is pretty laughable.
Not just that, but what's the point of the "common man" going into space if it is just to fly up, have some weightlessness and come back? If it is to visit a moon colony or something, I get it. To take a joy ride? Not anything the "common man" is ever going to do before there are other reasons to fly up there
The billionaires will need someone to mine the asteroids they capture!
Or they just want to take joy rides.
What? It would cost far more to get the workers to space than they'd possibly save in taxes or unions.
Short term - it's all about their egos or if you want to be kind to them, maybe about fulfilling some childhood dreams.
Long term - potential for massive profits if they can mine asteroids for rare metals.
"The only way that I can see to deploy this much financial resource is by converting my Amazon winnings into space travel. That is basically it," Bezos says in an interview with Axel Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner, published by Business Insider on Saturday.
This is the only way? Not curing cancer or Alzheimer’s or a hundred other horrible diseases? Not ending hunger throughout the world? Not developing alternative energies? Not a million other things that the richest man in the world could throw untold billions at, but the same thing every other Bond villain wannabe billionaire is doing? Whatever.
"The only way that I can see to deploy this much financial resource is by converting my Amazon winnings into space travel. That is basically it," Bezos says in an interview with Axel Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner, published by Business Insider on Saturday.
This is the only way? Not curing cancer or Alzheimer’s or a hundred other horrible diseases? Not ending hunger throughout the world? Not developing alternative energies? Not a million other things that the richest man in the world could throw untold billions at, but the same thing every other Bond villain wannabe billionaire is doing? Whatever.
I agree that's a pretty tone-deaf statement, but he is developing alternative energy. General Fusion is one of the front runners for a commercially viable fusion plant.
General Fusion
"The only way that I can see to deploy this much financial resource is by converting my Amazon winnings into space travel. That is basically it," Bezos says in an interview with Axel Springer CEO Mathias Döpfner, published by Business Insider on Saturday.
This is the only way? Not curing cancer or Alzheimer’s or a hundred other horrible diseases? Not ending hunger throughout the world? Not developing alternative energies? Not a million other things that the richest man in the world could throw untold billions at, but the same thing every other Bond villain wannabe billionaire is doing? Whatever.
Agreed. And, while it is pretty cool, can you really call this ‘space travel’ or a ‘space flight’? To me, this seems like the equivalent of getting half way past first base with a girl in high school and then claiming you went all the way.
Phil Hughes
@PJHughes45
·
14m
Everything about this spectacle is pure hilarity. Bezos went to space in a giant penis with his brother and an old lady for 2 min. Then proceeded to touch down safely in the dickhead where 2 stairs were awaiting their arrival to step down a ft and a half
Agreed. And, while it is pretty cool, can you really call this ‘space travel’ or a ‘space flight’? To me, this seems like the equivalent of getting half way past first base with a girl in high school and then claiming you went all the way.
Ask Alan Shepherd.
Quote:
Agreed. And, while it is pretty cool, can you really call this ‘space travel’ or a ‘space flight’? To me, this seems like the equivalent of getting half way past first base with a girl in high school and then claiming you went all the way.
Ask Alan Shepherd.
He walked on the moon...
Quote:
Agreed. And, while it is pretty cool, can you really call this ‘space travel’ or a ‘space flight’? To me, this seems like the equivalent of getting half way past first base with a girl in high school and then claiming you went all the way.
Ask Alan Shepherd.
I get your point but, really don’t see the parallels. What Shepherd did was ground (space?) breaking at the time for the US. Being the first American to do it means a lot. This just seems like a mega rich guy who did it because he could so he could check off another thing on his bucket list.
Really? Think of it this way:
1. 50-60 years ago sending 'regular' people to space was laughable.
2. 5 years ago landing a first stage booster was unheard of, now it happens so much, nobody cares.
3. If we went from landing on the moon to private citizens giving space 'just the tip' in a giant penis rocket in 50 years +/-, what do you think the next 50 years has in store?
Costs will continue to go down as the industry innovates/matures. Everything that is standard now for the common folks started off as a rich person toy. Just look at the evolution of cars, all the stuff that is standard today started off as luxury options in high end cars.
You really think this charade of joyrides to the edge of the atmosphere is going to continue?
One article I have read is that they reduced the cost of space travel by a factor of 44 from what the government was spending.
I'm a doctor, not an Amazon delivery driver.
One article I have read is that they reduced the cost of space travel by a factor of 44 from what the government was spending.
I think the opinion was aimed at Bezos acting as if the only place worthwhile to spend his money was in the area of space travel.
Quote:
common folks going to space is pretty laughable.
Really? Think of it this way:
1. 50-60 years ago sending 'regular' people to space was laughable.
2. 5 years ago landing a first stage booster was unheard of, now it happens so much, nobody cares.
3. If we went from landing on the moon to private citizens giving space 'just the tip' in a giant penis rocket in 50 years +/-, what do you think the next 50 years has in store?
Costs will continue to go down as the industry innovates/matures. Everything that is standard now for the common folks started off as a rich person toy. Just look at the evolution of cars, all the stuff that is standard today started off as luxury options in high end cars.
In other news the earth is flat!
One article I have read is that they reduced the cost of space travel by a factor of 44 from what the government was spending.
My opinion is that, it’s money that could be spent to further the research and potentially reducing the effect of, or eradicating things like diseases (cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer’s, etc.) or hunger. Is traveling to space cool? Of course. Is it necessary? Not really. It’s nice that they brought the cost of traveling to space down but, if that money were spent on say, cancer research or cancer drugs, it likely could’ve reduced the costs of treatment and those drugs for people who get crippled with debt simply because they want to live.
But, again, that’s just my opinion.
Whatever man. I’m not putting on those sun glasses. And you can’t make me!
Quote:
common folks going to space is pretty laughable.
Really? Think of it this way:
1. 50-60 years ago sending 'regular' people to space was laughable.
2. 5 years ago landing a first stage booster was unheard of, now it happens so much, nobody cares.
3. If we went from landing on the moon to private citizens giving space 'just the tip' in a giant penis rocket in 50 years +/-, what do you think the next 50 years has in store?
Costs will continue to go down as the industry innovates/matures. Everything that is standard now for the common folks started off as a rich person toy. Just look at the evolution of cars, all the stuff that is standard today started off as luxury options in high end cars.
You are greatly underestimating the amount of resources necessary to launch a person into space. SpaceX's rockets take 902,000 pounds of fuel to launch into sub orbital space. At what point is a million pounds of fuel going to become affordable for an average person. This isn't TVs and Phones getting smaller and cheaper and the internet getting faster and faster. There are immutable laws of physics involved in launching a person into space and the resources required will only ever be affordable to wealthy folks.
Shit.
Quote:
that Bezos, Branson, Musk should be spending the money on curing cancer, hunger, and homelessness rather than spending money on space travel.
One article I have read is that they reduced the cost of space travel by a factor of 44 from what the government was spending.
My opinion is that, it’s money that could be spent to further the research and potentially reducing the effect of, or eradicating things like diseases (cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer’s, etc.) or hunger. Is traveling to space cool? Of course. Is it necessary? Not really. It’s nice that they brought the cost of traveling to space down but, if that money were spent on say, cancer research or cancer drugs, it likely could’ve reduced the costs of treatment and those drugs for people who get crippled with debt simply because they want to live.
But, again, that’s just my opinion.
So, it's ok when the government spends their money on space travel, but we expect private citizens to eradicate these social issues? Sorry, private citizens have the right to spend money however they want.
Or they just want to take joy rides.
follow the money.
Quote:
In comment 15308632 KDavies said:
Quote:
that Bezos, Branson, Musk should be spending the money on curing cancer, hunger, and homelessness rather than spending money on space travel.
One article I have read is that they reduced the cost of space travel by a factor of 44 from what the government was spending.
My opinion is that, it’s money that could be spent to further the research and potentially reducing the effect of, or eradicating things like diseases (cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer’s, etc.) or hunger. Is traveling to space cool? Of course. Is it necessary? Not really. It’s nice that they brought the cost of traveling to space down but, if that money were spent on say, cancer research or cancer drugs, it likely could’ve reduced the costs of treatment and those drugs for people who get crippled with debt simply because they want to live.
But, again, that’s just my opinion.
So, it's ok when the government spends their money on space travel, but we expect private citizens to eradicate these social issues? Sorry, private citizens have the right to spend money however they want.
Nobody is saying he doesn't have the right to spend the money how he wants. But this is what he said
"“I’m pursuing this work, because I believe if we don’t we will eventually end up with a civilization of stasis, which I find very demoralizing,” he said about his goals of space exploration — and eventually colonization. “I am very lucky that I feel like I have a mission-driven purpose with Blue Origin that is, I think, incredibly important for civilization long term. And I am going to use my financial lottery winnings from Amazon to fund that.”"
If you're gonna sit there and say "i'm helping civilization with my space race project" then you open yourself to criticism from folks who feel that it's likely not that helpful at all to the non-billionaires in the world. He opened himself to this.
We both agreed that "orbital joyride" wasn't one of our interests.
We dig amazon and audible and the cool stuff amazon is trying to get into. We love what Elon is doing by creating several game changing technologies/product/companies. So no hate on those two billionaires (though we both agree though that zuckerberg is a huge douche canoe, as are seemingly most public figure billionaires).
No one wants to pay anyone. That's the problem in my eyes. Inflation goes up. Pay stays the same. Housing goes up. Pay stays the same. Want to earn a degree? You're 100K in debt at the very least. Fresh out of college and want to earn a living? Good luck with that. You're going to have to starve for 5-10 years.
It's all rigged. People are seeing that now.
I'm a huge proponent of space exploration and people spending their money however they want, but if Bezos is going to claim that he's doing this for altruistic reasons then he opens himself up to criticism.
You really think this charade of joyrides to the edge of the atmosphere is going to continue?
Yes. We aren't going to colonize Mars or the moon anytime soon, so I think this type of toursim is the only viable option.
SpaceX is sending private citizens around the world in a couple of months. If their starship test is viable that gives a legitiamte path to tourism to the moon and back.
I think you will have many tiers of space tourism: Virgin Galactic as the 'cheapest' and then the Blue Origin/SpaceX model that will let you go higher into space, orbit the earth, or eventually land on the moon and come back.
I think the allure of space is strong since so few people have left the earth that people will pay money to do something that so few have done so far. It will be interesting to watch how the space toursim market matures; which in itself will drive space craft innovation.
Actually, it doesn't seem that you do.
Quote:
In comment 15308495 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
common folks going to space is pretty laughable.
Really? Think of it this way:
1. 50-60 years ago sending 'regular' people to space was laughable.
2. 5 years ago landing a first stage booster was unheard of, now it happens so much, nobody cares.
3. If we went from landing on the moon to private citizens giving space 'just the tip' in a giant penis rocket in 50 years +/-, what do you think the next 50 years has in store?
Costs will continue to go down as the industry innovates/matures. Everything that is standard now for the common folks started off as a rich person toy. Just look at the evolution of cars, all the stuff that is standard today started off as luxury options in high end cars.
You are greatly underestimating the amount of resources necessary to launch a person into space. SpaceX's rockets take 902,000 pounds of fuel to launch into sub orbital space. At what point is a million pounds of fuel going to become affordable for an average person. This isn't TVs and Phones getting smaller and cheaper and the internet getting faster and faster. There are immutable laws of physics involved in launching a person into space and the resources required will only ever be affordable to wealthy folks.
It's not going to stay that way forever. Every single part of a rocket besides the capsule used to be wasted; now they are innovating to make it all reusable. Imagine how expensive air travel would be if the planes were one use?
Viable electric cars were non-existent 50 years ago; you don't think that the propulsion systems will continue to evolve to get cheaper and more viable? That new technologies will evolve to solve these problems?
Octogenarian Vermont Progressives!!
Quote:
In comment 15308632 KDavies said:
Quote:
that Bezos, Branson, Musk should be spending the money on curing cancer, hunger, and homelessness rather than spending money on space travel.
One article I have read is that they reduced the cost of space travel by a factor of 44 from what the government was spending.
My opinion is that, it’s money that could be spent to further the research and potentially reducing the effect of, or eradicating things like diseases (cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer’s, etc.) or hunger. Is traveling to space cool? Of course. Is it necessary? Not really. It’s nice that they brought the cost of traveling to space down but, if that money were spent on say, cancer research or cancer drugs, it likely could’ve reduced the costs of treatment and those drugs for people who get crippled with debt simply because they want to live.
But, again, that’s just my opinion.
So, it's ok when the government spends their money on space travel, but we expect private citizens to eradicate these social issues? Sorry, private citizens have the right to spend money however they want.
I don’t expect them to. It’s their money so, of course how they spend it is their prerogative. Just my opinion that it could probably be better spent elsewhere based on Bezos’ comment, that’s all.
Quote:
In comment 15308618 BH28 said:
Quote:
In comment 15308495 Heisenberg said:
Quote:
common folks going to space is pretty laughable.
Really? Think of it this way:
1. 50-60 years ago sending 'regular' people to space was laughable.
2. 5 years ago landing a first stage booster was unheard of, now it happens so much, nobody cares.
3. If we went from landing on the moon to private citizens giving space 'just the tip' in a giant penis rocket in 50 years +/-, what do you think the next 50 years has in store?
Costs will continue to go down as the industry innovates/matures. Everything that is standard now for the common folks started off as a rich person toy. Just look at the evolution of cars, all the stuff that is standard today started off as luxury options in high end cars.
You are greatly underestimating the amount of resources necessary to launch a person into space. SpaceX's rockets take 902,000 pounds of fuel to launch into sub orbital space. At what point is a million pounds of fuel going to become affordable for an average person. This isn't TVs and Phones getting smaller and cheaper and the internet getting faster and faster. There are immutable laws of physics involved in launching a person into space and the resources required will only ever be affordable to wealthy folks.
It's not going to stay that way forever. Every single part of a rocket besides the capsule used to be wasted; now they are innovating to make it all reusable. Imagine how expensive air travel would be if the planes were one use?
Viable electric cars were non-existent 50 years ago; you don't think that the propulsion systems will continue to evolve to get cheaper and more viable? That new technologies will evolve to solve these problems?
It's going to take an incredible technological leap in propulsion to change the math on this. There's nothing that I've seen from Blue Origin that would indicate that they're doing anything that would revolutionize propulsion like that. It simply takes an incredible amount of energy to put something in space, reusuable spacecraft or not. That math will not change anytime soon. It's not analogous to electric cars.
I thought it was pretty cool. It's one step above the Disney's Mission Space ride;).
It's cool that they can land the rocket back down on earth and re-use it.
I'm optimistic that trend will continue as more companies get in the game.
It's funny we think that commercial aviation is affordable, but according to Boeing:
How many of that 80% think that commercial aviation is for rich people?
Furthermore, air travel isn't expensive - in fact, it is quite affordable.
The estimate that 80% of people have never flown comes from a lot of factors, including no need to ever travel a significant difference or doing so through other means. My Grandmother grew up in Italy and never flew on a plane. she came here by boat. Many people in certain countries never care to leave the country. Lack of wealth is probably significantly down on the list of reasons people don't travel by plane.
I personally think we should be able to do this and solve pressing issues at the same time, Bezos is not and should not be the resource we count on to solve the energy issue, climate change or cancer.
Quote:
isn't if it will be possible for "common folk" to go into space - the point is why would that ever happen unless it was for a larger purpose of travel to a destination?
You really think this charade of joyrides to the edge of the atmosphere is going to continue?
Yes. We aren't going to colonize Mars or the moon anytime soon, so I think this type of toursim is the only viable option.
SpaceX is sending private citizens around the world in a couple of months. If their starship test is viable that gives a legitiamte path to tourism to the moon and back.
I think you will have many tiers of space tourism: Virgin Galactic as the 'cheapest' and then the Blue Origin/SpaceX model that will let you go higher into space, orbit the earth, or eventually land on the moon and come back.
I think the allure of space is strong since so few people have left the earth that people will pay money to do something that so few have done so far. It will be interesting to watch how the space toursim market matures; which in itself will drive space craft innovation.
Perhaps I've watched too many distopian sci fi movies, but I cannot help to think that this is the first step to a space station inhabited by the 1% when the Earth becomes uninhabitable.
I'm optimistic that trend will continue as more companies get in the game.
It's funny we think that commercial aviation is affordable, but according to Boeing:
Quote:
"Less than 20 percent of the world's population has ever taken a single flight, believe it or not. This year alone, 100 million people in Asia will fly for the first time."
How many of that 80% think that commercial aviation is for rich people?
You can be optimistic all you want. If you can't change the math from hundreds of thousands of pounds of fuel per person then it ain't happening. You'd need the kind of breakthrough that is not on the horizon.
Quote:
But when I look at how far we've come from early 1900s, from a transportation perspective, the amount of change innovation since then in such a short time of human existence is incredible.
I'm optimistic that trend will continue as more companies get in the game.
It's funny we think that commercial aviation is affordable, but according to Boeing:
Quote:
"Less than 20 percent of the world's population has ever taken a single flight, believe it or not. This year alone, 100 million people in Asia will fly for the first time."
How many of that 80% think that commercial aviation is for rich people?
You can be optimistic all you want. If you can't change the math from hundreds of thousands of pounds of fuel per person then it ain't happening. You'd need the kind of breakthrough that is not on the horizon.
No one is talking about tomorrow. It's certainly possible in the next 50 years or so. You think anyone in 1920 thought it was even possible to land on the moon?
When you expand your horizon to realize how quickly technology changes in a short period of time of humanity, it gives reason to be optimistic that new technologies will make the math pencil out.
Furthermore, air travel isn't expensive - in fact, it is quite affordable.
The estimate that 80% of people have never flown comes from a lot of factors, including no need to ever travel a significant difference or doing so through other means. My Grandmother grew up in Italy and never flew on a plane. she came here by boat. Many people in certain countries never care to leave the country. Lack of wealth is probably significantly down on the list of reasons people don't travel by plane.
Yeah. The first time I was on a plane in my life, I was 26. Never really had any urge to travel until I was 25.
No one is talking about tomorrow. It's certainly possible in the next 50 years or so. You think anyone in 1920 thought it was even possible to land on the moon?
When you expand your horizon to realize how quickly technology changes in a short period of time of humanity, it gives reason to be optimistic that new technologies will make the math pencil out.
I admire your optimism. Unfortunately, I don't share it.
As an aside, yes, people did think that a rocket could land on the moon. about 50 years later they were right. - ( New Window )
Furthermore, air travel isn't expensive - in fact, it is quite affordable.
The estimate that 80% of people have never flown comes from a lot of factors, including no need to ever travel a significant difference or doing so through other means. My Grandmother grew up in Italy and never flew on a plane. she came here by boat. Many people in certain countries never care to leave the country. Lack of wealth is probably significantly down on the list of reasons people don't travel by plane.
If the majority of people don't need to travel by plane, then the same would hold true for space. But people still do it and there is still a market for it. If commerical aviation is successful with 20% capture rate, space tourism can be as well with even less capture at more expensive rates.
There are entire industries built on commercial aviation tourism; site seeing helicopters in Hawaii, grand canyon, etc. This gives access to areas that are impossible to access from the ground or very challenging.
If the long term goal is to build a moon base or something like that, it's going to draw a large tourism faction. These commercial opportunities now allow for the industry to become safer and more generally acceptable for future generations.
Look how safe air travel is compared to is inception. Space travel would need to build that same confidence.
There is an entire computer game about traveling to Oregon in a covered wagon and not dying from dysentery, now it's not laughable that that was a thing. This is the first step to normalizing that same experience for space, IMO.
I'm not defending how Jeff spends his money, I'm taking a long view approach to it.
You'd likely need a launch vehicle that's >10x the size of the current vehicles before the price/person dropped considerably. Will it happen eventually? Absolutely, but I doubt anyone outside of the top 1% (maybe top 5% if they want to blow their savings) is venturing into space anytime in my life (I'm 37).
Quote:
just a factor of wealth. There are many reasons for air travel. There will only be a singular reason for space travel if it is to orbit the Earth and not go to a destination.
Furthermore, air travel isn't expensive - in fact, it is quite affordable.
The estimate that 80% of people have never flown comes from a lot of factors, including no need to ever travel a significant difference or doing so through other means. My Grandmother grew up in Italy and never flew on a plane. she came here by boat. Many people in certain countries never care to leave the country. Lack of wealth is probably significantly down on the list of reasons people don't travel by plane.
If the majority of people don't need to travel by plane, then the same would hold true for space. But people still do it and there is still a market for it. If commerical aviation is successful with 20% capture rate, space tourism can be as well with even less capture at more expensive rates.
There are entire industries built on commercial aviation tourism; site seeing helicopters in Hawaii, grand canyon, etc. This gives access to areas that are impossible to access from the ground or very challenging.
If the long term goal is to build a moon base or something like that, it's going to draw a large tourism faction. These commercial opportunities now allow for the industry to become safer and more generally acceptable for future generations.
Look how safe air travel is compared to is inception. Space travel would need to build that same confidence.
There is an entire computer game about traveling to Oregon in a covered wagon and not dying from dysentery, now it's not laughable that that was a thing. This is the first step to normalizing that same experience for space, IMO.
I'm not defending how Jeff spends his money, I'm taking a long view approach to it.
But you don't get it. Air travel isn't expensive. The 80% who have(assuming that total is accurate), represent a ton of people who are under the age of 12 who probably wouldn't have gone on a plane for most reasons. Cost isn't the deterrent to air travel. It really doesn't pertain to space travel at all.
However, the technological input will hopefully make "regular" civilian aviation "folk" safer and more efficient. I do appreciate this aspect.
We've been parachuting/returning folks to earth for years. - ( New Window )
Yeah. He should donate it to the "my pocket" foundation.
Quote:
I get the whole 'It's his $, let him decide how he wants to spend it', but I wish he put that $ more towards stuff for the greater good of humanity instead of this. Then again, that's just my view.
Yeah. He should donate it to the "my pocket" foundation.
Mine too man. I'll take a cool $1 million from Mr. Bezos.
Quote:
In comment 15309034 SFGFNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
I get the whole 'It's his $, let him decide how he wants to spend it', but I wish he put that $ more towards stuff for the greater good of humanity instead of this. Then again, that's just my view.
Yeah. He should donate it to the "my pocket" foundation.
Mine too man. I'll take a cool $1 million from Mr. Bezos.
Money well spent...
How about sending Elfrid Payton to space? Permanently? Haha.
Any fair examination of an annual national budget should make a fair-minded individual puke.
Any fair examination of an annual national budget should make a fair-minded individual puke.
Exactly. Bezos just donated a 9 figure sum. I’d like to see how much those ripping him have donated in their entire lives as well. I’m guessing it’s significantly less
Quote:
The criticisms of this private expenditure into space when rarely, if ever meaningfully, the criticisms were levied against tax dollars to be spent over decades in space travel and exploration. A lot of good has come from the space program, without doubt, but the opportunity cost of those dollars being spent on more altruistic present endeavors was never part of the national conscience. People love to villify billionaires, but rarely use the same critical eye towards their government, which wastes 100s of billions, to put it lightly, on frivolous endeavors.
Any fair examination of an annual national budget should make a fair-minded individual puke.
Exactly. Bezos just donated a 9 figure sum. I’d like to see how much those ripping him have donated in their entire lives as well. I’m guessing it’s significantly less
Like I said earlier, I have no issues with him spending his money on this stuff, but if you're comparing donations, perhaps doing so as a percentage of an individuals wealth would be more meaningful than absolute dollars...
Quote:
The criticisms of this private expenditure into space when rarely, if ever meaningfully, the criticisms were levied against tax dollars to be spent over decades in space travel and exploration. A lot of good has come from the space program, without doubt, but the opportunity cost of those dollars being spent on more altruistic present endeavors was never part of the national conscience. People love to villify billionaires, but rarely use the same critical eye towards their government, which wastes 100s of billions, to put it lightly, on frivolous endeavors.
Any fair examination of an annual national budget should make a fair-minded individual puke.
Exactly. Bezos just donated a 9 figure sum. I’d like to see how much those ripping him have donated in their entire lives as well. I’m guessing it’s significantly less
Yes, because we all have 9 figures in our banking accounts...
Any fair examination of an annual national budget should make a fair-minded individual puke.
Generally speaking the government is wasteful/inefficient, but I guarantee the ROI from NASA/DARPA and some of the other advanced tech development programs is significantly positive. The GDP growth due to GPS and the internet alone is astronomical.
Quote:
So, it's ok when the government spends their money on space travel, but we expect private citizens to eradicate these social issues? Sorry, private citizens have the right to spend money however they want.
I'd settle for him treating his workers like human beings and paying an actual living wage. Thanks
Quote:
The criticisms of this private expenditure into space when rarely, if ever meaningfully, the criticisms were levied against tax dollars to be spent over decades in space travel and exploration. A lot of good has come from the space program, without doubt, but the opportunity cost of those dollars being spent on more altruistic present endeavors was never part of the national conscience. People love to villify billionaires, but rarely use the same critical eye towards their government, which wastes 100s of billions, to put it lightly, on frivolous endeavors.
Any fair examination of an annual national budget should make a fair-minded individual puke.
Exactly. Bezos just donated a 9 figure sum. I’d like to see how much those ripping him have donated in their entire lives as well. I’m guessing it’s significantly less
Bezos donating a nine figure sum is like an average person donating a few hundred bucks.
Bezos donating a nine figure sum is like an average person donating a few hundred bucks.
More like $60:
$100M is ~0.05% of Bezos' net worth. Median net worth for an American family is ~$120k.
120,000 * 0.0005 = $60
Quote:
In comment 15308645 bwitz said:
Quote:
So, it's ok when the government spends their money on space travel, but we expect private citizens to eradicate these social issues? Sorry, private citizens have the right to spend money however they want.
I'd settle for him treating his workers like human beings and paying an actual living wage. Thanks
Word!
Quote:
In comment 15309217 allstarjim said:
Quote:
The criticisms of this private expenditure into space when rarely, if ever meaningfully, the criticisms were levied against tax dollars to be spent over decades in space travel and exploration. A lot of good has come from the space program, without doubt, but the opportunity cost of those dollars being spent on more altruistic present endeavors was never part of the national conscience. People love to villify billionaires, but rarely use the same critical eye towards their government, which wastes 100s of billions, to put it lightly, on frivolous endeavors.
Any fair examination of an annual national budget should make a fair-minded individual puke.
Exactly. Bezos just donated a 9 figure sum. I’d like to see how much those ripping him have donated in their entire lives as well. I’m guessing it’s significantly less
Bezos donating a nine figure sum is like an average person donating a few hundred bucks.
Good lord. Since this was about people complaining about Bezos' impact on humanity (since apparently a single private citizen is responsible for all of humanity), what do you think makes a greater impact on humanity? $200 million in charitable contributions or a couple hundred bucks? Has anyone remotely implied that Bezos is financially pressed after donating $200 million?
Quote:
Good lord. Since this was about people complaining about Bezos' impact on humanity (since apparently a single private citizen is responsible for all of humanity), what do you think makes a greater impact on humanity? $200 million in charitable contributions or a couple hundred bucks? Has anyone remotely implied that Bezos is financially pressed after donating $200 million?
What about his absolutely brutal warehouse conditions? I actually know a few warehouse workers and even in the poorer areas, none of them started as low as 15 an hour and all received raises over time. Bezos model is to burn you out for 3 years, that's a verifiable fact. Allowing massive corporations like Amazon allows for him to squeeze out the competition with economies of scale. Not to mention the lobbying dollars that buy him certain advantages.
To get to the point where Bezos is at you need to be a less than savory character, turn a blind eye to certain things. The sad part is Bezos is only a small figure in the grand scheme of things, he's just the most well known. It's a big club, and you aint it. I will never understand people simping for Billionaires. These are rarely the most well adjusted people. The further you go up the chain, the more sociopaths are abound (another verifiable fact). These are dudes that are highest up the chain. At least the last time income inequality was this level in the 20s Billionaire vanity projects would actually benefit society.
Quote:
In comment 15309295 KDavies said:
Quote:
In comment 15309217 allstarjim said:
Quote:
The criticisms of this private expenditure into space when rarely, if ever meaningfully, the criticisms were levied against tax dollars to be spent over decades in space travel and exploration. A lot of good has come from the space program, without doubt, but the opportunity cost of those dollars being spent on more altruistic present endeavors was never part of the national conscience. People love to villify billionaires, but rarely use the same critical eye towards their government, which wastes 100s of billions, to put it lightly, on frivolous endeavors.
Any fair examination of an annual national budget should make a fair-minded individual puke.
Exactly. Bezos just donated a 9 figure sum. I’d like to see how much those ripping him have donated in their entire lives as well. I’m guessing it’s significantly less
Bezos donating a nine figure sum is like an average person donating a few hundred bucks.
Good lord. Since this was about people complaining about Bezos' impact on humanity (since apparently a single private citizen is responsible for all of humanity), what do you think makes a greater impact on humanity? $200 million in charitable contributions or a couple hundred bucks? Has anyone remotely implied that Bezos is financially pressed after donating $200 million?
Reminder: Bezos nominated himself to be savior of society, not me. And you suggested that average folks haven't matched his generosity, not me. If you want to continue to insist that this billionaire is a hero of some sort, fine. But don't be surprised or offended (weirdly, I might add) if most folks see a guy who hacked the economy to build preposterous wealth he mostly has directed to space-sturbation.
I feel like young people are very conscious buyers today. It's the older generation reticent to sacrifice imo. ESG scores are becoming very important today (which are problematic on their own)Even going back a decade I was being taught all this getting my finance degree and its certainly ratcheted up a notch since then.