Government cannot manage these projects. They should fund them, but they should not manage them. NASA is proof of that. The space shuttle program was supposed to make many more times the number of trips than it did, and the shuttles were not nearly as reusable as they should have been. The Russians did the smart thing and kept their pushing their rocket designs - something we are finally going back to.
When science illiteracy is rampant, there’s an abundance of ignorant voters who don’t understand the value of science and exploration. In their complacency, investments in science are forgotten, and thus a once thriving technologically advanced empire fades. It's happened many times before, and there's nothing to suggest it won't happen again.
I agree that government is the only ones that can stand to lose in exploration as it is typically too risky for private industry. However, I must disagree with Neil on his point that it was entirely government that were responsible for exploration of the new world and America. What happened was government funded private enterprises and not bureaucratic agencies to conduct this exploration, how would that be different from what NASA is doing with SpaceX?
@unrealy2k watch it again, he addresses this. Private interests will put us into low earth orbit first, this was done by the USSR and US in the early 1960's. As you said in your own words "government funded". Only the state will value exploration at such a high lose, or no capital return. I am unaware of any space probe that has gone elsewhere within our solar system funded by private interests. If I'm wrong please let me know.
@unrealy2k watch it again, he addresses this. Private interests will put us into low earth orbit first, this was done by the USSR and US in the early 1960's. As you said in your own words "government funded". Only the state will value exploration at such a high lose, or no capital return. I am unaware of any space probe that has gone elsewhere within our solar system funded by private interests. If I'm wrong please let me know.
My dear Americans, you used to lead the world in human rights and science, now you lead the world in wars fought, military spending, homicides, incarceration rates and financial inequality.
We want the old US back, the one we used to look up to.
The entire TAM9 panel debate "Our future in space" can be seen on vimeo. For everyone enjoying the clip above, I would really recommended watch the whole debate!:-D
It's a good speech, but we as a country honestly have financial problem. Go to GPOaccess.gov and read the budget. Not only is every atom of the dollar spoken for, parts of the next dollar are spoken for as well. We cannot afford NASA, worthy as it is. We also cannot afford our gigantic military budget nor our gigantic social programs. Something has to be cut or more taxes have to be raised. I love the work NASA does, but there it is.
@SaucerheadTharp Shut down TSA , DHS take 500 billion a year from the defense/military/pentagon budget, 250 billion of that and expand medicare to EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN CITIZEN. Take the other 250 billion and give it to NASA. RESTORE the taxes to e before the bush tax cuts. Then INCREASE the taxes on the top 1% by 25%. Take that 800-900 billion dollars and set up a Swedish style welfare system including job training. 500 billion to NIH, NSF and emergency war fund. 100 billion infrastructure
@pointmanzero Actually DHS takes only 51.6 billion. TSA is actually apart of DHS and constitutes 5.1 billion. NASA takes 18.3 billion. If you increased taxes for all individuals by 25% you'd gain 234 billion. You don't have a clear idea of the actual finances of the United States. I invite you to download the 2010 budget as I have and learn more about your government. Though if you eliminated the DOD (the military) you'd net 688 billion.
@pointmanzero Page 58 of the 2011 Fiscal Budget. It's at the bottom labeled "Total, Outlays". Figures I'm citing are for 2010 as the 2011 numbers are projections at the writing of the budget.
Your example was for the top 1%. The 2011 budget doesn't give that information, only the over all personal income tax collected (936 billion). So raising the income tax by 25% for only a part couldn't exceed raising the tax for the whole.
@SaucerheadTharp I'm sorry, I was not thorough in my explanation due to comment limits. When I say top 1% I mean even the corporations who currently pay ZERO taxes to be taxed and taxed at a twenty five percent increase. Such as GE, BOA, Boeing, Exxon, etc... currently they pay no taxes. In my tax plan they will pay.
@pointmanzero Going to the SEC Edgar database I've pulled up the second quarter earnings for Exxon and they report that as of 6/30/11 they record 7.7 billion in income tax, 8.6 billion in sales tax, and 11.2 billion in misc taxes and duties. So they may get tax breaks at the state level not disclosed here, but at the federal level their income tax expense is 41% of income before taxes (7.7 / 18.6 billion). Where do you get that they aren't paying taxes?
@pointmanzero The name of the GAO report was not quoted in either story (probably so we won't go read it :-)), so I pulled a Potholer54 and ran it down. "Comparison of the Reported Tax Liabilities of Foreign- and U.S.-Controlled Corporations, 1998-2005, GAO-08-957". The names of Exxon, GE, or Boeing are never mentioned. See also press/releases/2008/august/chamber-chief-economist-clarifies-business-tax-data for a rebuttal by the US Camber of Commerce.
@pointmanzero To me it kind of does. Accountancy is like physics. If your equations don't work, you won't get the expected result. Reconsider you plan and try to balance it against what the real numbers are.
@pointmanzero "DHS take 500 billion a year from the defense/military/pentagon budget" You number is ten times larger than reality, not two. So scrubbing homeland security only nets you 50 billion not 500 billion. 25 billion won't expand medicare to every citizen especially as the Medicare outlay was 450.6 billion in 2010.
@pointmanzero So we will have a military with a budget of 188 billion? Cool. Ignoring the fact you still have a deficit of 930 billion, just laid off 3 out of every 4 members of the armed forces, and devastated the economies of every city and town that relied on the now closed military bases for jobs, what is your next action Mr. President? Btw, you are super popular right now.
@pointmanzero Ah...so you're planning on spending it? The deficit is now back to 1,430 billion. By the way, infrastructure and scientific spending aren't health care. Didn't you promise for your constituents that every single American citizen would have access to Medicare?
@pointmanzero Ok. You've spent 250 billion on NASA. 250 billion left. How much for infrastructure and how much of medicare? Keep in mind the you still haven't resolved the worsening financial crises.
@pointmanzero Oh no you haven't :) Where did you dig up 1.4 trillion in new revenues? Keep in mind that the Military also built new infrastructure (remember all those economies you crashed when you fired everyone?) and invested heavily in science. So at best you're break even. All you've really done is further engorge medicare (you haven't said by how much) and given NASA more money than God. NASA is now the third largest department in the government. Can guess who the top two are?
@SaucerheadTharp If I have too I will urge congress to pass a tax to pay for healthcare for all, I guarantee it will be cheaper then what private insurance costs.
I will build the super collider, a station on mars (permanent) send a manned mission to europa, and meanwhile the economy will BOOM. In 6 years (if re-elected) I will have the entire nations fully powered by geo-thermal, solar, wind and similar. Carbon tax industries...take that money and subsidies the auto manufacturers for electric
@pointmanzero Will boom on what? The super collider is cool and all, but it's not a job creator, nor is a space station on Mars. Energy prices will sky rocket (there is a reason why we use coal, gas, and nuclear. It's because they're so cheap). You haven't cut any expenditures, just moved the money around and apparently added new entitlements on top of everything else, and as I've all ready shown your tax plan is ineffective and insufficient for the current expenditures.
@SaucerheadTharp I like you and I am trying to take this convo as seriously as possible but are you kidding me? The super collider, high speed rail and mars base ALONE would create MASSIVE amounts of jobs. Geothermal power is cheap. Super super duper cheap. Let me build massive geothermal plants in Yellowstone and I will power the WORLD. No I have NOT cut expenditures, I am proposing expansionary economics to cause an economic BOOM which will result in more taxes. Spend money to make money
@SaucerheadTharp I will build high speed rail, de-criminalize drugs (and tax them). I will pay to have a smart grid built to replace our ageing power infrastructure. Did I mention I will NATIONALIZE power companies? You want a progressive you got one right here. If your more conservative in your tastes.... vote for someone else. High speed internet will be a right granted by the govt along with food/housing, man I got some ideas.
@pointmanzero Nationalize power companies? Under whose authority? Neither the president nor congress has the constitutional power to nationalize city and state utilities.
@SaucerheadTharp If we'd cut the military budget back to something reasonable - i.e. not fight half a dozen or so "wars" simultaneously, we'd have plenty of money for NASA, social programs, and everything else. Hell, we could fund NASA 3 or 4 times over if we just got rid of the Homeland Security Dept. I'm not too happy about paying to terrorize our own citizens any way.
@graey42 I encourage you to read the 2011 Fiscal Budget. So if we cut half the military (688B/2) we'd free up 344B. Cut LHS and we'd free up 51.6B (2.8xNASA). If we gave it all to social programs...say Health and Human Services (812.9B+344B+51.6B) we'd spend 1,208B, up 59%. If however, we didn't spend that money (395.6B) our budget deficit would be only (2105B-3518B+395.6B) -1,017.40B. You could sack the entire military and we'd still add debt annually.
NASA just needs to think innovative again though, still they're using 50's and 60's tech rockets while Virgin is building space ships out of cheap carbon. Cost do matter in the end and through innovation comes also greater potential.
We can give our descendents and even the whole world an endless frontier to explore, wonders, endless new resources, an end to poverty - freedom.
Or we can give them endless wars over ever diminishing resources, poverty, misery - slavery. Except for the 1%. They will probably live in luxury until the collapse. After that? Some form of pastoral society may survive - after billions have died.
That's the future if we keep going the way we are. But it doesn't have to be that way. I hope.
I love Tyson but I disagree with his statist position that its okay to steal from people if it means putting people into space. But if we have to spend tax dollars I agree that science is a much better investment than wars and subsdizing banks for bad business practices.
@llamaczar RE: "its okay to steal from people if it means putting people into space"
I disagree with equating taxes to stealing. Our government is, at least in theory, our collective will. Isn't that what voting is all about? By extension then, taxes are the means to accomplish that will. That's not stealing. That's civilization. The big problem now is that our collective will has been hijacked by the 1%.
@Ansonidak If you do not want to do something, and you are forced to do it under threat of violence then I'm afraid that's stealing, coersion, extortion, ect. You can call it whatever ever you like, at the end of the day I still think violence against peaceful people is wrong, even if it means bringing back rocks from the moon. It doesn't make me appreciate science or the quest for knowledge any less however and I'll gladly donate to Tyson's cause any day.
@llamaczar RE: "If you do not want to do something, and you are forced to do it under threat of violence then I'm afraid that's stealing, coersion, extortion, ect."
As citizen and a member of this at least theoretically democratic society, you and I are invested with the power of vote and supposedly agree to abide by the will of the majority. You're not being coerced. Or are you saying you have to be coerced to participate in civilization?
Now all we need to do is stop reproduction of Humans for 20 years and then allow a great dying off of homo sapein. Then religice to cull the religious from the living and start to head towards a star trek type of existence
@chaosami2 That is where our system fails. I wish our system would take into account education and IQ instead of who gets more money to run a campaign and who the privately owned media advertise the most.
@BillKiernan Degrassi isn't an evolutionary biologist. He is a cosmologist. One speaks on biology (Dawkins), while the other speaks about the cosmos like Sagan once did. Dawkins is an excellent biology teacher and very engaging.
@truvelocity i'm aware of tyson's field. what i'm saying is, dawkins is often propped up as the unofficial spokesperson for science, for the layperson, a bit like Sagan was. I find Tyson a better pick, that's all.
@BillKiernan They are both great intellectuals that lend a lot of time to give science a public forum. There's no need to compare the two, especially since one is a biologist and the other an astrophysicist.
@Kariakas i love how people keep pointing out their fields as if i didn't know. they both speak for science in general quite often. i like dawkins, i just find tyson a better representitive, less abrasive, more approachable, etc.
@BillKiernan I was just saying there's no need to compare the two, they aren't in competition with each other. We could use a lot more people like both of them.
@BillKiernan Fortunately we have both of them and don't have to choose. A carrot and a stick. There are still a lot of people who need the stick. ....badly.
Government cannot manage these projects. They should fund them, but they should not manage them. NASA is proof of that. The space shuttle program was supposed to make many more times the number of trips than it did, and the shuttles were not nearly as reusable as they should have been. The Russians did the smart thing and kept their pushing their rocket designs - something we are finally going back to.
mariod505 21 hours ago
@mariod505 NASA got us to the moon
pointmanzero 21 hours ago
When science illiteracy is rampant, there’s an abundance of ignorant voters who don’t understand the value of science and exploration. In their complacency, investments in science are forgotten, and thus a once thriving technologically advanced empire fades. It's happened many times before, and there's nothing to suggest it won't happen again.
aroblesCG 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
No tengo que pagar por algo que ya es mio
kthedral 3 months ago
I agree that government is the only ones that can stand to lose in exploration as it is typically too risky for private industry. However, I must disagree with Neil on his point that it was entirely government that were responsible for exploration of the new world and America. What happened was government funded private enterprises and not bureaucratic agencies to conduct this exploration, how would that be different from what NASA is doing with SpaceX?
unrealy2k 3 months ago
@unrealy2k watch it again, he addresses this. Private interests will put us into low earth orbit first, this was done by the USSR and US in the early 1960's. As you said in your own words "government funded". Only the state will value exploration at such a high lose, or no capital return. I am unaware of any space probe that has gone elsewhere within our solar system funded by private interests. If I'm wrong please let me know.
zwwalker 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unrealy2k watch it again, he addresses this. Private interests will put us into low earth orbit first, this was done by the USSR and US in the early 1960's. As you said in your own words "government funded". Only the state will value exploration at such a high lose, or no capital return. I am unaware of any space probe that has gone elsewhere within our solar system funded by private interests. If I'm wrong please let me know.
zwwalker 4 weeks ago
My dear Americans, you used to lead the world in human rights and science, now you lead the world in wars fought, military spending, homicides, incarceration rates and financial inequality.
We want the old US back, the one we used to look up to.
Take care
akylae101 3 months ago 7
Tyson really knows how to paint the picture of possibility, the man is a credit to humanity.
LaymanScholar 3 months ago 4
Hear, hear.
JacksInn 3 months ago
really, really inspiring video.
AbortedSheepFetus 3 months ago
I like pointmanzero a lot. A LOT. I wish I could vote for you, unfortunately I'm Australian.
Inurdaes 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The entire TAM9 panel debate "Our future in space" can be seen on vimeo. For everyone enjoying the clip above, I would really recommended watch the whole debate!:-D
MrSmalaas 3 months ago in playlist Liked
Comment removed
MrSmalaas 3 months ago in playlist Liked
It's a good speech, but we as a country honestly have financial problem. Go to GPOaccess.gov and read the budget. Not only is every atom of the dollar spoken for, parts of the next dollar are spoken for as well. We cannot afford NASA, worthy as it is. We also cannot afford our gigantic military budget nor our gigantic social programs. Something has to be cut or more taxes have to be raised. I love the work NASA does, but there it is.
SaucerheadTharp 3 months ago
@SaucerheadTharp Shut down TSA , DHS take 500 billion a year from the defense/military/pentagon budget, 250 billion of that and expand medicare to EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN CITIZEN. Take the other 250 billion and give it to NASA. RESTORE the taxes to e before the bush tax cuts. Then INCREASE the taxes on the top 1% by 25%. Take that 800-900 billion dollars and set up a Swedish style welfare system including job training. 500 billion to NIH, NSF and emergency war fund. 100 billion infrastructure
pointmanzero 3 months ago 3
@pointmanzero Actually DHS takes only 51.6 billion. TSA is actually apart of DHS and constitutes 5.1 billion. NASA takes 18.3 billion. If you increased taxes for all individuals by 25% you'd gain 234 billion. You don't have a clear idea of the actual finances of the United States. I invite you to download the 2010 budget as I have and learn more about your government. Though if you eliminated the DOD (the military) you'd net 688 billion.
SaucerheadTharp 3 months ago
@SaucerheadTharp The defense budget if over 1 trillion a year. You better recheck your numbers.
Increase taxes for all individuals? What kind of voodoo magic are you trying?
pointmanzero 3 months ago
@pointmanzero Page 58 of the 2011 Fiscal Budget. It's at the bottom labeled "Total, Outlays". Figures I'm citing are for 2010 as the 2011 numbers are projections at the writing of the budget.
Your example was for the top 1%. The 2011 budget doesn't give that information, only the over all personal income tax collected (936 billion). So raising the income tax by 25% for only a part couldn't exceed raising the tax for the whole.
SaucerheadTharp 3 months ago
@SaucerheadTharp I'm sorry, I was not thorough in my explanation due to comment limits. When I say top 1% I mean even the corporations who currently pay ZERO taxes to be taxed and taxed at a twenty five percent increase. Such as GE, BOA, Boeing, Exxon, etc... currently they pay no taxes. In my tax plan they will pay.
pointmanzero 3 months ago
@pointmanzero Going to the SEC Edgar database I've pulled up the second quarter earnings for Exxon and they report that as of 6/30/11 they record 7.7 billion in income tax, 8.6 billion in sales tax, and 11.2 billion in misc taxes and duties. So they may get tax breaks at the state level not disclosed here, but at the federal level their income tax expense is 41% of income before taxes (7.7 / 18.6 billion). Where do you get that they aren't paying taxes?
SaucerheadTharp 3 months ago
@SaucerheadTharp How Exxon paid zero taxes in 2009 By MERLIN FLOWER
pointmanzero 3 months ago
@pointmanzero The name of the GAO report was not quoted in either story (probably so we won't go read it :-)), so I pulled a Potholer54 and ran it down. "Comparison of the Reported Tax Liabilities of Foreign- and U.S.-Controlled Corporations, 1998-2005, GAO-08-957". The names of Exxon, GE, or Boeing are never mentioned. See also press/releases/2008/august/chamber-chief-economist-clarifies-business-tax-data for a rebuttal by the US Camber of Commerce.
SaucerheadTharp 3 months ago
@SaucerheadTharp So my numbers my be too large, but that in no way invalidates my plan.
pointmanzero 3 months ago
@pointmanzero To me it kind of does. Accountancy is like physics. If your equations don't work, you won't get the expected result. Reconsider you plan and try to balance it against what the real numbers are.
SaucerheadTharp 3 months ago
@SaucerheadTharp Take all the numbers I said and half it.... still works.
pointmanzero 3 months ago
@pointmanzero "DHS take 500 billion a year from the defense/military/pentagon budget" You number is ten times larger than reality, not two. So scrubbing homeland security only nets you 50 billion not 500 billion. 25 billion won't expand medicare to every citizen especially as the Medicare outlay was 450.6 billion in 2010.
SaucerheadTharp 3 months ago
@SaucerheadTharp DUUUWD I am talking about taking 500 billion from the entire military budget.
Everything from aircraft carriers to pentagon pencil pushers.
pointmanzero 3 months ago
@pointmanzero So we will have a military with a budget of 188 billion? Cool. Ignoring the fact you still have a deficit of 930 billion, just laid off 3 out of every 4 members of the armed forces, and devastated the economies of every city and town that relied on the now closed military bases for jobs, what is your next action Mr. President? Btw, you are super popular right now.
SaucerheadTharp 3 months ago
@SaucerheadTharp The boost to infrastructure, scientific funding, will more then off set these things.
pointmanzero 3 months ago
@pointmanzero Ah...so you're planning on spending it? The deficit is now back to 1,430 billion. By the way, infrastructure and scientific spending aren't health care. Didn't you promise for your constituents that every single American citizen would have access to Medicare?
SaucerheadTharp 3 months ago
@SaucerheadTharp Yep.
pointmanzero 3 months ago
@pointmanzero Ok. You've spent 250 billion on NASA. 250 billion left. How much for infrastructure and how much of medicare? Keep in mind the you still haven't resolved the worsening financial crises.
SaucerheadTharp 3 months ago
@SaucerheadTharp Oh yes I have, spending on NASA put people to work, advances the private sector...etc...
pointmanzero 3 months ago
@pointmanzero Oh no you haven't :) Where did you dig up 1.4 trillion in new revenues? Keep in mind that the Military also built new infrastructure (remember all those economies you crashed when you fired everyone?) and invested heavily in science. So at best you're break even. All you've really done is further engorge medicare (you haven't said by how much) and given NASA more money than God. NASA is now the third largest department in the government. Can guess who the top two are?
SaucerheadTharp 3 months ago
@SaucerheadTharp If I have too I will urge congress to pass a tax to pay for healthcare for all, I guarantee it will be cheaper then what private insurance costs.
I will build the super collider, a station on mars (permanent) send a manned mission to europa, and meanwhile the economy will BOOM. In 6 years (if re-elected) I will have the entire nations fully powered by geo-thermal, solar, wind and similar. Carbon tax industries...take that money and subsidies the auto manufacturers for electric
pointmanzero 3 months ago
@pointmanzero Will boom on what? The super collider is cool and all, but it's not a job creator, nor is a space station on Mars. Energy prices will sky rocket (there is a reason why we use coal, gas, and nuclear. It's because they're so cheap). You haven't cut any expenditures, just moved the money around and apparently added new entitlements on top of everything else, and as I've all ready shown your tax plan is ineffective and insufficient for the current expenditures.
SaucerheadTharp 3 months ago
@SaucerheadTharp I like you and I am trying to take this convo as seriously as possible but are you kidding me? The super collider, high speed rail and mars base ALONE would create MASSIVE amounts of jobs. Geothermal power is cheap. Super super duper cheap. Let me build massive geothermal plants in Yellowstone and I will power the WORLD. No I have NOT cut expenditures, I am proposing expansionary economics to cause an economic BOOM which will result in more taxes. Spend money to make money
pointmanzero 3 months ago
@SaucerheadTharp I will build high speed rail, de-criminalize drugs (and tax them). I will pay to have a smart grid built to replace our ageing power infrastructure. Did I mention I will NATIONALIZE power companies? You want a progressive you got one right here. If your more conservative in your tastes.... vote for someone else. High speed internet will be a right granted by the govt along with food/housing, man I got some ideas.
pointmanzero 3 months ago
@pointmanzero Nationalize power companies? Under whose authority? Neither the president nor congress has the constitutional power to nationalize city and state utilities.
SaucerheadTharp 3 months ago
@SaucerheadTharp Thanks to the new smart grid being built, it is interstate commerce.
Amend it to constitution if you have to.
Power is no longer an optional luxury, it is a necessity for modern living it should be a right.
pointmanzero 3 months ago
@SaucerheadTharp What The Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes
by Christopher Helman published in Forbes.
pointmanzero 3 months ago
@SaucerheadTharp While we are at it, take away oil subsidies and half of that we keep, half we give to renewable techs like solar.
I just fixed EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM AMERICA HAS (financial). I should be president.
pointmanzero 3 months ago
@pointmanzero If you haven't already, I think you'd like Robert Zubrin's talk at FEW on his solution to America's oil dependency.
Inurdaes 3 months ago
@SaucerheadTharp If we'd cut the military budget back to something reasonable - i.e. not fight half a dozen or so "wars" simultaneously, we'd have plenty of money for NASA, social programs, and everything else. Hell, we could fund NASA 3 or 4 times over if we just got rid of the Homeland Security Dept. I'm not too happy about paying to terrorize our own citizens any way.
graey42 3 months ago
@graey42 I encourage you to read the 2011 Fiscal Budget. So if we cut half the military (688B/2) we'd free up 344B. Cut LHS and we'd free up 51.6B (2.8xNASA). If we gave it all to social programs...say Health and Human Services (812.9B+344B+51.6B) we'd spend 1,208B, up 59%. If however, we didn't spend that money (395.6B) our budget deficit would be only (2105B-3518B+395.6B) -1,017.40B. You could sack the entire military and we'd still add debt annually.
SaucerheadTharp 3 months ago
NASA just needs to think innovative again though, still they're using 50's and 60's tech rockets while Virgin is building space ships out of cheap carbon. Cost do matter in the end and through innovation comes also greater potential.
KarmaKahn 4 months ago
My goosebumps are bigger than NASA's budget.
brewerbrian420 4 months ago 2
I would give everything if NASA asked for volunteers for missions to LEO or to build a moon base knowing that they could never return I would do it
ziasyn 4 months ago
This is Carl Sagan's successor, can't wait for the new Cosmos series.
OhReallyNoWai 4 months ago 3
Why do we elect the dumbest people to power?
HarrysSecret 4 months ago
I reeeeeeally liked this video.
litemup67 4 months ago
We can give our descendents and even the whole world an endless frontier to explore, wonders, endless new resources, an end to poverty - freedom.
Or we can give them endless wars over ever diminishing resources, poverty, misery - slavery. Except for the 1%. They will probably live in luxury until the collapse. After that? Some form of pastoral society may survive - after billions have died.
That's the future if we keep going the way we are. But it doesn't have to be that way. I hope.
Ansonidak 4 months ago in playlist Ansonidak's favorites
The 1% disliked this.
pythor2 4 months ago
@pythor2 No, it's 0,5 percent :)
Tumoxa89 4 months ago
I love Tyson but I disagree with his statist position that its okay to steal from people if it means putting people into space. But if we have to spend tax dollars I agree that science is a much better investment than wars and subsdizing banks for bad business practices.
llamaczar 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@llamaczar RE: "its okay to steal from people if it means putting people into space"
I disagree with equating taxes to stealing. Our government is, at least in theory, our collective will. Isn't that what voting is all about? By extension then, taxes are the means to accomplish that will. That's not stealing. That's civilization. The big problem now is that our collective will has been hijacked by the 1%.
Ansonidak 4 months ago in playlist Ansonidak's favorites
@Ansonidak If you do not want to do something, and you are forced to do it under threat of violence then I'm afraid that's stealing, coersion, extortion, ect. You can call it whatever ever you like, at the end of the day I still think violence against peaceful people is wrong, even if it means bringing back rocks from the moon. It doesn't make me appreciate science or the quest for knowledge any less however and I'll gladly donate to Tyson's cause any day.
llamaczar 4 months ago
@llamaczar RE: "If you do not want to do something, and you are forced to do it under threat of violence then I'm afraid that's stealing, coersion, extortion, ect."
As citizen and a member of this at least theoretically democratic society, you and I are invested with the power of vote and supposedly agree to abide by the will of the majority. You're not being coerced. Or are you saying you have to be coerced to participate in civilization?
Ansonidak 4 months ago
@llamaczar As he said without a state man would have never walked on the moon and NASA would not exist.
duracell777 4 months ago
@duracell777 Probably not, that wasn't my point.
llamaczar 4 months ago
man, astronauts, tidy up your space stations....
Skoenner 4 months ago
Now all we need to do is stop reproduction of Humans for 20 years and then allow a great dying off of homo sapein. Then religice to cull the religious from the living and start to head towards a star trek type of existence
699backstab 4 months ago
Remember seeing Tyson saying this in person, brilliant charismatic performance.
dominictemple 4 months ago
gave me goosebumbs!
eggnchip 4 months ago
The most inspiring afro-american preacher I've ever heard.
saamohod 4 months ago
Common sense to me
NoFaithNoPain 4 months ago
How can we possibly send up rockets? Wouldn't they just bounce off the firmament?
fdasherv 4 months ago 8
I've said it once, i'll say it again, this Man should be President.
Daneoid81 4 months ago 16
That was powerful
Ignorantf00l 4 months ago
"Dear god what is this !?" Tyson rules and this video is absolutely perfect.
longulbogdan 4 months ago
i dont need sex anymore
nickallah 4 months ago
i'll admit it... i got a little misty eyed there at the end... if only intellectuals actually ran the world...
chaosami2 4 months ago 43
@chaosami2 and the banks
naybobdenod 4 months ago
@chaosami2 That is where our system fails. I wish our system would take into account education and IQ instead of who gets more money to run a campaign and who the privately owned media advertise the most.
Kariakas 4 months ago
I have to say it. Neil Degrasse Tyson is my hero.
memonk11 4 months ago
brilliant
waycam77 4 months ago
Great stuff. Thanks. Found via lefayad1991
DarkMatter2525 4 months ago
Man what I would have given to hear this in person.
CMRDIvan 4 months ago
Excellent sir
orge121 4 months ago
Neil Degrasse tyson is 10,000 times better as a spokesperson for science than Dawkins.
BillKiernan 4 months ago 3
@BillKiernan Degrassi isn't an evolutionary biologist. He is a cosmologist. One speaks on biology (Dawkins), while the other speaks about the cosmos like Sagan once did. Dawkins is an excellent biology teacher and very engaging.
truvelocity 4 months ago
@truvelocity i'm aware of tyson's field. what i'm saying is, dawkins is often propped up as the unofficial spokesperson for science, for the layperson, a bit like Sagan was. I find Tyson a better pick, that's all.
BillKiernan 4 months ago
@BillKiernan Oh.
truvelocity 4 months ago
@BillKiernan He's far more inspirational, that's for sure.
DaBamBamMan 4 months ago
@DaBamBamMan don't get me wrong, i like dawkins, but tyson is not only more inspirational, he's more approachable and level headed.
BillKiernan 4 months ago 23
@BillKiernan so true...
LogicalThinker667 4 months ago
@BillKiernan I feel Tyson is the Feynman of our time
ClearVista 4 months ago
@BillKiernan They are both great intellectuals that lend a lot of time to give science a public forum. There's no need to compare the two, especially since one is a biologist and the other an astrophysicist.
Kariakas 4 months ago
@Kariakas i love how people keep pointing out their fields as if i didn't know. they both speak for science in general quite often. i like dawkins, i just find tyson a better representitive, less abrasive, more approachable, etc.
BillKiernan 4 months ago
@BillKiernan I was just saying there's no need to compare the two, they aren't in competition with each other. We could use a lot more people like both of them.
Kariakas 4 months ago
@BillKiernan Fortunately we have both of them and don't have to choose. A carrot and a stick. There are still a lot of people who need the stick. ....badly.
10mintwo 4 months ago 2
@BillKiernan
both of them are great.
chesster423 4 months ago
@chesster423 i like dawkins, he's better at preaching to the choir though.
BillKiernan 4 months ago
@BillKiernan Amen to that brother.
memonk11 4 months ago
@BillKiernan I think you have to admit that Tyson's subject is also more interesting than Dawkins'. At least for me.
Human evolving from apes? Been there, done that. Humans walking on Mars? Let's git 'er done!
deedubya286 4 months ago
AWESOME!
Love that guy!
TheEvilOfScientology 4 months ago