Shuttle where are we going ?

"Paul F. Dietz" writes:

George William Herbert wrote:

One obvious counterexample:
The majority of the people are too stupid to see the value of education.

I overreach somewhat; most people do value it, but a lot don't,
and a whole lot don't value it very much a lot of the time
if they don't have kids ...

But if you don't have kids, educating the children of others isn't
necessarily going to benefit *you* (or your loved ones).

This isn't stupidity, it's selfishness.

I've talked to many teachers that have problems with parents who think
that all education must happen at school. These parents not only
refuse to help their kids with homework, they refuse to make time for
their kids to do homework. These parents are the ones that generally
don't see any value in education.

Once their kids get out of school (high school degree or not), they
are expected to find a "real job", like working on an assembly line or
cleaning rooms at a hotel. In other words, jobs that require little
to no education.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: George William Herbert wrote:

: One obvious counterexample:
: The majority of the people are too stupid to see the value of education.
:
: I overreach somewhat; most people do value it, but a lot don't,
: and a whole lot don't value it very much a lot of the time
: if they don't have kids ...

: But if you don't have kids, educating the children of others isn't
: necessarily going to benefit *you* (or your loved ones).

The satisfaction that you taught someone something? Surely there is a
symbiotic aspect to teaching and learning. Otherwise teachers wouldn't
accept such lousy pay.

: This isn't stupidity, it's selfishness.

I have no idea what you mean here.

Eric

: Paul

Karl Hallowell ) wrote:
: On Wed, 19 May 2004 18:34:54 +0000, Eric Chomko wrote:

: Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: : On Fri, 14 May 2004 11:28:46 -0800, in a place far, far away, Abrigon
: : Gusiq made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
: : a way as to indicate that:
:
: : Have we lost the will and vision of the space program of the
: : beginning of the 1960s.
:
: : Let's hope so.
:
: : Or what?
:
: : I'd say "what."
:
: Don't mind Rand. Since he didn't make any money off the space program of
: the 60s to him it was a waste. He's really big on space tourism and
: wrestling the space program out of the hands of the government.
:
: I'm still waiting for him to create some "cavorite" and get us back to
: the moon.

: I certainly don't mind Rand - seeing as he's correct here. NASA can't
: maintain will and vision because it's a bureaucracy that doesn't live or
: die by its work. There's no incentive to do something.

Yet things get done, like the recent Mars encounter. Or do you think that
that was a big waste of time?

: Ultimately, I don't think some Kennedy will come around to revitalize NASA
: and the US space program in the vacuum of the current situation. The space
: advocacy groups aren't powerful enough on their own to spark anything by
: themselves. We see what happened since the seventies. It's been a steady
: decline all that time. Same with the Russians. Many other countries have
: set up their own space agencies but the progress of these programs is
: extremely slow.

I take it that you are speaking exclusively about manned spaceflight,
right? It seems that the unmanned spaceflight is doing just fine.

: The ultimate agency of change here will be private industry.

And what exactly are they going to do to create a self-sustaining
industry in space?

: That means
: such things as space tourism. Government programs go on only as long as
: the political will and funding lasts.

I don't want NASA to do space tourism. Let the private sector do that
part. Perhaps it will open the door to bigger and better things? I am all
for that. But, the aspect of either NASA or private space totally ignores
the aspect of having both coexist.

I liken it to parks. We have national parks and private parks. People
don't seem to think we should have just one or the other.

: When we can build a substantial
: economy in space that isn't reliant on government funding, then we have
: something that will survive the uncertainty of politics.

Fine, and until then NASA is the only game in town. When the private
sector does come on board, why should NASA, necessarily, go away?

Mercenaries didn't replace the DOD did they?

Eric

: Karl Hallowell
:

"Paul F. Dietz" writes:

George William Herbert wrote:

One obvious counterexample:
The majority of the people are too stupid to see the value of education.

I overreach somewhat; most people do value it, but a lot don't,
and a whole lot don't value it very much a lot of the time
if they don't have kids ...

But if you don't have kids, educating the children of others isn't
necessarily going to benefit *you* (or your loved ones).

If you don't have kids and don't plan on dying young, you will likely
at some point find yourself living in a civilization run entirely by
other people's ex-children. It will probably benefit you for them to
have been educated back when they were children.


This isn't stupidity, it's selfishness.

It's both.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

In article ,
"Paul F. Dietz" writes:
George William Herbert wrote:

One obvious counterexample:
The majority of the people are too stupid to see the value of education.

I overreach somewhat; most people do value it, but a lot don't,
and a whole lot don't value it very much a lot of the time
if they don't have kids ...

But if you don't have kids, educating the children of others isn't
necessarily going to benefit *you* (or your loved ones).

Oh, I don't know. Unless you're planning on ramming a bridge abutment
at over 100 mph (And even that's not a guarantee) at age 35, you're
neighbors kids are going to be the ones measuring your medications and
examining your test results.

Coming from small town New England, where the citizens of a town have
an opportunity for a high level of participation in the decisions
(Especially budget and education) of their local government, I've
always found it amusing that those who rail that, being childless,
they have no stake in Other People's Education tend, by and large, to
be the ones most dependant on others to do everything from fixing
theor food at the local restauraunts to mowing their lawns, to fixing
their vehicles. Of course, they also rail at whoever they hired to
take care of them, too.


This isn't stupidity, it's selfishness.

No, its stupidity.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:

One obvious counterexample:
The majority of the people are too stupid to see the value of education.

I overreach somewhat; most people do value it, but a lot don't,
and a whole lot don't value it very much a lot of the time
if they don't have kids ...

But if you don't have kids, educating the children of others isn't
necessarily going to benefit *you* (or your loved ones).

Except that a) keeping kids off the street, b) keeping kids out of
(expensive) jails, c) keeping kids in jobs that benefit the economy,
d) keeping kids in jobs that spread the tax burden, and e) keeping
kids in jobs that reduce the tax burden (by reducing public health
care costs) would seem an obvious benefit.


This isn't stupidity, it's selfishness.


and shortsightedness.

/dps

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message ...
George William Herbert wrote:

One obvious counterexample:
The majority of the people are too stupid to see the value of education.

I overreach somewhat; most people do value it, but a lot don't,
and a whole lot don't value it very much a lot of the time
if they don't have kids ...

But if you don't have kids, educating the children of others isn't
necessarily going to benefit *you* (or your loved ones).

Where do you live where you don't have to intereact with
or rely on other people on a near constant basis? Just
curious.


This isn't stupidity, it's selfishness.

No, it's fantasy.

Eric Chomko wrote:

: This isn't stupidity, it's selfishness.

I have no idea what you mean here.

You should participate in a local school bond referendum drive sometime.
Childless voters will often vote no -- why (they reason) should they
pay for someone else's kids education?

Paul

John Schilling wrote:

But if you don't have kids, educating the children of others isn't
necessarily going to benefit *you* (or your loved ones).


If you don't have kids and don't plan on dying young, you will likely
at some point find yourself living in a civilization run entirely by
other people's ex-children. It will probably benefit you for them to
have been educated back when they were children.

Ah, but school taxes are mostly local, so screwing the local school
system will not (by itself) have much effect on you in your retirement,
particularly if you move. Conversely, educating all those local kids
won't help much, if other localities drop the ball.

It's another example of the tragedy of the commons.

Paul

Christopher M. Jones wrote:

But if you don't have kids, educating the children of others isn't
necessarily going to benefit *you* (or your loved ones).


Where do you live where you don't have to intereact with
or rely on other people on a near constant basis? Just
curious.

I live somewhere where lots of people vote against school
funding referenda, since it will raise their taxes. I selfishly
want my children to have a good education, so I find this
galling. An understandable consequence of human nature, but
still galling.

Paul