Why are people upset over the billionaires spending on space travel?

[Bootes Void]

Alot of the left is mad at the billionaires spending money on space travel. Why would they mad, this type of travel has created thousands of well paying jobs and industries, its not like they take the money and burn it in space?

[Crane]

How cucked are you? Lmao

Kermit needs to pay taxes.

[parochial boy]

Something about the climate impact. Something about them profiting off the Covid and economic crises while billions have suffered the knock on effects. Something about them going of their way to avoid taxes and spending that money on the vanity project of going to space in a giant willy. Something about an inequality so structurally deep that it can allow wealthy indivduals to genuinely be as, if not more, powerful than most states. Something about the, rather terrifying implications this has for democracy when the state is constrained in its capactiy while the billionaires aren't. Something about Richard Branson being a man whose wealth comes in no small part from literally parasiting of taxpayers money.

Probably more too, lots of things, the world is fücked and there nothing we can do, but personally I'd rather be angry about it than just give up and grovel to our new plutocratic overlords.

[John Dule]

Something about the climate impact.

The climate impact... of space exploration? Would you be angry about this if NASA were doing these voyages? Space travel will be a fundamental aspect of the human experience in the distant future, and getting private companies and investors to start financing this kind of exploration is crucial for our survival as a species. If you're really worried about environmental problems, then you should welcome the opportunity for us to move pollution and surplus population off-planet, and you should support the technological innovations that will be necessary for us to get to that point.

Something about them profiting off the Covid and economic crises while billions have suffered the knock on effects.

Bezos has profited from the pandemic because he started a service that happened to be uniquely suited to giving people what they need during a pandemic. You don't have to kiss his feet, but there is nothing inherently wrong with "profiting off of Covid." The suffering billions you mention are the ones who voluntarily gave him his money.

Something about them going of their way to avoid taxes and spending that money on the vanity project of going to space in a giant willy.

I wonder, was the moon landing a vanity project? How about the Mars rovers? Do we have to wait until everyone on Earth has a two-car garage and a well-manicured lawn before we start investing in our future as a species?

This stuff is just so childish-- the constant whining and juvenile pee-pee references while highly intelligent, creative people put money into developing technology that will someday improve the lives of your grandchildren in ways you cannot even imagine. I will happily criticize Amazon for its influence in politics and media, and for its treatment of its employees in certain warehouses, but to thumb your nose at innovation of this magnitude just makes you sound like a Luddite. It's been decades since we went to the moon, and during that time our government has invested billions into pointless wars while neglecting space-- which is our future whether you like it or not. It is natural and beneficial that private interests would eventually pick up the slack.

[Crane]

Something about the climate impact.

The climate impact... of space exploration? Would you be angry about this if NASA were doing these voyages? Space travel will be a fundamental aspect of the human experience in the distant future, and getting private companies and investors to start financing this kind of exploration is crucial for our survival as a species. If you're really worried about environmental problems, then you should welcome the opportunity for us to move pollution and surplus population off-planet, and you should support the technological innovations that will be necessary for us to get to that point.

Something about them profiting off the Covid and economic crises while billions have suffered the knock on effects.

Bezos has profited from the pandemic because he started a service that happened to be uniquely suited to giving people what they need during a pandemic. You don't have to kiss his feet, but there is nothing inherently wrong with "profiting off of Covid." The suffering billions you mention are the ones who voluntarily gave him his money.

Something about them going of their way to avoid taxes and spending that money on the vanity project of going to space in a giant willy.

I wonder, was the moon landing a vanity project? How about the Mars rovers? Do we have to wait until everyone on Earth has a two-car garage and a well-manicured lawn before we start investing in our future as a species?

This stuff is just so childish-- the constant whining and juvenile pee-pee references while highly intelligent, creative people put money into developing technology that will someday improve the lives of your grandchildren in ways you cannot even imagine. I will happily criticize Amazon for its influence in politics and media, and for its treatment of its employees in certain warehouses, but to thumb your nose at innovation of this magnitude just makes you sound like a Luddite. It's been decades since we went to the moon, and during that time our government has invested billions into pointless wars while neglecting space-- which is our future whether you like it or not. It is natural and beneficial that private interests would eventually pick up the slack.

It's really sad to see someone as smart, on paper, as you choose to get in the tank for this waste of oxygen every day.

Besides space isn't the future for the vast majority of Earth's inhabitants. There's a good chance Bezos and his gross cod lip girlfriend will be dead before they can escape the environmental hellworld he helped create.

[vitoNova]

Beats me.

I have absolutely nothing against rich people or how they spend their fortune.

I just need them to pay their taxes until the Federal books are balanced.  

If it means taking a measly 0.5% of their income, so be it.

If it means taking 95%, then so be it. 

[Crane]

Beats me.

I have absolutely nothing against rich people or how they spend their fortune.

I just need them to pay their taxes until the Federal books are balanced.  

If it means taking a measly 0.5% of their income, so be it.

If it means taking 95%, then so be it. 

That's basically how I see it too.

Although Bezos is sort of a uniquely repulsive human.

[John Dule]

It's really sad to see someone as smart, on paper, as you choose to get in the tank for this waste of oxygen every day.

Besides space isn't the future for the vast majority of Earth's inhabitants. There's a good chance Bezos and his gross cod lip girlfriend will be dead before they can escape the environmental hellworld he helped create.

What is this supposed to mean? I would assume that men like Bezos and Musk know that they probably won't live to see their visions of luxury space travel and Mars colonies come to fruition. Does that mean they shouldn't even attempt to leave behind something for future generations to build upon? Whatever you may think of them personally (or professionally), you're still attacking them for what might end up being the best things they've ever done. Investing in new technology is an inherent good, and it has a higher potential for tangibly helping people than literally any alternative.

In any case, it's also sad to see smart people like you and Parochial reflexively demonizing innovators who are trying to push humanity's horizons into the stars. The image of a socialist sitting on Earth bellyaching about inequality while people literally fly into space is so cosmically ironic it boggles the mind.

[beaver2.0]

I honestly don't think it's terrible.  Governments have done very little to advance space travel in decades so I'm glad someone is doing it.  I imagine at some point the technologies being created now will become more accessible to those of us that are not billionaires.

I'd like to see Jeff Bezos and Amazon pay more in taxes, but I don't think higher taxes and private space research are mutually exclusive.

There's an argument to be made that Bezos & co. could spend their money on things that have a more immediate positive impact but again, I think Bezos can both spend money on space and end treat his employees better.

[AGA]

Envy.

[GoTfan]

Because it is the biggest indicator yet of the grotesque inequality that exists in the world. Not to mention that Bezos is responsible for Amazon's uniquely terrible working conditions. For example, monitoring employees and forcing them to pee into bottles so they can meet their quotas.

[parochial boy]

Something about the climate impact.

The climate impact... of space exploration? Would you be angry about this if NASA were doing these voyages? Space travel will be a fundamental aspect of the human experience in the distant future, and getting private companies and investors to start financing this kind of exploration is crucial for our survival as a species. If you're really worried about environmental problems, then you should welcome the opportunity for us to move pollution and surplus population off-planet, and you should support the technological innovations that will be necessary for us to get to that point.

I thin you may have misunderstood a large degree of the criticism that I had. The climate impact of blasting off into space, in this context, in the goal of tourism not exploration. Note that I did not actually say anything against space exploration itself - there's a very different opportunity cost here.

Bezos has profited from the pandemic because he started a service that happened to be uniquely suited to giving people what they need during a pandemic. You don't have to kiss his feet, but there is nothing inherently wrong with "profiting off of Covid." The suffering billions you mention are the ones who voluntarily gave him his money.

Mostly actually know - his wealth is largely in the form of share capital and he, as most of the superwealthy, have largely profited from the general increase in share prices that has accompanied the crisis. That's why the likes of Bernard Arnault or whoever have also done wonderfully, even though there isn't really any reason why they should have. Principally driven by things like the quantitative easing programmes or fiscal injections as well have savings that have wound up being spent on stocks rather than on consumption.

And even if it were down to his unique talent and foresight or whatever, I'm sorry but no. We know what the effects of inequality are, most people have a moral disgust at the extremes of inequality and profiting out of a crisis while others are suffering is going to be seen as wrong - because these are real people and real impacts we are talking about, not intellectual masturbation

I wonder, was the moon landing a vanity project? How about the Mars rovers? Do we have to wait until everyone on Earth has a two-car garage and a well-manicured lawn before we start investing in our future as a species?

This stuff is just so childish-- the constant whining and juvenile pee-pee references while highly intelligent, creative people put money into developing technology that will someday improve the lives of your grandchildren in ways you cannot even imagine. I will happily criticize Amazon for its influence in politics and media, and for its treatment of its employees in certain warehouses, but to thumb your nose at innovation of this magnitude just makes you sound like a Luddite. It's been decades since we went to the moon, and during that time our government has invested billions into pointless wars while neglecting space-- which is our future whether you like it or not. It is natural and beneficial that private interests would eventually pick up the slack.

Again, did I actually reject space exploration as a whole? What I rejected was the idea of private individuals using the pretext of space exploration as a vanity project and - more particularly - what I rejected was using the pretext of space exploration to indulge in a vanity project with only individual goals in mind. Or in this context, diverting money from the democratically accountable state towards their own vanity projects. With NASA, it is an organisation that is at least somehow responsible and accountable to the collective (as in, I have a huge problem with it being privatised is that really a surprise that this sort of criticism would come from the left?). Not so with mr moneybags who wants to experience a few minutes of weightlessness

[Xing]

Maybe because he could spend it to, I don’t know, actually help the people who have suffered during the pandemic? And no, I don’t think private space travel is going to be an option for them.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

With the exception of Musk's self-landing rocket (which caught much less hate to begin with), they've not really broken much new ground compared to decades-old, state-sponsored missions with much older technology.

The pathetic, self-indulgent sequel to the space race is just another indicator of how the world's wealth is wasted on these people. Even elitists should be disappointed, because this just isn't a particularly competent elite.

[Geoffrey Howe]

Something about the climate impact.

The climate impact... of space exploration? Would you be angry about this if NASA were doing these voyages? Space travel will be a fundamental aspect of the human experience in the distant future, and getting private companies and investors to start financing this kind of exploration is crucial for our survival as a species. If you're really worried about environmental problems, then you should welcome the opportunity for us to move pollution and surplus population off-planet, and you should support the technological innovations that will be necessary for us to get to that point.

This raises an important point about the benefits of a decentralised economy and private investment.
I know nothing about space exploration or what its benefits might be. Elon Musk clearly has a talent for making wacky ideas into something useful and knows more about space exploration. If this were done by a central planner (or someone in government deciding what is an "acceptable" way for people's wealth to be spent) we would be subject to the prejudices of one person or group of people who can never understand much about the economy or the world. (This applies to everyone, not just bureaucrats.) How many things we take for granted nowadays were seen as "wasteful" or "pointless" at the time? Indeed, a lot of things which used to be luxuries available only to the rich and derided by intolerant egalitarians at the time are now  mainstream (plane tickets, cameras, for example).

[John Dule]

Something about the climate impact.

The climate impact... of space exploration? Would you be angry about this if NASA were doing these voyages? Space travel will be a fundamental aspect of the human experience in the distant future, and getting private companies and investors to start financing this kind of exploration is crucial for our survival as a species. If you're really worried about environmental problems, then you should welcome the opportunity for us to move pollution and surplus population off-planet, and you should support the technological innovations that will be necessary for us to get to that point.

I thin you may have misunderstood a large degree of the criticism that I had. The climate impact of blasting off into space, in this context, in the goal of tourism not exploration. Note that I did not actually say anything against space exploration itself - there's a very different opportunity cost here.

And you don't see how space "tourism" might overlap with space "exploration?" As Geoffrey Howe pointed out above, early adopters of new technologies can drive innovation and growth even if their use of those technologies isn't charitably driven. We all laughed, for example, in the early 1980s when LA businessmen walked around with big fat mobile phones to their ears. People like you considered those devices unnecessary luxuries and complained that the money they were spending on them could be put to better use. But now forty years later, we've all got similar devices. Why? Because early adopters create growth.

Another example: Henry Rogers, a paper company executive and a very wealthy man, commissioned a home in 1882 that would be lit with electricity. At the time, setting up this technology was expensive and inefficient, but it served many useful purposes-- not the least of which was proving to the public that electricity could be supplied to a home in a safe and convenient way. If crybaby socialists had run roughshod over Mr. Rogers and Mr. Edison, decrying their experiment as excessive and wasteful, we would all be living in the dark to this day.

It is clear to me that leftists have no idea how to handle the adoption of new technology, and their egalitarian instincts lead them to reflexively argue that "Nobody should have this kind of luxury until everyone can have it." Sorry, but life just doesn't work this way. Without wealthy investors spearheading new innovations, the devices that you now take for granted would simply never have been built.

Again, did I actually reject space exploration as a whole? What I rejected was the idea of private individuals using the pretext of space exploration as a vanity project and - more particularly - what I rejected was using the pretext of space exploration to indulge in a vanity project with only individual goals in mind. Or in this context, diverting money from the democratically accountable state towards their own vanity projects. With NASA, it is an organisation that is at least somehow responsible and accountable to the collective (as in, I have a huge problem with it being privatised is that really a surprise that this sort of criticism would come from the left?). Not so with mr moneybags who wants to experience a few minutes of weightlessness

"I didn't reject electricity as a whole; what I rejected was the idea of private individuals using the pretext of electrical innovation as a vanity project."

I'm sure some left-wing nobody in the 1880s said this about Henry Rogers. But history has forgotten that person, and we instead remember the men who literally illuminated our cities with their experiments. This pattern has repeated itself innumerable times since the industrial revolution, and somehow, leftists never learn. They continue to criticize capitalism for its "inequality," focusing solely on the relative difference between the rich and the poor while completely ignoring the raw benefits being generated even for those living on the margins of society. Indeed, we've tried leaving space exploration up to "the collective," and apparently if the "collective" had its way, we'd be funneling that money into the bottomless maw of welfare spending rather than investing in humanity's future. I'm happy leaving "the collective" out of the decision-making process on this one, given that we've come so far without their "help" already.

[Orangeoutlaw]

The more Bezos spends on himself, the less he spends on destroying the country.

[beaver2.0]

I'd also add that while these companies may not be developing groundbreaking technologies at the moment, I think there are enough executives with grand visions to continue and develop some very interesting things.

[Crane]

I'd also add that while these companies may not be developing groundbreaking technologies at the moment, I think there are enough executives with grand visions to continue and develop some very interesting things.

That's wild.

Still need to pay more taxes tho

[beaver2.0]

I'd also add that while these companies may not be developing groundbreaking technologies at the moment, I think there are enough executives with grand visions to continue and develop some very interesting things.

That's wild.

Still need to pay more taxes tho

I said this above.

But I think it is possible to say investment in space travel is good while also saying companies should be taxed more.

[John Dule]

I'd also add that while these companies may not be developing groundbreaking technologies at the moment, I think there are enough executives with grand visions to continue and develop some very interesting things.

That's wild.

Still need to pay more taxes tho

I don't know if you think you're being clever or not, but any cursory examination of history will show you that wealthy people are typically the first adopters of new technology, and their investments finance R&D that eventually brings the price of that technology down for the rest of us. I agree that Amazon needs to pay more in taxes, but you (like so many of your ideological ilk) are perfectly willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Social media's obsession with dunking on people has driven this powerful culture of negativity where random people, things or events become targets for dunkers to take their best shots and write their wittiest hate-takes.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

They need to put that money into building space crafts to send us to Mars we don't know when the Metro is gonna hit, but life on Mars is our best bet for survival

[CumbrianLefty]

Branson never even went into space anyway, just saying.

[GregTheGreat657]

I think it is because they are spending the money on space travel and not willingly hand it over to the government.