It is private resources and a relatively low amount as well so this is baarely applicable here. It is obviously not the optimal use of resources (because we probably can’t even calculate the absolute optimal use of those resources) but if they are doing anything even slightly positive we should be for it and most will argue that this is a highly valuable endeavour for humanity (even if we only account the amount of useful tech that will be invented/improved during the course of this mission).
Huh? How is this relevant? The question isn’t is it better use of the resources than some possible options, the relevant question is whether this is the best use. No one disagrees that this is a good use compared to many options. But if this isn’t the best use, then yes, I’m against it, in the sense that I’d prefer it to go elsewhere.
If you would rather have something happen over nothing happening at all than you are not against that something BY MY DEFINITION. And if you are against everything that requires resources but is not the optimal use for those resources then you must hate almost everything including yourself and all of your decisions and you should definitely be against wasting your time on arguing instead of inventing or working or volunteering or whatever.
nothing as in nothing that uses those resources and not ‘nothing in the universe’
Sorry, I edited immediately and added a disclaimer on what I meant by that, but it seems that the final edit of my post hasn’t submitted. In the disclaimer I explained that I mean nothing to happen with the resources (which still wasn’t a good explanation of what I meant) and tried to add a different explanation because of my bad wording that I pretty much mean that ‘If you’d rather have event over ~event than..’
Sorry, where did hate come in?
If you are against everything you must (as in it is logical that) you must hate the situation. Anyway, the hate was not the point, the point was that no use of resources is optimal.
If you are against everything you must (as in it is logical that) you must hate the situation
This doesn’t follow at all unless one is using a non-standard notion of hate. For example, given the choice I’d rather watch Casablanca than Field of Dreams, but they are both excellent movies. I wouldn’t “hate” watching Field of Dreams.
the point was that no use of resources is optimal.
This makes me even more confused. How do I know that no use is optimal? Moreover, even if there isn’t any optimal use, how does that not make some uses substantially more optimal than others?
Theoretically there is an optimal use, practically you can’t calculate the optimal use and nothing you do is optimal. Anyway I retracted my previous 2 comments because this is kind of going in circles.
It is private resources and a relatively low amount as well so this is baarely applicable here. It is obviously not the optimal use of resources (because we probably can’t even calculate the absolute optimal use of those resources) but if they are doing anything even slightly positive we should be for it and most will argue that this is a highly valuable endeavour for humanity (even if we only account the amount of useful tech that will be invented/improved during the course of this mission).
Huh? How is this relevant? The question isn’t is it better use of the resources than some possible options, the relevant question is whether this is the best use. No one disagrees that this is a good use compared to many options. But if this isn’t the best use, then yes, I’m against it, in the sense that I’d prefer it to go elsewhere.
If you would rather have something happen over nothing happening at all than you are not against that something BY MY DEFINITION. And if you are against everything that requires resources but is not the optimal use for those resources then you must hate almost everything including yourself and all of your decisions and you should definitely be against wasting your time on arguing instead of inventing or working or volunteering or whatever. nothing as in nothing that uses those resources and not ‘nothing in the universe’
What does it mean for nothing to happen at all?
Sorry, where did hate come in?
Sorry, I edited immediately and added a disclaimer on what I meant by that, but it seems that the final edit of my post hasn’t submitted. In the disclaimer I explained that I mean nothing to happen with the resources (which still wasn’t a good explanation of what I meant) and tried to add a different explanation because of my bad wording that I pretty much mean that ‘If you’d rather have event over ~event than..’
If you are against everything you must (as in it is logical that) you must hate the situation. Anyway, the hate was not the point, the point was that no use of resources is optimal.
This doesn’t follow at all unless one is using a non-standard notion of hate. For example, given the choice I’d rather watch Casablanca than Field of Dreams, but they are both excellent movies. I wouldn’t “hate” watching Field of Dreams.
This makes me even more confused. How do I know that no use is optimal? Moreover, even if there isn’t any optimal use, how does that not make some uses substantially more optimal than others?
Theoretically there is an optimal use, practically you can’t calculate the optimal use and nothing you do is optimal. Anyway I retracted my previous 2 comments because this is kind of going in circles.
It doesn’t follow from the fact that you don’t know the optimal use of resources that you should settle for anything slightly positive.
Yes!