The problem you should have with robomartin's mindset is that they are saying "Rich person spent $Money on Cool Thing X, when I think it should have been spent on Cool Thing Y! Why would they ever pick X over Y?!", without recognizing that "better-ness" of Y over X is probably very subjective.
If the view is that no person should have enough money after taxes to do this sort of thing, that I can understand. I wouldn't agree, but I would understand.
That said, I can express opinion as to the choices you may have made. That does NOT mean I am right. It's just one man's opinion.
My general sentiment is that if you are in a position to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on pet projects you have a responsibility to society to make the right choices. Call it a moral or ethical judgement on my part. I do not resent him having money or having fun with it. That's OK. That's more than OK. Pulling up junk from the ocean bottom? Nah, that's bullshit.
> I do not resent him having money or having fun with it.
and
> Pulling up junk from the ocean bottom? Nah, that's bullshit.
What if he enjoys pulling junk up from the bottom of the ocean?Is it still bullshit if he's just doing it for fun?
And, really, he's doing the future people a favour in reducing the number of future 'Antithykera mechanisms' to baffle future archeologists.
If you were truly a libertarian you would not even comment about how he should be spending his own money.
Oh, please.
> or having fun with it. That's OK. That's more than OK. Pulling up junk from the ocean bottom? Nah, that's bullshit.
What? Have you considered that this is both to him? You make absolutely no sense at all.
The fact he doesn't think this way means he is just trying to bullshit us by claiming he is a libertarian or he simply does not understand what the word means [1].
All I said is that spending it raising crap from the bottom of the sea is bullshit.
I also indicated this is based on my moral conviction that if you achieve success at that level you have a responsibility towards society not to do crap like that.
If you choose to do crap like that, live long and prosper. Your choice. I just don't think it's morally supportable in the context of all else that really needs doing.
Look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as an example of what I think is role-model behavior for the uber-rich. I don't require they behave this way. They are absolutely free to do as they wish. They can even make a big pile with their money and burn it. I am merely stating that from my point of view what Bezos is doing isn't right. That's all.
None of this negates a Libertarian doctrine. I should at the same time note that Libertarianism isn't a cookie-cutter system, just like saying someone is a Democrat or a Republican doesn't mean they adhere to 100% of what Wikipedia might say these doctrines consist of. Pure Libertarianism can be a bit extreme.
For example, we still need government officials to be there and throw parties when foreign dignitaries visit. Yes, it's a joke!
So, how about this: Let's agree to disagree. Back to coding and making money I can then burn.
> I am merely stating that from my point of view what Bezos is doing isn't right
What. The. Fuck.
You are clearly beyond rational discussion.
I can look at someone smoking and say "I think that is wrong because of...". That does not, in any way, that I am trying to force or tell the person not to smoke. Now, you might choose to read it that way but that doesn't change what it says.
You clearly only want to disagree with me for the sport of it so I'll agree to disagree and give you the last word because it seems you need to win. Go for it. The stage is yours.
I don't want him to do anything in particular.
I did not say that.
I said that it is MY MORAL JUDGMENT that spending money on this particular endeavor is a waste and that it could find better use elsewhere.
I also said that it is MY MORAL JUDGMENT that the uber-rich have a social responsibility to not do crap like this.
In another reply I mentioned the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as what I think is a perfect role model.
Beyond that, you are making it all up. I am not here to force anyone to do anything. If the guy wants to make a huge bonfire with a hundred million dollars he is free to indulge. I'll even volunteer to light it. And, yes, I'll still be of the opinion that it would be morally wrong.
You know then engines he is recovering? Here they are, being test fired on January of THIS YEAR. Yeah. Crazy. We still have at least one we can fire! Probably more!
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/f1_test.html
This is what I think is going on: Rich guy competition. James Cameron did the Titanic. Bezos wants to play and get something from the bottom of the ocean and here we are probably spending hundreds of millions of dollars lifting twisted and rotted junk up to the surface. All that while a mere two months ago NASA was test firing the real thing. You should be laughing your ass off at this one.
s/what do want him to do/what do you think would be moral for him to do/
Regardless, what non-charity hobbies do you think it would be moral for rich people to have? How much would Bezos hypothetically have to give to charities before this operation stopped being "immoral" in your book? Is there an amount?
You really are trying to tell rich people how they should spend their money, even if you think yourself a libertarian. The cognitive dissonance here is astounding.
I suspect that there are a lot of people who disagree with you about the social value of what they're doing. Judging from the coverage that this is getting.
Look, I love this stuff. I am the guy spending thirty minutes looking at the amazing mechanical engineering at these exhibits. At the same time I recognize this is not what inspires youngsters.
Unfortunately there isn't a Mars mission which is "shovel ready" today.
Hopefully the Amazon products I bought this week contribute in an indirect way to Bezos's wealth which is later spent directly on a Mars mission.
Few people are willing to step out of crowd behavior and stick their heads out.
On the subject of wasting personal money, well, for me it's a matter of moral or ethical nature. A billionaire has a responsibility to do good. That's my own moral standing. And I say this as a Libertarian. Picking up junk from the ocean floor is bullshit. It's no different than filling a garage full of every exotic car in production. Senseless.
So do you have a problem with Jay Leno now too? I am having a really hard time believing that " I do not resent him having money or having fun with it. That's OK. That's more than OK."
Tell me, what hobbies can rich people have that wouldn't bother you? Any examples?
Can a guy express an opinion based on a personal moral stance without others twisting it into thinking he wants to take over the world and tell everyone what to do and think?
It is simply amazing to me how people read what THEY want to read into a statement as opposed to what is actually being said. It's far more of a surprise on HN, where I generally thought people are more intelligent than to do that.
No problem with Jay Leno... but you think his hobby is immoral? You have a very disturbed definition of "no problem".
The energy (fossil fuel) used to power the ships & equipment is possibly the only cost of this expedition that is used up and gone forever.
You are attacking me instead of the argument. Your logic is incorrect. Here are your questions:
>Do you feel compelled to spend your excess money in a way that's most beneficial for humanity? If not, why should Bezos?
Let's apply the same logic to another issue:
"You say doing drugs is bad for you yet you do drugs. Why should I listen to you and not do drugs?"
It is a basic idea in logical reasoning that the messenger and the message are separate. An valid argument can and should stand on its own regardless of who and how it is delivered. The "drugs are bad for you" argument is equally valid if delivered by a Nobel Prize winning PhD in Biology or a homeless high-school drop-out bum with only one tooth.
So saying "Well, if you don't do it why should he not do it?" just doesn't address whether or not the original premise and argument is valid or not, even if the messenger is a deranged lunatic.
To repeat myself, what I have said in many words is that it is my moral judgement that the uber-rich ought to get behind projects with far more significant and measurable social benefits than lifting junk from the bottom of the ocean.
I further put-up the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as a role model.
I also pointed out that we have FULLY WORKING versions of these very engines, at least one of which was test fired a couple of months ago:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/f1_test.html
And, of course, we have a number of them on static display at various locations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1
So, yeah, from my vantage point, it looks like a waste of money.
Is he entitled to do it? Absolutely. Without a doubt.
Am I still entitled to my opinion? Yup.
Are you entitled to a diametrically opposed opinion? Certainly.
See, it all works out in the end.
You say I'm attacking you rather than the argument. This is a strange statement! I'm not attacking anything. I just asked a couple of simple questions. Basically, I'm trying to figure out whether you think this obligation extends to everybody or just the wealthy, and if the latter, why. But you're far too busy complaining about being persecuted to actually explain your position, apparently.
I love space and tech. Love it. We go to JPL every chance we get. My brother in law is a PhD Physicist who works there. Great stuff.
Now, that said, I have to wonder how much time, effort, money and energy went into recovering junk from the ocean.
And, I have to wonder what other project could have been undertaken that would have produced far greater benefits for society than being able to look at a mangled rocket engine at the Smithsonian.
I get it. Guy with a ton of money playing with expensive toys. No problem. We all do that to some extent or another with our disposable income. The problem here, if there is one, is I don't really see much value from recovering this junk. I'd love to know how much the entire adventure (inception to engine-in-museum) will cost. It's probably an obscene amount of money that would have done far greater good elsewhere.
<moron negative guy mode OFF>