Preparations for NASA’s Boeing Starliner Crew Flight Test Launch are in progress.
Launch time: 12:25 pm ET
"The two NASA astronauts aboard, flight commander Butch Wilmore and pilot Suni Williams, will test the end-to-end capabilities of the Starliner system, including launch, docking, and return to Earth. After a one-week stay docked to the International Space Station, the Starliner and crew will land under parachutes in the western United States."
I've been think a lot about how often people who demand action on climate change, but only if someone else is inconvenienced. I think I've found a synergy of ideas that helps with this.
Some of this is odious and predictable, such as oil companies agreeing that something must be done, so long as it doesn't hurt their record-breaking profits. 1/9
They've also got a lot of politicians in their pocket because when those pols are out of office, they'll get a cushy board role or lobbying position if they're willing to vote the right way while they're still in office.
But those are the obvious problems who make the news. What about the vast majority of people? People like us who need to have food, clothing, and shelter? We're a less obvious problem. 2/9
For many of us, higher gas prices are an annoyance. For a single mother of two who needs her car to get to work, higher gas prices could lead to unemployment. Thus, the "Gilet Jaunes" (yellow vests) protests across France. Demand for fuel is, in the short run, inelastic.
Thus, one of the strongest tools against climate change is taken off the table, right?
Not really. That single mother doesn't want fuel. She can't feed fuel to her children. She can't pay the rent with it. 4/9
When French President Macron introduced higher fuel taxes, it was with a laudable goal that if petrol/gas costs more, people will drive less. However, that misses out a key point from economics: it assumes the demand for petrol is elastic. For example, if the price of ice cream is twice as high, people will buy less. The demand for ice cream is thus elastic. However, the demand for insulin is inelastic because if you need insulin and don't get it, you risk death.
If that single mother had food, clothing, and shelter guaranteed, regardless of whether or not she could drive, that would change the entire climate debate. Macron could have raised those taxes and the real complaints of the people would largely be moot.
Enter #UBI. It's not a perfect solution because no UBI solution I've seen is a replacement income. But now you have a choice. 5/9
You still have to work, but UBI is enough, with even a small income, to meet your basic needs.
Or for some, they could pool resources and share a small house. Not great, but imagine more communal living, where you and your extended family and/or friends are there to help the children grow and thrive. Extended families used to be a thing and they can be a thing again.
The main obstacle against UBI? To make it work, taxes must be progressive. 6/9
Those who will pay the most are those who need the money the least. People like accelerationist billionaire Marc Andreeson who wrote in his Techno-Optimist Manifesto, “We believe a Universal Basic Income would turn people into zoo animals to be farmed by the state.” Naturally, he never bothered to explain what he meant by that, or offer any evidence that this is true. 7/9
Or there's the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank heavily funded by the Koch brothers, which has criticized UBI as a "neo-liberal strategy for serfdom" that would increase dependence on the state and centralize power.
The ultra-rich very much object to UBI for two reasons. First, they would be taxed more. Second, UBI means it's much easier for you to leave an abusive job. Amazon fulfilment centers—which offer jobs without fulfilment—would see employees quit en masse. 8/9
@wordshaper Expanding public transportation effectively might take many years. That means infrastructure must be built out, organizational structures grown, and convincing people to change habits. I don't think it solves as many issues as UBI could.
@glitzersachen@cstross OK, that reply was too brief and doesn't even do this topic justice. Let's just say that NASA is in a political grinder (grindr?) where they have to please everyone if they want funding and SpaceX's agile, vertically integrated approach to rockets is better suited for developing technology while minimizing costs.
However, it absolutely does not fit political needs because it doesn't spread jobs across the US (like Blue Origin is trying).
There's a point that many are completely unaware of: NASA is part of the executive branch of the US government. They are legally obliged to execute the will of the President. Even if they don't like that will, they're are bound by it.
The head of NASA is always a political appointee and they have to follow the line or get replaced by someone who will.
@hittitezombie@glitzersachen@cstross They had slightly less than a decade to get someone on the moon and the country was (more or less) supportive of the program.
There's an argument that Kennedy's assassination meant a country in mourning supported his legacy. Couple that with "better dead than red" cold-war paranoia and the US was prepared to tolerate quite a bit.
@hittitezombie@glitzersachen@cstross What's that about the Viking biology tests? To this day, we still don't have a good way to test for life (assembly theory might help here, but not everyone agrees). I'll give 'em a pass on the Viking missions because it was one of the first times we could try science like this, so we didn't know what to look for.
That being said, I'd love to hear a difference of opinion.
@glitzersachen@cstross I'm not sure, but I say that without having done a deep dive on Nelson, Bridenstine, Bolden, and others.
I have the vague opinion that the post is offered as a sincecure for someone at the end of their career, but I have ZERO confidence that I'm right (I suspect I'm dead wrong, but I don't know). However, if it's anything close to the truth, would they be either: