You mistake a local optimum for a global optimum. What you think is good for you, does not mean that it is good when it is repeated 285 million times.
A solution for one individual problem of you, is likely not the same solution as if you have to solve the same problem for all citizens.
And be honest: Your optimal solution for all citizens will in the normal case attempt to give you most of the gains and least of the costs. Individuals are like that.
So, is my view really jaded as you claim? My view has the lowest idealism of both of us in it. I don't assume that people are all benevolent or altruist, I assume they are all just trying to get along as good as possible. If you can't get your optimal choice in a group, you will try to find the best possible solution which all people in the group can accept or at least tolerate. That is politics. Democracy is not the assumption, that the citizen knows best what his country wants, but that he knows best what he wants. He is not even expected to be resourceful.
The alternative would be the idea, that a single individual can have perfect enough insight and knowledge, that it can rule a whole country alone and do it well, deciding for all people what is best for them. We tried this in Europe in the past under many different trademarks, with varying results, which had been in general pretty disappointing. A crown is just a hat that lets the rain in.
Hmm... I'm not sure how this got focused on politics exactly... extension of the other thread?
hehe
I will say this - Democracy is little more than tyranny of the majority and really no better than any monarchy.
That aside, I think my point was missed. What I was trying to say is that, people are not generally greedy, self centered idiots that just want a free ride. There are lots of those, and that is an element of humanity (in all of us), but it is not the more prevelant aspect or force going on. (just like how the dems think that everyone is a criminal just waiting for a chance to happen, and thus, need to be protected from themselves, when in fact, this is very much not true, people are basically "good", not "bad")
Yes, if you convince them that all war is only evil and no good can ever come of it, then they will resist any urge to go to war. And you'd have cases of the atrocities of the Empire of Japan, and the Nazi regime left unchallenged and unchecked. Meanwhile, you miss out on all the advances in materials, aerospace, and technology that came from it (microwaves, computers, artificial rubber, cheaper turbo and super charging, more pervasive use of Aluminum, production jet turbines, metals able to handle the stresses inside an axial flow turbine, breaking the sound barrier, and indeed - going to the moon (eventually), along with all the post-war advances of the 50s from DuPont and the like. All products of the technology battle spurred by the war - to say nothing of the economic boom it brought. And that's even before we get to rescuing Europe (I'm not saying the US rescued everyone, I mean the Allies as a whole), and the pacific.)
Ditto with recycling. Does not matter if it costs more energy to recycle than to produce new. Does not matter of landfills and incinerators are plenty capable of dealing with things for the next century or more. Does not matter if paper recycling actually hurts trees because tree farms go away and become housing sites. What does matter is that people are convinced that it's the good and helpful thing to do, and they desperately want to do it, to benefit all mankind, now and in the future.
Another pefect example is Hybrids. They are horrible for the environment. The mine where the battery material comes from has killed off everything around it because it's such dirty buisness. Then it's shipped (lots of fuel used) to Europe where it's processed. Then shipped to China where it's foamed. Then shipped to Japan where it's put into batteries and into cars, and then shipped back to America. When it's all said and done, counting manufacturing, it's BETTER for the environment to drive a Hummer H2 (or a Land Rover Discovery) for 300,000 miles, than a Prius (over the same distance). But the emotional sell was an unqualified success and people want their hybrids, becuase it feels better. (and don't even get me started on how Diesels get better mpg, and can burn almost anything)
And so too must it be with anything on the scale of manned space exploration. There has to be a selling point. A reason to do. Tell them that the sun will one day absorbe the Earth, or that an asteroid could hit the planet, or even that Yellowstone is 10s of thousands of years over-due for a world-ending eruption, and they will look at you blankly. At best they might say what was said above, that we aren't ready because we haven't solved our problems here first. So you have to do better than the far off, several generations hence, distant hope of eventual benefit for all mankind.
Sorry, didn't mean to go on at such length, was just trying to make sure I got the point that I was trying to make across (sometimes I don't explain myself very well
).
