Peterkin

That's an interesting idea, because it has two equal and opposite parts of an answer. On the right hand, yes, there is a retrogressive trend in large segments of the population. In the Middle Ages, people were told by absolute authority figures exactly what was true and what was right, and they believed it all (even when what they called truth and right ran counter the people's intuitive sense and empirical observation) for two reasons: it was dangerous to do - or at least admit - otherwise, and the common belief in absolute authority gave them certainty; moral and intellectual security. Those were anxious times, what with plagues and wars and Muslims at the door: certainty, authority and moral security were so precious that they would sacrifice their neighbors to it, and risk their own lives for it. On the left hand, this age of ignorance and superstition is an artificially manufactured product of technology. The same forces at work: frightening events, threats, anxiety, insecurity, resentment of the alien, scarcity of material comforts - and a relatively small number of manipulative power-seekers. However, the manipulators of those forces have different tools. The absolute authorities are factional, not national: each segment of the population - whether divided along geograpic, political, economic, educational, ethnic or religious lines - has its own set of authorities and trusted sources, and truste only those sources. The manipulators or leaders can set up more accessible podia and sock puppets; they can reach more of the gullible faster, more effectively; the gullible can then infect their peers almost instantly, over any distance.

I like that explanation! It's one I never thought of - or even about - but will consider now. Re the yacht and trickle down, I was on a slightly divergent track. A luxury item accounts for a very, very small niche in the making and marketing of consumer goods. It's true that low-paid workers are employed in the extraction of resources, the generation of energy and the manufacture of materials and components. The key point being that there are many such workers, and they each turn out a generic product in vast quantity. Only a minuscule portion of the ticket price on that yacht reach one. Their respective employers, selling the product on to other users, makes a profit and receives a tiny portion of the eventual yacht. By the time these components work their way into the final product and the salesman collects his commission and bonus, the boat will have paid variously large and small portions of skilled workers, professionals and specialists' salaries and five or six tiers of profit to the investors in all of those companies. The unskilled worker at the bottom of the pyramid would be paid the same hourly wage if yachts were omitted from the final inventory. Maintenance and repair, crews and servants do account a few more jobs - much like hotel, cruise and vacation resort jobs; a very small portion of the work-force, changing the fortunes of nobody. Where there is a quite comfortable living to be made is in the specialized trades - furnishings and upholstery, decorating and engine repair, sail-making and hull patching. And the very, very rare profession of marine architect. But it makes no noticeable dent in the bottom three tiers of wage-earners, thus: It barely reaches the bottom of the economic food-chain.

Go ahead. Ask.

About what? You made no opening comment, no statement, no ethical proposition. You addressed this thread to me specifically. If you have something to tell me or ask me or argue with me regarding the ethics of taxation or billioonairehood or mice, please state it clearly so that I can respond without becoming any more trollish than I already am.

You might have articulated that in the opening post, if only to save on confusion. The title question is rather obscure. But, on the principle of "better late", which nuances of taxes do you wish to explore? For that matter, what do you mean by 'nuances'? Still don't know how you frame the the issue of 'value to society'. It's not for me to suggest; it's for you to clarify what aspect of ethics you wish to discuss. Enlighten us, please.

That's the best sentence I've read all week. It could crown a pyramid of economic, sociological, psychological and historical scholarship. Alas, such an edifice would not fit into the available space. As things do stand, humans, if they hope to prosper as a species, must learn to control money; reduce its status from deity to the medium of exchange that its advocates assert it to be. Taxation is one mechanism whereby that could be achieved - if government were not in thrall to money. There are other devices. Christian, Judaic and Muslim scriptures urge charity on the prosperous faithful, and they have had much influence. A sense of obligation to some particular institution or organization, such as the one Jared Isaacman holds for St. Jude's hospital or Alex Trebek did for his alma mater, often prompts generous contributions to the betterment their fellow humans. A personal interest in some cultural activity makes some wealthy people lifelong supporters of the arts and art education. Love and friendship. Concern for the future. Popularity; social standing. Very rich people are as motivated by the same feelings and ideas as the rest of us. Unfortunately, one of the most compelling of these feelings is "I want mooooore!" and one of the most pervasive ideas is "Anything I own this, nobody else can. " It's at this end of the scale that government needs to step in, like a good parent, and regulate the uncouth child's behaviour. Siblings and peers can help!

It's a cognitive gap, apparently. The Craig. T. Nelson problem. Granted, he's only a millionnaire, so maybe that doesn't count.

Is there a purpose for this thread? Why is it in Ethics?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWS8Mg-JWSg How old do you think I am?

You're asking me? OTOMH, government, ex-wives and spiral staircases. Did I guess any right? Do I get to cross the bridge?

There's lots in Alaska. I think, as far as water is liquid - it's a really hardy plant. Poor. I had some in a small pond, years ago. As the pond dried up, the bullrushes retreated. By the third year, they had all died out. It more commonly propagates through rhizomes, so you could dig some up from a roadside ditch to have a stand of them sooner. But they do need mud.

I realize that. As the launches take place at Cape Canaveral, I just wondered how this: @dimreepr : transaction works. Still unclear, actually, but it's not important.

No. You pointed out that at first, only a very few people made use of air transportation because of the cost. Then as it became cheaper, more and more people did. Which is how the aviation industry grew and grew, consumed more and more more fossil fuel and produced more and more CO2, noise pollution, bird deaths, airport sprawl, etc. and a lot of peripheral damage due to tourism and the industries serving it. Not an altogether risible idea, but of course civilization is dependent on it now. Still, the Covid crisis did reduce much of the frivolous flying and made the world a little cleaner and safer for a while. There isn't much to recommend a pandemic! As with air traffic, so also with space traffic: I disapprove of using such incidentally harmful and potentially deadly tools as playthings. I didn't think it was on topic. His good works won't prevent anyone burning to death in a defective vehicle. Once the mechanical problems are corrected, I'm sure electric cars will be safe, clean and wonderful. In space, bailing out doesn't seem like an option.

I didn't count them, but I know "filthy" isn't one I generally employ, as I don't consider t a term of endearment, and I have an unsubstantiated suspicion they don't, either. Why do you think I should be complimentary about the super rich? I am failing to take comfort from that. Indeed I did. He paid for all the seats. He is doing it for a hospital, which is very nice - but not a pre-requisite for space jaunts. No, there are lots, not heavily used. But that's the SpaceX is launching from. They're where I left them. Read as you please.

What did I say about them that's so offensive? 1. They're useless in an emergency on a space flight. 2. Their joy-riding does not advance science and technology, but does add to space debris and air pollution. 3. I think that's a waste of resources. How??? He'd just die, same as on the Challenger. There is absolutely nothing he could do. I don't know why this happens; it's a technical bug that needs to be corrected. I never said "filthy" - you did, at least twice. How come? AFAIK, they're the only ones who can afford a seat. unless somebody wins one in a lottery. 10 years from now, it might be as cheap as $100,00 - still a bit out of reach for the average paramedic and short-order cook. Plastic surgeons and stock brokers, I suppose. They won't be able to fly a spaceship, either, but if one place is taken up by an astronaut, it'll be $I33,000, plus a third share in his salary and life insurance premium. That's not politics; that's economics. I happen to think that money could be put to more productive uses, including more effective ways of promoting science, but that's just opinion. Funny, that's exactly what I've been saying all along. They're grownups; presumably they know the risk; if they want to assume that risk according to the terms of their contract, whether that's wise or not, it's perfectly appropriate for them to do so. I have concerns, but that's not one of them. At least until Cape Canaveral is under 10' of ocean. https://www.climatecentral.org/news/cape-canaveral-launch-sites-threatened-by-rising-seas When were we ever off? Do you think this is wise or appropriate? No. Yes.

What we each might want for ourselves is not really on the table. It's not us going into the capsule. I wouldn't. They want to. Whether it's wise or not, it seems to be the right decision for them.

Thank you for that. I don't really have any further arguments. The only objective one was about the waste and pollution mentioned in my first post. Seems to me, the Earth is fragile enough, and is already orbited by an unconscionable amount of its own squandered resources; it doesn't really need to be an even more reckless playground for the people who benefit most from squandering its resources. If such a stance is considered political, I'm okay with it. If holding it gives me a bad rep, I'm okay with that, too. My personal opinion regarding these private flights is that I would not willingly be riveted into a vehicle owned by someone whose vehicles occasionally combust spontaneously. But if an autonomous, informed adult wants to take that risk, it's theirs to take. I'm no more concerned with their safety than that of Everest climbers or motorcycle racers. I do see that NASA, unable to launch its own ferry service for astronauts and scientists, would rather depend on charter flights with a private American company than a Russian government one. (I'm not crazy about the situation where America's space agency has that choice to make, but that wasn't in the OP topic.) However, I don't see how circus and mail-order business CEO's having a super-expensive carnival ride advances mankind.

If I missed a point, please provide information to set me straight. I thought NASA was publicly funded.

They've contracted out all space flights: it's the public paying Musk, not the other way around. https://www.space.com/spacex-boeing-commercial-crew-seat-prices.html

How should any of us know? It's their decision. They have the resources and information to make the one that seems right, wise and appropriate for each of them.

I'm sure they've made plans for various foreseeable problems. Nobody has plans for the unforeseen ones. Sometimes the rocket explodes and everybody dies - including the professional astronauts.

They don't seem to be clueless; I'm not terribly worried about their safety. I am, however, concerned that this is a one-off advertising gimmick - presumably to promote the newest fad in overpriced leisure activities, so that all future passengers are likely to be useless rich people, wasting jillions of dollars and fuel. Depending on the fuel used, they'll produce a significant to unacceptable amount of air pollution and CO2 emission . To no good purpose whatever.

If I may inject a word of caution from experience? The child may be very bright and very keen, but she is also very young. The attention has not yet stretched to adult proportion, and the world is till growing. Some children do discover their vocation early in life and stick with it for life, but it's far more common for interest and enthusiasm to wax, wane and shift in the developing years. Be careful not to overwhelm her with stuff and information and activity. Or invest too much, both in material resources and parental concern, in this one area of her education. Most importantly, be extra careful not to overwhelm her with your own enthusiasm! It can lead to complications. (PS Not mad keen on the ant farm idea. They usually die - right in front of the little kid who's learned to care about them. Far better - and infinitely more instructive! - to study real ants, living their natural life. Especially if she's interested in how they fit into their ecosystem. Bonus: the two of you get to spend quality time outdoors, crawling on hands and knees, on the same level. No magnifying glass, okay?)

They're wonderfully versatile little things, primary food source for marine life, human food and medicine, potential fuel, and there will be more of it, anyway, as the icecaps melt, the phyloplankton blooms are already increasing - with some interesting side effects. (You might want to read that whole article.) On the other hand, human criminality threatens the planktons, as it does all ocean life. What's the point of genetically modifying something while killing it? As part of a comprehensive and united global application of drastic measures, yes. Side-note: a good deal of the carbon being released this year is from burning trees. You may find this publication useful.

How long has that been incubating?