Our path to space - corporations?

[sttrekker7777]

In reply to gsaldivar's comments:

All that you said makes perfect sense. Corporations should be rewarded for the financial risk that they take in the pursuit of new technologies. In fact, they need to be rewarded in order for them to continue their contributions. It's a very neat and efficient system that has got us very far in terms of technological advancement. But although all this is perfectly valid, the very problem is also inherent in this system.

In the initial stages of the technological advancement cycle you stated, companies need to constantly (a) work towards goals that are self-serving and (b) initially make technologies and services not accessible to some people, regardless of the fact that these will become more accessible to people as time goes on and the need for profit in certain areas decreases. But even so, the companies are still committing wrong! It isn't their fault, so to say, but a consequence of the system they thrive in.

Under the entire current economic system, companies are forced to "walk over others," in a way, to gain enough financial advantage to restart their cycles of R & D and production. But in that time, how many senior citizens would have died without access to medicine? How much damage would have been done?

And also, how can we assume that the end result of a privatized space effort would be the same as the public one? True, the public effort, under the current system, would progress at a much slower pace. But what if there is damage done by the privatized efforts, and what if this damage is irreversible? What if corporations gain so much power, as the stakes get higher and the rewards larger, that they begin to control politics to even further extents? What if the U.S.'s foreign policy is dictated even further by the private sector? What if corporations rig media satellites to hide inhumane actions on Mars colonies? All this might sound insanely incredulous, but whenever the power to influence many is put in the hands of a few, great wrong can be done.

Under the scrutiny of shareholders and Wall Street, private pharmaceutical companies must research, develop and produce products efficiently, profitably and competitively. Shareholders voluntarily provide risk capital required for a company to explore and develop its products. If a venture is unable perform profitably, it goes bankrupt, or is acquired by a more-capable company.

Alternatively, a public venture lacks the limits of profitability. It can remain in existence so long as it is authorized to do so by law. As for funding, a public venture will receive funding for as long as is permitted by the prevailing political climate. Little if any incentive exists for the development of new-technologies. The public foots the bill and assumes the risk for all exploration and development. That a public venture lacks the ability to perform profitably is irrelevant - it can remain in existence indefinitely.

In response to the first paragraph: I'm not saying that we should suddenly take corporations out of the picture. The current state of technological advancement - including both its inherent value and how accessible it is to the general public over long periods of time - is pretty damn good. What I fear is that through current processes, no matter how well they have worked in the past, and as the importance, magnitude, and potential irreversibility of direction of technological advancement increase, our future will be made to be unacceptable.

In response to paragraph #2: In order for a public effort involving technological advancement to exist, the passionate desire to aid mankind must inherently also exist. Otherwise, nothing can work. If this desire does indeed exist, there will be great incentive to develop new technologies. And ventures that aren't "profitable" to mankind will be replaced with new ones that are. We are simply replacing the incentive of private good with that of public good.

The last piece to this puzzle is resources. The wealth generated by private corporations is far greater than that generated by public efforts. But what if the public had vast amounts of resources? Then we would have a willing and able force that intends to bring forth technologies in a manner that is not self-serving (while treating public good as a consequence or a side-effect at best) and is solely intended to serve the public only.

You argue that the private system of technological advancement is overall better than that involving technological advancement by the current state of the public. I completely agree. But if the public were equally as able to advance technology, and at the same speed, wouldn't this be a far better society to live in?