Does it make sense to invest money on space investigation? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhat plans does AEB (the Brazilian Space Agency) have for missions beyond GEO?How are long space travel times motivated? (17 year Europa mission)Why does data transfer rate decrease with distanceIs there a comprehensive list of all space probes ever launched?What does space look like from space?Does any group have plans for manned missions longer than the 5 year Callisto mission?Does variable distance to Mars affect data transmission rates?LEO or GEO or Lx for a space shipyard?Does the International Space Station get TV?Hijacked space data, notable instances of recovering images or other goodies from someone else's space mission?
Unclear about dynamic binding
Method for adding error messages to a dictionary given a key
Can MTA send mail via a relay without being told so?
Can a Bladesinger Wizard use Bladesong with a Hand Crossbow?
Example of a Mathematician/Physicist whose Other Publications during their PhD eclipsed their PhD Thesis
Axiom Schema vs Axiom
Is it ever safe to open a suspicious HTML file (e.g. email attachment)?
Why is quantifier elimination desirable for a given theory?
Flying from Cape Town to England and return to another province
Why this way of making earth uninhabitable in Interstellar?
How do I align (1) and (2)?
How to get from Geneva Airport to Metabief?
Why does the flight controls check come before arming the autobrake on the A320?
Why isn't the Mueller report being released completely and unredacted?
The exact meaning of 'Mom made me a sandwich'
Recycling old answers
Why the difference in type-inference over the as-pattern in two similar function definitions?
Why do airplanes bank sharply to the right after air-to-air refueling?
No sign flipping while figuring out the emf of voltaic cell?
Should I cite using beginthebibliography or beginfilecontents*
WOW air has ceased operation, can I get my tickets refunded?
Some questions about different axiomatic systems for neighbourhoods
Does increasing your ability score affect your main stat?
0 rank tensor vs 1D vector
Does it make sense to invest money on space investigation?
The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhat plans does AEB (the Brazilian Space Agency) have for missions beyond GEO?How are long space travel times motivated? (17 year Europa mission)Why does data transfer rate decrease with distanceIs there a comprehensive list of all space probes ever launched?What does space look like from space?Does any group have plans for manned missions longer than the 5 year Callisto mission?Does variable distance to Mars affect data transmission rates?LEO or GEO or Lx for a space shipyard?Does the International Space Station get TV?Hijacked space data, notable instances of recovering images or other goodies from someone else's space mission?
$begingroup$
I recently saw this picture - drawn by the excellent Spanish cartoonist 'El roto'
Translated (please, don't hesitate to edit the question if you find a better translation)
They looked for signals in space and ignored the distress calls emitted by the Earth.
In fact, millions of dollars are invested every year by Governments when it comes to space investigation - millions of dollars that could be used, for instance, in order to fight against social inequality...
So, does it really make sense for Governments to invest money on space exploration?, i.e. why should Governments invest money on space exploration?
Edit I've just noticed that the question has kind of been misunderstood. When I introduced the possibility of investing money in order to fight poverty, I didn't mean that Governments don't do so, or that this is a better possibility. I just wanted to know, $$colorredmathbftextwhy should we invest money on space exploration rather than on other things?$$
spacecraft future-missions data-transmission exploration-mission-1
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I recently saw this picture - drawn by the excellent Spanish cartoonist 'El roto'
Translated (please, don't hesitate to edit the question if you find a better translation)
They looked for signals in space and ignored the distress calls emitted by the Earth.
In fact, millions of dollars are invested every year by Governments when it comes to space investigation - millions of dollars that could be used, for instance, in order to fight against social inequality...
So, does it really make sense for Governments to invest money on space exploration?, i.e. why should Governments invest money on space exploration?
Edit I've just noticed that the question has kind of been misunderstood. When I introduced the possibility of investing money in order to fight poverty, I didn't mean that Governments don't do so, or that this is a better possibility. I just wanted to know, $$colorredmathbftextwhy should we invest money on space exploration rather than on other things?$$
spacecraft future-missions data-transmission exploration-mission-1
New contributor
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Everything is in spae! Where else could it be? All energy, all resources, everything to be discovered. Even YOU are in space, if you didn't fathom it until I told you so. What is there to investigate if not space? Nothing? Then unuse your brain.
$endgroup$
– LocalFluff
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you believe the logic of that question, you should first have to answer “The world has invested trillions on Earth without resolving (favorite issue). Why should we invest any more?”
$endgroup$
– Bob Jacobsen
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Think about the converse... Why should we invest in other things? Why shouldn’t we solve more important problems like space exploration first?
$endgroup$
– Paul
29 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I recently saw this picture - drawn by the excellent Spanish cartoonist 'El roto'
Translated (please, don't hesitate to edit the question if you find a better translation)
They looked for signals in space and ignored the distress calls emitted by the Earth.
In fact, millions of dollars are invested every year by Governments when it comes to space investigation - millions of dollars that could be used, for instance, in order to fight against social inequality...
So, does it really make sense for Governments to invest money on space exploration?, i.e. why should Governments invest money on space exploration?
Edit I've just noticed that the question has kind of been misunderstood. When I introduced the possibility of investing money in order to fight poverty, I didn't mean that Governments don't do so, or that this is a better possibility. I just wanted to know, $$colorredmathbftextwhy should we invest money on space exploration rather than on other things?$$
spacecraft future-missions data-transmission exploration-mission-1
New contributor
$endgroup$
I recently saw this picture - drawn by the excellent Spanish cartoonist 'El roto'
Translated (please, don't hesitate to edit the question if you find a better translation)
They looked for signals in space and ignored the distress calls emitted by the Earth.
In fact, millions of dollars are invested every year by Governments when it comes to space investigation - millions of dollars that could be used, for instance, in order to fight against social inequality...
So, does it really make sense for Governments to invest money on space exploration?, i.e. why should Governments invest money on space exploration?
Edit I've just noticed that the question has kind of been misunderstood. When I introduced the possibility of investing money in order to fight poverty, I didn't mean that Governments don't do so, or that this is a better possibility. I just wanted to know, $$colorredmathbftextwhy should we invest money on space exploration rather than on other things?$$
spacecraft future-missions data-transmission exploration-mission-1
spacecraft future-missions data-transmission exploration-mission-1
New contributor
New contributor
edited 3 hours ago
Dr. Mathva
New contributor
asked 4 hours ago
Dr. MathvaDr. Mathva
1094
1094
New contributor
New contributor
$begingroup$
Everything is in spae! Where else could it be? All energy, all resources, everything to be discovered. Even YOU are in space, if you didn't fathom it until I told you so. What is there to investigate if not space? Nothing? Then unuse your brain.
$endgroup$
– LocalFluff
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you believe the logic of that question, you should first have to answer “The world has invested trillions on Earth without resolving (favorite issue). Why should we invest any more?”
$endgroup$
– Bob Jacobsen
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Think about the converse... Why should we invest in other things? Why shouldn’t we solve more important problems like space exploration first?
$endgroup$
– Paul
29 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Everything is in spae! Where else could it be? All energy, all resources, everything to be discovered. Even YOU are in space, if you didn't fathom it until I told you so. What is there to investigate if not space? Nothing? Then unuse your brain.
$endgroup$
– LocalFluff
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you believe the logic of that question, you should first have to answer “The world has invested trillions on Earth without resolving (favorite issue). Why should we invest any more?”
$endgroup$
– Bob Jacobsen
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Think about the converse... Why should we invest in other things? Why shouldn’t we solve more important problems like space exploration first?
$endgroup$
– Paul
29 mins ago
$begingroup$
Everything is in spae! Where else could it be? All energy, all resources, everything to be discovered. Even YOU are in space, if you didn't fathom it until I told you so. What is there to investigate if not space? Nothing? Then unuse your brain.
$endgroup$
– LocalFluff
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Everything is in spae! Where else could it be? All energy, all resources, everything to be discovered. Even YOU are in space, if you didn't fathom it until I told you so. What is there to investigate if not space? Nothing? Then unuse your brain.
$endgroup$
– LocalFluff
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you believe the logic of that question, you should first have to answer “The world has invested trillions on Earth without resolving (favorite issue). Why should we invest any more?”
$endgroup$
– Bob Jacobsen
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you believe the logic of that question, you should first have to answer “The world has invested trillions on Earth without resolving (favorite issue). Why should we invest any more?”
$endgroup$
– Bob Jacobsen
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Think about the converse... Why should we invest in other things? Why shouldn’t we solve more important problems like space exploration first?
$endgroup$
– Paul
29 mins ago
$begingroup$
Think about the converse... Why should we invest in other things? Why shouldn’t we solve more important problems like space exploration first?
$endgroup$
– Paul
29 mins ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
"We should wait for all the problems on earth to be solved before going into space".
I've seen this sentiment multiple times, and I disagree vehemently.
1. There are other much more worthy targets of this kind of argument
Whenever a space mission has cost overruns in the billions, I convert the dollar amount into B-2 bomber equivalents. That is, 2 billion USD = 1 B-2 bomber (lifetime cost). Hubble Space telescope = 0.75 B-2 bombers. JWST = 4.7 B-2 bombers (as of 2019). And let's not get drawn in to the wastefulness of the F-35 fighter cost overruns. As a fraction of the total spending of the US government, Space exploration is tiny.
2. We will never truly solve all problems on earth
At least, we will never solve all the perceived problems on earth. Remarkable changes have occurred over the last century, diseases that once ravaged entire populations are now functionally extinct, death by violence has been steadily going down, and ours is currently the most peaceful time in existence, contrary to what you might believe from watching the news (For more on this, check out Steven Pinker's The better angels of our nature), and finally, technology (and with it our ability to do things) is increasing at a rate unprecedented in history.
But all of these processes are slow, in comparison to the experiences of daily life. The gradual improvement of life is invisible when a gross injustice is inflicted upon you in the here and now. And due to the accessibility of worldwide news and the internet, reporting of gross injustices has never been more prevalent.
There will always be problems, both real and perceived, which is why waiting for them to be solved before embarking on space exploration would mean we never got to do space exploration.
3. Space exploration is the single best long-term thing we can do
This I think is the most important part. Earth's time as a habitable planet is (geologically speaking) nearly up. Due to the sun's increasing brightness, earth will be rendered uninhabitable somewhere between 100 million and 1 billion years in the future. And that's the optimistic scenario that ignores climate change or any other cataclysmic event.
Humanity can't survive on earth forever. We must become an interplanetary or interstellar species if we are to survive the death of our earth or sun.
There's a sentiment I see sometimes, that 'Humanity doesn't deserve to go to the stars, because humans are somehow bad', or that 'Humans will just ruin space like they ruined earth.'
I find this to be a peculiar moral argument. It's worth remembering that space colonisation is not just about the preservation of humans, it's about the preservation of four billion years of evolutionary history.
Life, I think almost certainly exists elsewhere in the universe. Our particular brand of life (with its nucleotides, genes and evolutionary lineage) is almost certainly unique. And I think denying 4 billion years worth of unique life the chance to survive the death of its host star because 'some humans are sometimes bad', would be a crime.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Governments do lots of things despite the existence of poverty. Investment in all kinds of science, in the military, in infrastructure, etc. all proceed despite poverty. And this is a good thing. If governments limited themselves to fighting poverty, they might eradicate poverty but we'd be stuck in the 1940s technology-wise. Computers, the internet, modern materials, modern agriculture all exist because governments decided to spend money on projects that didn't have an immediate return on investment.
Learning more about the universe around us is never a bad thing.
Apart from that, the cartoon is bullshit. Governments aren't "ignoring the distress calls from Earth", far from it. Billions are spent every year improving the world.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks for the answer! However, poverty was just an example (which I didn't make clear). I've edited the question
$endgroup$
– Dr. Mathva
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
"We shouldn't spend any money on [insert item of your choice here] until we have solved [insert interest that is dear to your heart here]."
In practice, that means we would never spend money on the venture because we can safely assume that the problem that must be solved first will never actually be solved. Anything that is not the problem that needs to be solved first will simply go away, with all that implies.
There is a widely acknowledged problem of diminishing returns. The more you spend on anything, like curing cancer, the less return you get on every additional dollar. A consequence is that your dollars work more productively if you spread them out over multiple projects. If you look at the 2018 US budget, NASA got around $19 billion compared with 68 for Education, 65 for Health and Human Services, 41 for Housing and Urban Development, 79 for Veteran Affairs, 6 for EPA, among the rest. If you bust up NASA's budget and gave another $4.75 billion to each of those listed, that would be around a 7% increase for Education and H&HS, 11% for H&UD, 6% for Veterans. It would be an 80% increase for the EPA, but our current administration would just kill it if they could, so the EPA wouldn't get that money anyway. The point is, it would completely eliminate NASA, and whatever problems you're trying to solve by doing that would not get solved. It wouldn't bring you much farther ahead.
You might be okay with that. You might not care about space science at all. But the general public values it. That's why our representatives give it money. In fact, I think it is one of the charming characteristics of humans that they will dedicate those kinds of resources because they just want to know. We are a curious species, we have a need to explore. Beyond that, I see it as a form of spiritualism. Exploring the cosmos, exploring the fundamental nature of matter in the large accelerator facilities, it's really seeking answers to the kinds of questions philosophers have been asking for thousands of years, like: Where did we come from? Where is it all going? What is our relationship with the cosmos? There must be value to that since we've never stopped searching.
(I'm ignoring practical benefits like spin-offs and the contribution to commercial launch services. They're real, but I chose to go in a different direction here.)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Dr. Mathva is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35170%2fdoes-it-make-sense-to-invest-money-on-space-investigation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
"We should wait for all the problems on earth to be solved before going into space".
I've seen this sentiment multiple times, and I disagree vehemently.
1. There are other much more worthy targets of this kind of argument
Whenever a space mission has cost overruns in the billions, I convert the dollar amount into B-2 bomber equivalents. That is, 2 billion USD = 1 B-2 bomber (lifetime cost). Hubble Space telescope = 0.75 B-2 bombers. JWST = 4.7 B-2 bombers (as of 2019). And let's not get drawn in to the wastefulness of the F-35 fighter cost overruns. As a fraction of the total spending of the US government, Space exploration is tiny.
2. We will never truly solve all problems on earth
At least, we will never solve all the perceived problems on earth. Remarkable changes have occurred over the last century, diseases that once ravaged entire populations are now functionally extinct, death by violence has been steadily going down, and ours is currently the most peaceful time in existence, contrary to what you might believe from watching the news (For more on this, check out Steven Pinker's The better angels of our nature), and finally, technology (and with it our ability to do things) is increasing at a rate unprecedented in history.
But all of these processes are slow, in comparison to the experiences of daily life. The gradual improvement of life is invisible when a gross injustice is inflicted upon you in the here and now. And due to the accessibility of worldwide news and the internet, reporting of gross injustices has never been more prevalent.
There will always be problems, both real and perceived, which is why waiting for them to be solved before embarking on space exploration would mean we never got to do space exploration.
3. Space exploration is the single best long-term thing we can do
This I think is the most important part. Earth's time as a habitable planet is (geologically speaking) nearly up. Due to the sun's increasing brightness, earth will be rendered uninhabitable somewhere between 100 million and 1 billion years in the future. And that's the optimistic scenario that ignores climate change or any other cataclysmic event.
Humanity can't survive on earth forever. We must become an interplanetary or interstellar species if we are to survive the death of our earth or sun.
There's a sentiment I see sometimes, that 'Humanity doesn't deserve to go to the stars, because humans are somehow bad', or that 'Humans will just ruin space like they ruined earth.'
I find this to be a peculiar moral argument. It's worth remembering that space colonisation is not just about the preservation of humans, it's about the preservation of four billion years of evolutionary history.
Life, I think almost certainly exists elsewhere in the universe. Our particular brand of life (with its nucleotides, genes and evolutionary lineage) is almost certainly unique. And I think denying 4 billion years worth of unique life the chance to survive the death of its host star because 'some humans are sometimes bad', would be a crime.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
"We should wait for all the problems on earth to be solved before going into space".
I've seen this sentiment multiple times, and I disagree vehemently.
1. There are other much more worthy targets of this kind of argument
Whenever a space mission has cost overruns in the billions, I convert the dollar amount into B-2 bomber equivalents. That is, 2 billion USD = 1 B-2 bomber (lifetime cost). Hubble Space telescope = 0.75 B-2 bombers. JWST = 4.7 B-2 bombers (as of 2019). And let's not get drawn in to the wastefulness of the F-35 fighter cost overruns. As a fraction of the total spending of the US government, Space exploration is tiny.
2. We will never truly solve all problems on earth
At least, we will never solve all the perceived problems on earth. Remarkable changes have occurred over the last century, diseases that once ravaged entire populations are now functionally extinct, death by violence has been steadily going down, and ours is currently the most peaceful time in existence, contrary to what you might believe from watching the news (For more on this, check out Steven Pinker's The better angels of our nature), and finally, technology (and with it our ability to do things) is increasing at a rate unprecedented in history.
But all of these processes are slow, in comparison to the experiences of daily life. The gradual improvement of life is invisible when a gross injustice is inflicted upon you in the here and now. And due to the accessibility of worldwide news and the internet, reporting of gross injustices has never been more prevalent.
There will always be problems, both real and perceived, which is why waiting for them to be solved before embarking on space exploration would mean we never got to do space exploration.
3. Space exploration is the single best long-term thing we can do
This I think is the most important part. Earth's time as a habitable planet is (geologically speaking) nearly up. Due to the sun's increasing brightness, earth will be rendered uninhabitable somewhere between 100 million and 1 billion years in the future. And that's the optimistic scenario that ignores climate change or any other cataclysmic event.
Humanity can't survive on earth forever. We must become an interplanetary or interstellar species if we are to survive the death of our earth or sun.
There's a sentiment I see sometimes, that 'Humanity doesn't deserve to go to the stars, because humans are somehow bad', or that 'Humans will just ruin space like they ruined earth.'
I find this to be a peculiar moral argument. It's worth remembering that space colonisation is not just about the preservation of humans, it's about the preservation of four billion years of evolutionary history.
Life, I think almost certainly exists elsewhere in the universe. Our particular brand of life (with its nucleotides, genes and evolutionary lineage) is almost certainly unique. And I think denying 4 billion years worth of unique life the chance to survive the death of its host star because 'some humans are sometimes bad', would be a crime.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
"We should wait for all the problems on earth to be solved before going into space".
I've seen this sentiment multiple times, and I disagree vehemently.
1. There are other much more worthy targets of this kind of argument
Whenever a space mission has cost overruns in the billions, I convert the dollar amount into B-2 bomber equivalents. That is, 2 billion USD = 1 B-2 bomber (lifetime cost). Hubble Space telescope = 0.75 B-2 bombers. JWST = 4.7 B-2 bombers (as of 2019). And let's not get drawn in to the wastefulness of the F-35 fighter cost overruns. As a fraction of the total spending of the US government, Space exploration is tiny.
2. We will never truly solve all problems on earth
At least, we will never solve all the perceived problems on earth. Remarkable changes have occurred over the last century, diseases that once ravaged entire populations are now functionally extinct, death by violence has been steadily going down, and ours is currently the most peaceful time in existence, contrary to what you might believe from watching the news (For more on this, check out Steven Pinker's The better angels of our nature), and finally, technology (and with it our ability to do things) is increasing at a rate unprecedented in history.
But all of these processes are slow, in comparison to the experiences of daily life. The gradual improvement of life is invisible when a gross injustice is inflicted upon you in the here and now. And due to the accessibility of worldwide news and the internet, reporting of gross injustices has never been more prevalent.
There will always be problems, both real and perceived, which is why waiting for them to be solved before embarking on space exploration would mean we never got to do space exploration.
3. Space exploration is the single best long-term thing we can do
This I think is the most important part. Earth's time as a habitable planet is (geologically speaking) nearly up. Due to the sun's increasing brightness, earth will be rendered uninhabitable somewhere between 100 million and 1 billion years in the future. And that's the optimistic scenario that ignores climate change or any other cataclysmic event.
Humanity can't survive on earth forever. We must become an interplanetary or interstellar species if we are to survive the death of our earth or sun.
There's a sentiment I see sometimes, that 'Humanity doesn't deserve to go to the stars, because humans are somehow bad', or that 'Humans will just ruin space like they ruined earth.'
I find this to be a peculiar moral argument. It's worth remembering that space colonisation is not just about the preservation of humans, it's about the preservation of four billion years of evolutionary history.
Life, I think almost certainly exists elsewhere in the universe. Our particular brand of life (with its nucleotides, genes and evolutionary lineage) is almost certainly unique. And I think denying 4 billion years worth of unique life the chance to survive the death of its host star because 'some humans are sometimes bad', would be a crime.
$endgroup$
"We should wait for all the problems on earth to be solved before going into space".
I've seen this sentiment multiple times, and I disagree vehemently.
1. There are other much more worthy targets of this kind of argument
Whenever a space mission has cost overruns in the billions, I convert the dollar amount into B-2 bomber equivalents. That is, 2 billion USD = 1 B-2 bomber (lifetime cost). Hubble Space telescope = 0.75 B-2 bombers. JWST = 4.7 B-2 bombers (as of 2019). And let's not get drawn in to the wastefulness of the F-35 fighter cost overruns. As a fraction of the total spending of the US government, Space exploration is tiny.
2. We will never truly solve all problems on earth
At least, we will never solve all the perceived problems on earth. Remarkable changes have occurred over the last century, diseases that once ravaged entire populations are now functionally extinct, death by violence has been steadily going down, and ours is currently the most peaceful time in existence, contrary to what you might believe from watching the news (For more on this, check out Steven Pinker's The better angels of our nature), and finally, technology (and with it our ability to do things) is increasing at a rate unprecedented in history.
But all of these processes are slow, in comparison to the experiences of daily life. The gradual improvement of life is invisible when a gross injustice is inflicted upon you in the here and now. And due to the accessibility of worldwide news and the internet, reporting of gross injustices has never been more prevalent.
There will always be problems, both real and perceived, which is why waiting for them to be solved before embarking on space exploration would mean we never got to do space exploration.
3. Space exploration is the single best long-term thing we can do
This I think is the most important part. Earth's time as a habitable planet is (geologically speaking) nearly up. Due to the sun's increasing brightness, earth will be rendered uninhabitable somewhere between 100 million and 1 billion years in the future. And that's the optimistic scenario that ignores climate change or any other cataclysmic event.
Humanity can't survive on earth forever. We must become an interplanetary or interstellar species if we are to survive the death of our earth or sun.
There's a sentiment I see sometimes, that 'Humanity doesn't deserve to go to the stars, because humans are somehow bad', or that 'Humans will just ruin space like they ruined earth.'
I find this to be a peculiar moral argument. It's worth remembering that space colonisation is not just about the preservation of humans, it's about the preservation of four billion years of evolutionary history.
Life, I think almost certainly exists elsewhere in the universe. Our particular brand of life (with its nucleotides, genes and evolutionary lineage) is almost certainly unique. And I think denying 4 billion years worth of unique life the chance to survive the death of its host star because 'some humans are sometimes bad', would be a crime.
answered 3 hours ago
IngolifsIngolifs
1,817624
1,817624
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Governments do lots of things despite the existence of poverty. Investment in all kinds of science, in the military, in infrastructure, etc. all proceed despite poverty. And this is a good thing. If governments limited themselves to fighting poverty, they might eradicate poverty but we'd be stuck in the 1940s technology-wise. Computers, the internet, modern materials, modern agriculture all exist because governments decided to spend money on projects that didn't have an immediate return on investment.
Learning more about the universe around us is never a bad thing.
Apart from that, the cartoon is bullshit. Governments aren't "ignoring the distress calls from Earth", far from it. Billions are spent every year improving the world.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks for the answer! However, poverty was just an example (which I didn't make clear). I've edited the question
$endgroup$
– Dr. Mathva
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Governments do lots of things despite the existence of poverty. Investment in all kinds of science, in the military, in infrastructure, etc. all proceed despite poverty. And this is a good thing. If governments limited themselves to fighting poverty, they might eradicate poverty but we'd be stuck in the 1940s technology-wise. Computers, the internet, modern materials, modern agriculture all exist because governments decided to spend money on projects that didn't have an immediate return on investment.
Learning more about the universe around us is never a bad thing.
Apart from that, the cartoon is bullshit. Governments aren't "ignoring the distress calls from Earth", far from it. Billions are spent every year improving the world.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks for the answer! However, poverty was just an example (which I didn't make clear). I've edited the question
$endgroup$
– Dr. Mathva
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Governments do lots of things despite the existence of poverty. Investment in all kinds of science, in the military, in infrastructure, etc. all proceed despite poverty. And this is a good thing. If governments limited themselves to fighting poverty, they might eradicate poverty but we'd be stuck in the 1940s technology-wise. Computers, the internet, modern materials, modern agriculture all exist because governments decided to spend money on projects that didn't have an immediate return on investment.
Learning more about the universe around us is never a bad thing.
Apart from that, the cartoon is bullshit. Governments aren't "ignoring the distress calls from Earth", far from it. Billions are spent every year improving the world.
$endgroup$
Governments do lots of things despite the existence of poverty. Investment in all kinds of science, in the military, in infrastructure, etc. all proceed despite poverty. And this is a good thing. If governments limited themselves to fighting poverty, they might eradicate poverty but we'd be stuck in the 1940s technology-wise. Computers, the internet, modern materials, modern agriculture all exist because governments decided to spend money on projects that didn't have an immediate return on investment.
Learning more about the universe around us is never a bad thing.
Apart from that, the cartoon is bullshit. Governments aren't "ignoring the distress calls from Earth", far from it. Billions are spent every year improving the world.
answered 4 hours ago
HobbesHobbes
94.7k2267421
94.7k2267421
$begingroup$
Thanks for the answer! However, poverty was just an example (which I didn't make clear). I've edited the question
$endgroup$
– Dr. Mathva
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thanks for the answer! However, poverty was just an example (which I didn't make clear). I've edited the question
$endgroup$
– Dr. Mathva
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks for the answer! However, poverty was just an example (which I didn't make clear). I've edited the question
$endgroup$
– Dr. Mathva
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks for the answer! However, poverty was just an example (which I didn't make clear). I've edited the question
$endgroup$
– Dr. Mathva
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
"We shouldn't spend any money on [insert item of your choice here] until we have solved [insert interest that is dear to your heart here]."
In practice, that means we would never spend money on the venture because we can safely assume that the problem that must be solved first will never actually be solved. Anything that is not the problem that needs to be solved first will simply go away, with all that implies.
There is a widely acknowledged problem of diminishing returns. The more you spend on anything, like curing cancer, the less return you get on every additional dollar. A consequence is that your dollars work more productively if you spread them out over multiple projects. If you look at the 2018 US budget, NASA got around $19 billion compared with 68 for Education, 65 for Health and Human Services, 41 for Housing and Urban Development, 79 for Veteran Affairs, 6 for EPA, among the rest. If you bust up NASA's budget and gave another $4.75 billion to each of those listed, that would be around a 7% increase for Education and H&HS, 11% for H&UD, 6% for Veterans. It would be an 80% increase for the EPA, but our current administration would just kill it if they could, so the EPA wouldn't get that money anyway. The point is, it would completely eliminate NASA, and whatever problems you're trying to solve by doing that would not get solved. It wouldn't bring you much farther ahead.
You might be okay with that. You might not care about space science at all. But the general public values it. That's why our representatives give it money. In fact, I think it is one of the charming characteristics of humans that they will dedicate those kinds of resources because they just want to know. We are a curious species, we have a need to explore. Beyond that, I see it as a form of spiritualism. Exploring the cosmos, exploring the fundamental nature of matter in the large accelerator facilities, it's really seeking answers to the kinds of questions philosophers have been asking for thousands of years, like: Where did we come from? Where is it all going? What is our relationship with the cosmos? There must be value to that since we've never stopped searching.
(I'm ignoring practical benefits like spin-offs and the contribution to commercial launch services. They're real, but I chose to go in a different direction here.)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
"We shouldn't spend any money on [insert item of your choice here] until we have solved [insert interest that is dear to your heart here]."
In practice, that means we would never spend money on the venture because we can safely assume that the problem that must be solved first will never actually be solved. Anything that is not the problem that needs to be solved first will simply go away, with all that implies.
There is a widely acknowledged problem of diminishing returns. The more you spend on anything, like curing cancer, the less return you get on every additional dollar. A consequence is that your dollars work more productively if you spread them out over multiple projects. If you look at the 2018 US budget, NASA got around $19 billion compared with 68 for Education, 65 for Health and Human Services, 41 for Housing and Urban Development, 79 for Veteran Affairs, 6 for EPA, among the rest. If you bust up NASA's budget and gave another $4.75 billion to each of those listed, that would be around a 7% increase for Education and H&HS, 11% for H&UD, 6% for Veterans. It would be an 80% increase for the EPA, but our current administration would just kill it if they could, so the EPA wouldn't get that money anyway. The point is, it would completely eliminate NASA, and whatever problems you're trying to solve by doing that would not get solved. It wouldn't bring you much farther ahead.
You might be okay with that. You might not care about space science at all. But the general public values it. That's why our representatives give it money. In fact, I think it is one of the charming characteristics of humans that they will dedicate those kinds of resources because they just want to know. We are a curious species, we have a need to explore. Beyond that, I see it as a form of spiritualism. Exploring the cosmos, exploring the fundamental nature of matter in the large accelerator facilities, it's really seeking answers to the kinds of questions philosophers have been asking for thousands of years, like: Where did we come from? Where is it all going? What is our relationship with the cosmos? There must be value to that since we've never stopped searching.
(I'm ignoring practical benefits like spin-offs and the contribution to commercial launch services. They're real, but I chose to go in a different direction here.)
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
"We shouldn't spend any money on [insert item of your choice here] until we have solved [insert interest that is dear to your heart here]."
In practice, that means we would never spend money on the venture because we can safely assume that the problem that must be solved first will never actually be solved. Anything that is not the problem that needs to be solved first will simply go away, with all that implies.
There is a widely acknowledged problem of diminishing returns. The more you spend on anything, like curing cancer, the less return you get on every additional dollar. A consequence is that your dollars work more productively if you spread them out over multiple projects. If you look at the 2018 US budget, NASA got around $19 billion compared with 68 for Education, 65 for Health and Human Services, 41 for Housing and Urban Development, 79 for Veteran Affairs, 6 for EPA, among the rest. If you bust up NASA's budget and gave another $4.75 billion to each of those listed, that would be around a 7% increase for Education and H&HS, 11% for H&UD, 6% for Veterans. It would be an 80% increase for the EPA, but our current administration would just kill it if they could, so the EPA wouldn't get that money anyway. The point is, it would completely eliminate NASA, and whatever problems you're trying to solve by doing that would not get solved. It wouldn't bring you much farther ahead.
You might be okay with that. You might not care about space science at all. But the general public values it. That's why our representatives give it money. In fact, I think it is one of the charming characteristics of humans that they will dedicate those kinds of resources because they just want to know. We are a curious species, we have a need to explore. Beyond that, I see it as a form of spiritualism. Exploring the cosmos, exploring the fundamental nature of matter in the large accelerator facilities, it's really seeking answers to the kinds of questions philosophers have been asking for thousands of years, like: Where did we come from? Where is it all going? What is our relationship with the cosmos? There must be value to that since we've never stopped searching.
(I'm ignoring practical benefits like spin-offs and the contribution to commercial launch services. They're real, but I chose to go in a different direction here.)
$endgroup$
"We shouldn't spend any money on [insert item of your choice here] until we have solved [insert interest that is dear to your heart here]."
In practice, that means we would never spend money on the venture because we can safely assume that the problem that must be solved first will never actually be solved. Anything that is not the problem that needs to be solved first will simply go away, with all that implies.
There is a widely acknowledged problem of diminishing returns. The more you spend on anything, like curing cancer, the less return you get on every additional dollar. A consequence is that your dollars work more productively if you spread them out over multiple projects. If you look at the 2018 US budget, NASA got around $19 billion compared with 68 for Education, 65 for Health and Human Services, 41 for Housing and Urban Development, 79 for Veteran Affairs, 6 for EPA, among the rest. If you bust up NASA's budget and gave another $4.75 billion to each of those listed, that would be around a 7% increase for Education and H&HS, 11% for H&UD, 6% for Veterans. It would be an 80% increase for the EPA, but our current administration would just kill it if they could, so the EPA wouldn't get that money anyway. The point is, it would completely eliminate NASA, and whatever problems you're trying to solve by doing that would not get solved. It wouldn't bring you much farther ahead.
You might be okay with that. You might not care about space science at all. But the general public values it. That's why our representatives give it money. In fact, I think it is one of the charming characteristics of humans that they will dedicate those kinds of resources because they just want to know. We are a curious species, we have a need to explore. Beyond that, I see it as a form of spiritualism. Exploring the cosmos, exploring the fundamental nature of matter in the large accelerator facilities, it's really seeking answers to the kinds of questions philosophers have been asking for thousands of years, like: Where did we come from? Where is it all going? What is our relationship with the cosmos? There must be value to that since we've never stopped searching.
(I'm ignoring practical benefits like spin-offs and the contribution to commercial launch services. They're real, but I chose to go in a different direction here.)
answered 36 mins ago
GregGreg
84137
84137
add a comment |
add a comment |
Dr. Mathva is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Dr. Mathva is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Dr. Mathva is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Dr. Mathva is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35170%2fdoes-it-make-sense-to-invest-money-on-space-investigation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Everything is in spae! Where else could it be? All energy, all resources, everything to be discovered. Even YOU are in space, if you didn't fathom it until I told you so. What is there to investigate if not space? Nothing? Then unuse your brain.
$endgroup$
– LocalFluff
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you believe the logic of that question, you should first have to answer “The world has invested trillions on Earth without resolving (favorite issue). Why should we invest any more?”
$endgroup$
– Bob Jacobsen
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Think about the converse... Why should we invest in other things? Why shouldn’t we solve more important problems like space exploration first?
$endgroup$
– Paul
29 mins ago