So, I've been rewatching Carl Sagan's the Cosmos lately, and while I was watching it, my brother walked in and said something like: "Why spend money on that? We should spend that money here to make the earth a better place."
That made me think: are there more people who feel the same way? Because to me, it seems like a no-brainer, for a few practical reasons:
1: earth won't be around forever. Be it due to pollution, (nuclear) war, the sun blowing up or even overpopulation, the earth eventually won't be able to sustain us. If we haven't figured out ways to live outside the earth, be it on other planets or in space, we will face mass extinction.
2: Investing in space technology gives us a real benefit on earth. Many of the things we take for granted today come, one way or another, from technology first used by astronomers. GPS, wireless internet and a whole host of other inventions would not have been done, or would have been impossible without or lust for exploring the galaxy.
3: It connects people. Who hasn't seen those images of the first moon landing? What did you feel back then? Probably the same as what I had: an immense pride in the curiosity of mankind, and the tenacity shown when trying to achieve the goals we set for ourselves. In a world as divided as this, I think that a united program for exploring the cosmos would people closer together.
We do the research now so that when it is needed, we have it. Also, there is something to understanding the universe around us and how we came to be. I am one who thinks that the budget for NASA and NSF dhould be drastically increased instead of the cuts they have gone through.
I studied physics in college and I've loved astronomy and cosmology since I was a little kid. I was subscribed to Astronomy magazine when I was like eight years old. But let me play devil's advocate for a minute, because the question here is not whether astronomy is valuable, it's whether it's the best use of funds.
Imagine you're friends with a dude who works a low-paying job and is struggling to make ends meet. He needs to buy a car to drive to work, and he's trying to decide what kind of car he should buy. You wouldn't tell him "you should go super deep in debt and get a Mercedes, they're very safe and fuel efficient." You would tell him to buy a cheap and reliable car (or to start taking the bus) and once he gets his finances in order, maybe gets an education, and gets a better job then he can start thinking about getting a Mercedes. No one is denying that a Mercedes is a great car, but it's not the best use of this guy's funds.
Even in highly developed countries, mankind does not have its finances in order. We also fail to effectively educate, feed, and clothe large portions of our population. Astronomy and space travel are Mercedes; they're luxury goods. We should strive to be able to afford those things, but right now we're better off investing in our future by being financially responsible and by investing in our citizens' health and education.
One thread on this forum claimed that $30 billion could end world hunger (though I doubt the accuracy of this number). The mars Curiosity mission alone cost $2.5 billion. The UN estimates that 870 million people suffer from chronic undernourishment. So if you believe all these statistics, merely cancelling one mars rover mission could lift around 72 million people out of chronic hunger.
I don't actually believe that we should stop funding astronomy, but we need to recognize that every dollar we spend on astronomy is a dollar we're not spending somewhere else.
Absolutely it is. Not only for all the reasons for Rodyle mentioned, but also because an investment in NASA is likely to pay for itself in the form of new technologies that can lead to private sector jobs in manufacturing when new technology is reproduced for the marketplace (Tempur-Pedicanyone?)
It also galls me that people complain about NASA's cost when it makes up less that 0.5% of the annual national budget (or about 17 billion a year). Of ALL the things to get upset about overspending in!
One thread on this forum claimed that $30 billion could end world hunger (though I doubt the accuracy of this number). The mars Curiosity mission alone cost $2.5 billion. The UN estimates that 870 million people suffer from chronic undernourishment. So if you believe all these statistics, merely cancelling one mars rover mission could lift around 72 million people out of chronic hunger.
I would agree with this if there was any evidence that cuts to NASA were going toward global nourishment programs. More likely they're going towards defense or Social Security (at least in the US).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Proving god exists isn't hard. Proving god is God is the tricky part" - Roommate
There is a romantic notion in reaching for the stars and spreading humanity. We've always pushed to extend our race over the Earth, so it's no surprise there is a contingent people that wants human expansion to take the next big step: colonizing off-world. Humanity is not perfect, the Earth as shaped by humanity is not perfect; our imperfections will persist for an unforeseeable amount of time. Waiting for everything to be "fixed" here might result in humanity never leaving the Earth.
The best reason to continue space exploration is the one you have listed at three. Developing technologies for space exploration that also have positive Earth bound implications is useful for a culture that increasingly looks to technology for help in solving its Earthcentric problems.
I'm not sure I like the argument for fiscal responsibility, but I don't have a great understanding of government spending. I guess it seems funny to me that we see astronomy as an extraneous expenditure when there are other areas that may be over-funded and don't exactly feed the starving. This feeling may have a great deal to do with my ignorance and it also may be completely unjustified upon a closer examination of the topic.
If the government is not going to cut the defense spending, I dont see how America can afford to fund space exploration also. With as many problems we have right here on Earth, I can not say the right thing to do is to keep playing in space. Now if there was some way to merge the space exploration with the defense spending without raising defense funding. I would be all for that.
I would agree with this if there was any evidence that cuts to NASA were going toward global nourishment programs. More likely they're going towards defense or Social Security (at least in the US).
So you're basically saying that we should fund space exploration because otherwise the government will spend the money stupidly. That sounds like an argument for voting new politicians into office or lowering taxes so the government can't spend the money at all. That's not an argument in favor of funding space exploration.
Also, I'm addressing the topic of the thread, which was OP's brother's comment: "Why spend money on [space exploration]? We should spend that money here to make the earth a better place." My argument assumes that we are capable of spending that money to make earth a better place. If your assumption is basically that the money is going to be put in a giant pile and burned unless we spend it on space exploration, well sure, then I guess lets fund space exploration.
I'm not sure I like the argument for fiscal responsibility, but I don't have a great understanding of government spending. I guess it seems funny to me that we see astronomy as an extraneous expenditure when there are other areas that may be over-funded and don't exactly feed the starving. This feeling may have a great deal to do with my ignorance and it also may be completely unjustified upon a closer examination of the topic.
My whole point is very simple, and doesn't require a deep understanding of economics or political science. Obviously space exploration and astronomy are good things that make the world a better place and advance technology. I'm not sure how any rational person could disagree with that statement. But that alone is not enough. Astronomy needs to be (1) a good thing, and (2) a better use of money than the other ways we could spend that money.
For example, it would be a good thing to put solar panels on top of every house in America. The reason we don't do this is because we believe that money could be better spent on different things, not because we think solar panels are bad. There are an infinitude of possible "good things" to which we could devote government funds. Government spending isn't just about finding a good thing to spend the money on, it's a cost-benefit analysis in which we are trying to maximize benefit per dollar.
EDIT: As I said before, I'm playing devil's advocate somewhat. I love space exploration and I think it should get some amount of funding. But so far all the arguments in this thread have only addressed point 1 ("space exploration is a good thing") and not point 2 ("space exploration is an optimal use of government funds").
I would agree with this if there was any evidence that cuts to NASA were going toward global nourishment programs. More likely they're going towards defense or Social Security (at least in the US).
So you're basically saying that we should fund space exploration because otherwise the government will spend the money stupidly. That sounds like an argument for voting new politicians into office or lowering taxes so the government can't spend the money at all. That's not an argument in favor of funding space exploration.
I'm not sure I like the argument for fiscal responsibility, but I don't have a great understanding of government spending. I guess it seems funny to me that we see astronomy as an extraneous expenditure when there are other areas that may be over-funded and don't exactly feed the starving. This feeling may have a great deal to do with my ignorance and it also may be completely unjustified upon a closer examination of the topic.
My whole point is very simple, and doesn't require a deep understanding of economics or political science. Obviously space exploration and astronomy are good things that make the world a better place and advance technology. I'm not sure how any rational person could disagree with that statement. But that alone is not enough. Astronomy needs to be (1) a good thing, and (2) a better use of money than the other ways we could spend that money.
For example, it would be a good thing to put solar panels on top of every house in America. The reason we don't do this is because we believe that money could be better spent on different things, not because we think solar panels are bad. There are an infinitude of possible "good things" to which we could devote government funds. Government spending isn't just about finding a good thing to spend the money on, it's a cost-benefit analysis in which we are trying to maximize benefit per dollar.
EDIT: As I said before, I'm playing devil's advocate somewhat. I love space exploration and I think it should get some amount of funding. But so far all the arguments in this thread have only addressed point 1 ("space exploration is a good thing") and not point 2 ("space exploration is an optimal use of government funds").
Define optimal.
There are meteorites and asteroids all around us. If a big one hits the planet, it could affect our lives more than any war would. Is spending money to try to spot such objects heading to the earth, giving us time to respond to it, optimal?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
The end of the Cold War is the single worst thing to happen to technology and education in the US. Once we "won" it, nobody cared about it anymore and in turn stopped caring about the education system that fuels future technology. It's only now for the current generation entering the workforce that we can clearly feel the effect of the apathy. The other sociological effects of the Cold War are still lingering on, unfortunately, particularly with the three-letter agencies.
EDIT: As I said before, I'm playing devil's advocate somewhat. I love space exploration and I think it should get some amount of funding. But so far all the arguments in this thread have only addressed point 1 ("space exploration is a good thing") and not point 2 ("space exploration is an optimal use of government funds").
Space exploration fuels technological growth, which then becomes economic growth and a greater level of wealth to all. That sounds awful close to "trickle down economics", but it demonstrably *works*. It's a large part thanks to space tech that our worst off are the most comfortable they've been in history (not trying to say it's not bad here, but before it was even more abysmal). Chronic hunger/homelessness is a symptom, not a cause. Treating it directly is not all that effective. Like most socioeconomic issues, it's pretty ineffective to try to deal with the current state and instead try to improve the way things will be for the next generation.
My whole point is very simple, and doesn't require a deep understanding of economics or political science. Obviously space exploration and astronomy are good things that make the world a better place and advance technology. I'm not sure how any rational person could disagree with that statement. But that alone is not enough. Astronomy needs to be (1) a good thing, and (2) a better use of money than the other ways we could spend that money.
For example, it would be a good thing to put solar panels on top of every house in America. The reason we don't do this is because we believe that money could be better spent on different things, not because we think solar panels are bad. There are an infinitude of possible "good things" to which we could devote government funds. Government spending isn't just about finding a good thing to spend the money on, it's a cost-benefit analysis in which we are trying to maximize benefit per dollar.
EDIT: As I said before, I'm playing devil's advocate somewhat. I love space exploration and I think it should get some amount of funding. But so far all the arguments in this thread have only addressed point 1 ("space exploration is a good thing") and not point 2 ("space exploration is an optimal use of government funds").
Why wouldn't understanding how exactly the government disperses annual funds be crucial for a decision on if we are spending too much on astronomy? I personally can't say if we are, or if we aren't. I can't say it's laughable to scrutinize our spending on the sciences when it's possible we spend too much on the defense portion of the budget or other areas I would argue we spend too much in without the same vigorous scrutiny. I am not educated in these areas. I cannot say if our spending is doing the most good, because I don't know how we spend or who exactly benefits from it.
I also don't know what constitutes the "most-good." Is it based on "greedy algorithms," is it based on what is good for Americans, the poorest Americans, the global population; is it the best solution in the longview for a specific group of people? Can such a cost benefit analysis be realized; is there a document produced that explains how each portion of the budget will be used to create the most-good every year that also explains why the expenditures are the most-good?
Why wouldn't understanding how exactly the government disperses annual funds be crucial for a decision on if we are spending too much on astronomy? I personally can't say if we are, or if we aren't. I can't say it's laughable to scrutinize our spending on the sciences when it's possible we spend too much on the defense portion of the budget or other areas I would argue we spend too much in without the same vigorous scrutiny. I am not educated in these areas. I cannot say if our spending is doing the most good, because I don't know how we spend or who exactly benefits from it.
I also don't know what constitutes the "most-good." Is it based on "greedy algorithms," is it based on what is good for Americans, the poorest Americans, the global population; is it the best solution in the longview for a specific group of people? Can such a cost benefit analysis be realized; is there a document produced that explains how each portion of the budget will be used to create the most-good every year that also explains why the expenditures are the most-good?
What constitutes the "most good" is a question that many intelligent people disagree about, but that does not mean it is not worth asking. The resolution of this question is, in many ways, the purpose of political discourse. I certainly have views on how to answer this question, but others' views may rationally differ from mine. But my point is not that it's easy or trivial to ultimately resolve the question of "what is most good?" My point is that it is necessary for any coherent argument on government funding to at least address this point.
Let me re-phrase what I've been saying in this thread. An argument of the form "X is good, therefore the government should fund X" is an incomplete argument. It is incomplete because it can easily generate absurd conclusions. "Roads paved with titanium are good because they are extremely durable, strong, and safe, therefore the government should replace all paved roads with titanium roads." "The roads would be safer if everyone drove a Mercedes, therefore the government should buy everyone a Mercedes." etc. Every argument so far in this thread in favor of funding astronomy has taken this form. "Astronomy is good, therefore we should fund it."
A coherent argument for government spending takes the form "X is good and X is a better way to spend money than the alternatives available, therefore the government should fund X." If someone can come up with an alternative "Y" that, dollar-for-dollar, will do more good than "X," then it is wrong to fund X instead of funding Y. It's as simple as that. Proving conclusively that Y is better than X (or that X is better than Y) is very difficult. I get that. But that doesn't mean we can just ignore this issue.
I studied physics in college and I've loved astronomy and cosmology since I was a little kid. I was subscribed to Astronomy magazine when I was like eight years old. But let me play devil's advocate for a minute, because the question here is not whether astronomy is valuable, it's whether it's the best use of funds.
Imagine you're friends with a dude who works a low-paying job and is struggling to make ends meet. He needs to buy a car to drive to work, and he's trying to decide what kind of car he should buy. You wouldn't tell him "you should go super deep in debt and get a Mercedes, they're very safe and fuel efficient." You would tell him to buy a cheap and reliable car (or to start taking the bus) and once he gets his finances in order, maybe gets an education, and gets a better job then he can start thinking about getting a Mercedes. No one is denying that a Mercedes is a great car, but it's not the best use of this guy's funds.
Even in highly developed countries, mankind does not have its finances in order. We also fail to effectively educate, feed, and clothe large portions of our population. Astronomy and space travel are Mercedes; they're luxury goods. We should strive to be able to afford those things, but right now we're better off investing in our future by being financially responsible and by investing in our citizens' health and education.
One thread on this forum claimed that $30 billion could end world hunger (though I doubt the accuracy of this number). The mars Curiosity mission alone cost $2.5 billion. The UN estimates that 870 million people suffer from chronic undernourishment. So if you believe all these statistics, merely cancelling one mars rover mission could lift around 72 million people out of chronic hunger.
I don't actually believe that we should stop funding astronomy, but we need to recognize that every dollar we spend on astronomy is a dollar we're not spending somewhere else.
I view it more as telling that guy who is working for minimum wage "you have the talent and brains to work as a doctor, you just need the training it would be worth your while to go in to debt for the next 10 years go to school and come out as a doctor so you can get money for the future and ensure you retire effectively, as apposed to doing that min wage job. Flipping burgers has no future. The symbolizing being if we are still on earth (the dead end job) by the time we retire (end of the world ) we lose. better to get in alittle debt now and have a much better shot at a great futuer. I view it more as money we are putting in a RRSP as apposed to money we are waiting on the car.
Burger flipping guy breaking down as an argument.
Space exploration is critical for the reason that we have universities. Researching the unknown has indefinite value.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
I do not think that having a space program and caring for Jimmy-poor-guy-burger-flipper is mutually exclusive. You could probably cut defense spending by a half a percent and then double the money NASA has to its disposal.
You could also just see NASA as a large scale science fare. Something to promote the physical sciences in the general publics eye. It would still be worth it though as spending on developing the tertiary skills if you will of a country is almost never a bad thing.
A coherent argument for government spending takes the form "X is good and X is a better way to spend money than the alternatives available, therefore the government should fund X." If someone can come up with an alternative "Y" that, dollar-for-dollar, will do more good than "X," then it is wrong to fund X instead of funding Y. It's as simple as that. Proving conclusively that Y is better than X (or that X is better than Y) is very difficult. I get that. But that doesn't mean we can just ignore this issue.
This is where my problem lies. I don't know how much money is wrapped in astronomy. The amount matters. If it is too much, then we are "taking money away" from other programs that have less lofty and more immediate goals. If it is too little, then we are not giving ourselves the chance to reap the possible benefits, however far away they may be, that astronomy could provide.
We do need to balance our spending by at least some perceived idea of getting the most bang (good) for our buck, you are right, but it's hard to have an argument in that light when certain facts are lacking. How can I know if the budget should be rewritten so funds formerly allocated for astronomy can be used for things like civil engineering or feeding the homeless when I don't know how much money is spent in these categories or the categories they fall under?
Sure, NASA doesn't do anything practical that there aren't less roundabout ways to accomplish. But if we're talking things to stop doing in order to instead "solve global issues" or the like, space research is pretty far down on the list.
EDIT: More importantly than practical concerns (for astronomy, at least) there is the philosophical need of understanding our place in the universe. Putting some resources into that kind of research is probably unavoidable.
The two things that make the greatest technological leaps: war and exploration. For example, most medical advances in the last century were made during or after war periods. Many of the more modern aspects that we know about PTSD, and there's more ways to get that disease than just the military, come from the experiences of veterans. Critical care and the concept of the "golden hour" are all from battlefield experience. For exploration, we have the Hubble Telescope that was busted yet still working. So the astronomers used some math to rework some of the data to make it make sense to work with as not to waste money, that equation was then used by an eye doctor to create some advances in that science with a disease I forget. It's that kind of work because astronomy is based on physics that allows us to build on it more readily than say the social sciences, at times, and I am a huge advocate of investing into the social sciences. But you just get more bang for your buck in job creation and other cross saturation points with the physical sciences. It's the cost benefit analysis which justifies NASA and other such things.
However, I agree with you on prioritization. The war machine in the US is too large to sustain, and the technology derived from there is marginally useful at best currently until drones are used for firefighting and other such things than just police work and espionage and war. That longitudinal studies that look at multiple generations that costs a lot of money to study and archive health data are expensive, but have been used for great effect in areas such as cardiovascular health. There's a town who has free healthcare for multiple families in that town so as long as their data is able to be studied, and the study is ongoing and has went on since about the 1950's. There have been many social scientists who have studied the physical and mental health aspects through metadata analysis that has allowed for some awesome insights into human behavior and health. Yet, these computer systems were born from war and exploration rather than healthcare. So while I agree with you, we must also acknowledge that what we consider virtue is often born from vice.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Aren't there more important paths of research than marveling around outside our planet's atmosphere? Like learning the workings of it, finding out how we're screwing around with them and putting a halt to these issues?
Just want to take a moment and note: many of our most powerful tools for understanding our own planet come from work derived fundamentally from astronomy. Much of our understanding of polar ice cap melting is derived from satellite imagery, for just one example. There's no reason to think that continued astronomy funding won't continue to yield benefits: understanding other planets, for example, can have obvious near-term implications for understanding our own.
There are important reasons why science is not technically oriented or goal oriented. Science works by seeking to understand problems. Technology comes from the application of this understanding. Technology in one sphere is often derived from scientific understanding from something totally different. Cut off astronomy funding and you cut off our best avenue of investigation into scientific principles that bear on an enormous range of practical problems, many of which are problems facing us down here on earth.
I think astronomy is a worthwhile investment. I wouldn't want astrological research hampered in anyway because its interesting and because it took us so long to get as far as we are now. So much more money is put into other sciences anyway so I don't know why studying the cosmos is a financial concern. We've essentially halted putting humans into space and honestly we have all the people we need at the ISS. Until aerospace technology has improved to become both safer AND more cost effective I think we can make do with studying space via the plethora of telescopes we have at our command. My inner sci fi geek believes that we have to develop many other technologies to make more than simply looking at space a reality. Which sucks because I really want there to be a moon base before I die.
[quote from="Drawmeomg" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/531152-is-astronomy-worth-investing-in?comment=22"] People make the argument that funding for astronomical research is not pretty significant anyway, which might be true (I wouldn't know, though the field seems quite expensive by the virtue of the advanced technology it requires). But if not, I would say that astronomical research is pretty low on the list of pressing issues to study beyond these remote sensing techniques.
As you and others have noted, investing in space research means helping develop technologies that could also be used here on Earth. One of the most promising developments in this field is the improvement of automation techniques.
Automation is an essential part of modern life. However, there is much that could be done to improve the scalability, efficiency, and deployability of these technologies. Many of these technologies, even state-of-the-art ones, are often designed with assumptions such as the following:
* the environment can be highly controlled
* they can be repaired by human beings as needed
* their obsolescence can be planned for
* human beings will be available to assist in decision-making
In extraterrestrial environments, these assumptions are easily violated. The environments can be hostile, human beings won't always be on hand to make corrections, and the machines may remain useful long after their mission is over. It's a perfect testbed and a catalyst for the development of more durable and adaptable automation technologies.
The developments made on this front have spurred the development of technologies of use to us here on Earth. For example, we have been making great strides in designing machines that can operate in unpredictable environments, such as fire-fighting robots, self-driving cars, and companions for the elderly and the disabled. We also have been getting better at making machines that can work for long periods of time without the need for human intervention (especially in the area of embedded computing). The list goes on and on.
Now, I do have my biases. I'm a PhD candidate in the field of computer science, and my advisor made contributions to testing frameworks for NASA-affiliated projects. I'm not trying to oversell you on the benefits of space research. However, I can tell you that across the sciences, if you were to ask people what benefit their research has to mankind, they would give you similar answers. Every step forward that we take in one area can have a ripple effect on many others.
That made me think: are there more people who feel the same way? Because to me, it seems like a no-brainer, for a few practical reasons:
1: earth won't be around forever. Be it due to pollution, (nuclear) war, the sun blowing up or even overpopulation, the earth eventually won't be able to sustain us. If we haven't figured out ways to live outside the earth, be it on other planets or in space, we will face mass extinction.
2: Investing in space technology gives us a real benefit on earth. Many of the things we take for granted today come, one way or another, from technology first used by astronomers. GPS, wireless internet and a whole host of other inventions would not have been done, or would have been impossible without or lust for exploring the galaxy.
3: It connects people. Who hasn't seen those images of the first moon landing? What did you feel back then? Probably the same as what I had: an immense pride in the curiosity of mankind, and the tenacity shown when trying to achieve the goals we set for ourselves. In a world as divided as this, I think that a united program for exploring the cosmos would people closer together.
4: I'll let Sagan himself do the talking: http://youtu.be/nl5dlbCh8lY
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Imagine you're friends with a dude who works a low-paying job and is struggling to make ends meet. He needs to buy a car to drive to work, and he's trying to decide what kind of car he should buy. You wouldn't tell him "you should go super deep in debt and get a Mercedes, they're very safe and fuel efficient." You would tell him to buy a cheap and reliable car (or to start taking the bus) and once he gets his finances in order, maybe gets an education, and gets a better job then he can start thinking about getting a Mercedes. No one is denying that a Mercedes is a great car, but it's not the best use of this guy's funds.
Even in highly developed countries, mankind does not have its finances in order. We also fail to effectively educate, feed, and clothe large portions of our population. Astronomy and space travel are Mercedes; they're luxury goods. We should strive to be able to afford those things, but right now we're better off investing in our future by being financially responsible and by investing in our citizens' health and education.
One thread on this forum claimed that $30 billion could end world hunger (though I doubt the accuracy of this number). The mars Curiosity mission alone cost $2.5 billion. The UN estimates that 870 million people suffer from chronic undernourishment. So if you believe all these statistics, merely cancelling one mars rover mission could lift around 72 million people out of chronic hunger.
I don't actually believe that we should stop funding astronomy, but we need to recognize that every dollar we spend on astronomy is a dollar we're not spending somewhere else.
It also galls me that people complain about NASA's cost when it makes up less that 0.5% of the annual national budget (or about 17 billion a year). Of ALL the things to get upset about overspending in!
I would agree with this if there was any evidence that cuts to NASA were going toward global nourishment programs. More likely they're going towards defense or Social Security (at least in the US).
The best reason to continue space exploration is the one you have listed at three. Developing technologies for space exploration that also have positive Earth bound implications is useful for a culture that increasingly looks to technology for help in solving its Earthcentric problems.
I'm not sure I like the argument for fiscal responsibility, but I don't have a great understanding of government spending. I guess it seems funny to me that we see astronomy as an extraneous expenditure when there are other areas that may be over-funded and don't exactly feed the starving. This feeling may have a great deal to do with my ignorance and it also may be completely unjustified upon a closer examination of the topic.
So you're basically saying that we should fund space exploration because otherwise the government will spend the money stupidly. That sounds like an argument for voting new politicians into office or lowering taxes so the government can't spend the money at all. That's not an argument in favor of funding space exploration.
Also, I'm addressing the topic of the thread, which was OP's brother's comment: "Why spend money on [space exploration]? We should spend that money here to make the earth a better place." My argument assumes that we are capable of spending that money to make earth a better place. If your assumption is basically that the money is going to be put in a giant pile and burned unless we spend it on space exploration, well sure, then I guess lets fund space exploration.
My whole point is very simple, and doesn't require a deep understanding of economics or political science. Obviously space exploration and astronomy are good things that make the world a better place and advance technology. I'm not sure how any rational person could disagree with that statement. But that alone is not enough. Astronomy needs to be (1) a good thing, and (2) a better use of money than the other ways we could spend that money.
For example, it would be a good thing to put solar panels on top of every house in America. The reason we don't do this is because we believe that money could be better spent on different things, not because we think solar panels are bad. There are an infinitude of possible "good things" to which we could devote government funds. Government spending isn't just about finding a good thing to spend the money on, it's a cost-benefit analysis in which we are trying to maximize benefit per dollar.
EDIT: As I said before, I'm playing devil's advocate somewhat. I love space exploration and I think it should get some amount of funding. But so far all the arguments in this thread have only addressed point 1 ("space exploration is a good thing") and not point 2 ("space exploration is an optimal use of government funds").
Define optimal.
There are meteorites and asteroids all around us. If a big one hits the planet, it could affect our lives more than any war would. Is spending money to try to spot such objects heading to the earth, giving us time to respond to it, optimal?
The end of the Cold War is the single worst thing to happen to technology and education in the US. Once we "won" it, nobody cared about it anymore and in turn stopped caring about the education system that fuels future technology. It's only now for the current generation entering the workforce that we can clearly feel the effect of the apathy. The other sociological effects of the Cold War are still lingering on, unfortunately, particularly with the three-letter agencies.
Space exploration fuels technological growth, which then becomes economic growth and a greater level of wealth to all. That sounds awful close to "trickle down economics", but it demonstrably *works*. It's a large part thanks to space tech that our worst off are the most comfortable they've been in history (not trying to say it's not bad here, but before it was even more abysmal). Chronic hunger/homelessness is a symptom, not a cause. Treating it directly is not all that effective. Like most socioeconomic issues, it's pretty ineffective to try to deal with the current state and instead try to improve the way things will be for the next generation.
Twitch channel
Why wouldn't understanding how exactly the government disperses annual funds be crucial for a decision on if we are spending too much on astronomy? I personally can't say if we are, or if we aren't. I can't say it's laughable to scrutinize our spending on the sciences when it's possible we spend too much on the defense portion of the budget or other areas I would argue we spend too much in without the same vigorous scrutiny. I am not educated in these areas. I cannot say if our spending is doing the most good, because I don't know how we spend or who exactly benefits from it.
I also don't know what constitutes the "most-good." Is it based on "greedy algorithms," is it based on what is good for Americans, the poorest Americans, the global population; is it the best solution in the longview for a specific group of people? Can such a cost benefit analysis be realized; is there a document produced that explains how each portion of the budget will be used to create the most-good every year that also explains why the expenditures are the most-good?
What constitutes the "most good" is a question that many intelligent people disagree about, but that does not mean it is not worth asking. The resolution of this question is, in many ways, the purpose of political discourse. I certainly have views on how to answer this question, but others' views may rationally differ from mine. But my point is not that it's easy or trivial to ultimately resolve the question of "what is most good?" My point is that it is necessary for any coherent argument on government funding to at least address this point.
Let me re-phrase what I've been saying in this thread. An argument of the form "X is good, therefore the government should fund X" is an incomplete argument. It is incomplete because it can easily generate absurd conclusions. "Roads paved with titanium are good because they are extremely durable, strong, and safe, therefore the government should replace all paved roads with titanium roads." "The roads would be safer if everyone drove a Mercedes, therefore the government should buy everyone a Mercedes." etc. Every argument so far in this thread in favor of funding astronomy has taken this form. "Astronomy is good, therefore we should fund it."
A coherent argument for government spending takes the form "X is good and X is a better way to spend money than the alternatives available, therefore the government should fund X." If someone can come up with an alternative "Y" that, dollar-for-dollar, will do more good than "X," then it is wrong to fund X instead of funding Y. It's as simple as that. Proving conclusively that Y is better than X (or that X is better than Y) is very difficult. I get that. But that doesn't mean we can just ignore this issue.
I view it more as telling that guy who is working for minimum wage "you have the talent and brains to work as a doctor, you just need the training it would be worth your while to go in to debt for the next 10 years go to school and come out as a doctor so you can get money for the future and ensure you retire effectively, as apposed to doing that min wage job. Flipping burgers has no future. The symbolizing being if we are still on earth (the dead end job) by the time we retire (end of the world ) we lose. better to get in alittle debt now and have a much better shot at a great futuer. I view it more as money we are putting in a RRSP as apposed to money we are waiting on the car.
Space exploration is critical for the reason that we have universities. Researching the unknown has indefinite value.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
You could also just see NASA as a large scale science fare. Something to promote the physical sciences in the general publics eye. It would still be worth it though as spending on developing the tertiary skills if you will of a country is almost never a bad thing.
This is where my problem lies. I don't know how much money is wrapped in astronomy. The amount matters. If it is too much, then we are "taking money away" from other programs that have less lofty and more immediate goals. If it is too little, then we are not giving ourselves the chance to reap the possible benefits, however far away they may be, that astronomy could provide.
We do need to balance our spending by at least some perceived idea of getting the most bang (good) for our buck, you are right, but it's hard to have an argument in that light when certain facts are lacking. How can I know if the budget should be rewritten so funds formerly allocated for astronomy can be used for things like civil engineering or feeding the homeless when I don't know how much money is spent in these categories or the categories they fall under?
The two things that make the greatest technological leaps: war and exploration. For example, most medical advances in the last century were made during or after war periods. Many of the more modern aspects that we know about PTSD, and there's more ways to get that disease than just the military, come from the experiences of veterans. Critical care and the concept of the "golden hour" are all from battlefield experience. For exploration, we have the Hubble Telescope that was busted yet still working. So the astronomers used some math to rework some of the data to make it make sense to work with as not to waste money, that equation was then used by an eye doctor to create some advances in that science with a disease I forget. It's that kind of work because astronomy is based on physics that allows us to build on it more readily than say the social sciences, at times, and I am a huge advocate of investing into the social sciences. But you just get more bang for your buck in job creation and other cross saturation points with the physical sciences. It's the cost benefit analysis which justifies NASA and other such things.
However, I agree with you on prioritization. The war machine in the US is too large to sustain, and the technology derived from there is marginally useful at best currently until drones are used for firefighting and other such things than just police work and espionage and war. That longitudinal studies that look at multiple generations that costs a lot of money to study and archive health data are expensive, but have been used for great effect in areas such as cardiovascular health. There's a town who has free healthcare for multiple families in that town so as long as their data is able to be studied, and the study is ongoing and has went on since about the 1950's. There have been many social scientists who have studied the physical and mental health aspects through metadata analysis that has allowed for some awesome insights into human behavior and health. Yet, these computer systems were born from war and exploration rather than healthcare. So while I agree with you, we must also acknowledge that what we consider virtue is often born from vice.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Just want to take a moment and note: many of our most powerful tools for understanding our own planet come from work derived fundamentally from astronomy. Much of our understanding of polar ice cap melting is derived from satellite imagery, for just one example. There's no reason to think that continued astronomy funding won't continue to yield benefits: understanding other planets, for example, can have obvious near-term implications for understanding our own.
There are important reasons why science is not technically oriented or goal oriented. Science works by seeking to understand problems. Technology comes from the application of this understanding. Technology in one sphere is often derived from scientific understanding from something totally different. Cut off astronomy funding and you cut off our best avenue of investigation into scientific principles that bear on an enormous range of practical problems, many of which are problems facing us down here on earth.
As you and others have noted, investing in space research means helping develop technologies that could also be used here on Earth. One of the most promising developments in this field is the improvement of automation techniques.
Automation is an essential part of modern life. However, there is much that could be done to improve the scalability, efficiency, and deployability of these technologies. Many of these technologies, even state-of-the-art ones, are often designed with assumptions such as the following:
* the environment can be highly controlled
* they can be repaired by human beings as needed
* their obsolescence can be planned for
* human beings will be available to assist in decision-making
In extraterrestrial environments, these assumptions are easily violated. The environments can be hostile, human beings won't always be on hand to make corrections, and the machines may remain useful long after their mission is over. It's a perfect testbed and a catalyst for the development of more durable and adaptable automation technologies.
The developments made on this front have spurred the development of technologies of use to us here on Earth. For example, we have been making great strides in designing machines that can operate in unpredictable environments, such as fire-fighting robots, self-driving cars, and companions for the elderly and the disabled. We also have been getting better at making machines that can work for long periods of time without the need for human intervention (especially in the area of embedded computing). The list goes on and on.
Now, I do have my biases. I'm a PhD candidate in the field of computer science, and my advisor made contributions to testing frameworks for NASA-affiliated projects. I'm not trying to oversell you on the benefits of space research. However, I can tell you that across the sciences, if you were to ask people what benefit their research has to mankind, they would give you similar answers. Every step forward that we take in one area can have a ripple effect on many others.
My LinkedIn profile... thing (I have one of those now!).
My research team's webpage.
The mtg-rnn repo and the mtg-encode repo.