Space Exploration vs. Worthy Causes

smiles

Is spending on space exploration justified?

Following reading things like this ... I'm wondering whether or not people think such exorbitant spending on space exploration is justified while there are so many other things that need to be done.

ie:

- Feed/eduate/help provide for some of the millions of starving people
- Research into cancer/other diseases

and so on and so forth.

Is it right that the we try to find out more about the universe surround us while ignoring the causes of the world we live in?

<< Fio >>

chernobyl

The money is never going to be spent on "worthy" causes but in an idealistic world, no it should not and the money would fight hunger and ther such just causes.
Space exploration is the future of discovery though.

PHB

Yes, because the history of man based on exploration and this is the next thing we have to achieve

smiles

Originally posted by chernobyl
The money is never going to be spent on "worthy" causes but in an idealistic world, no it should not and the money would fight hunger and ther such just causes.
Space exploration is the future of discovery though.

Ideals are ideals, which are what i'm asking about, i know that it wont happen, but i'm wondering if there is any justified reasons why, and so on and so forth.

<< Fio >>

dahamsta

We still seem to be having trouble "achieving" with the stuff down here though PHB, n'est ce pas? Rampant racism, gross capitalism, starvation, human right violations, AIDS, I could go on. And on, and on.

I do believe that exploring the universe has merit though, and there is a lot to be learned. Many of the world's inventions came from space exploration. So I voted "middle ground".

I think we'd all be far better off if some countries were encouraged, and tried, to spend less on so-called "defense" though. And if those countries kept their nose out of /some/ other people's affairs.

adam

Keeks

I think that is is extremely important to explore new aeras, in order to better understand ourselves and the universe around us. Who knows, the cures for cancer, AIDs and world hunger might live out there in space.

Who knows where the next discovery to change mankind will come from. Whoever thought a piece of mould could cure millions.

What I think needs to be done is better financial management. Like adam said, certain countries need to spend less on there military. Billions have been given to third world counties only for that money being diverted to the armies and civil wars.

Money need to be better invested into understanding our own ecosystem and how the weather works. What causes El Nino. Ethopia is the best eample of how misspent money and weahter can cause disaster.

Lets put it this way. Would you rather see NASA spen billions on a telescope thats gives us "nice" looking pictures, or would you like to see dubya spend it on his missle defences system?

chernobyl

I think its more important for Americans to demand more transparency from their government.
Something like 50% of all money the American government recieve is wasted or used for dubious projects.

(i assume, NASA fronts this "lets go see whats out there" ideal)

Thomas from Presence

Perhaps the poll should have read should money be spent on big guns of educational, humanitarian, scientific causes.

bonkey

Originally posted by smiles
I'm wondering whether or not people think such exorbitant spending on space exploration is justified while there are so many other things that need to be done.

It should be remembered that cosmology et al are not just "empty sciences". There have been huge contributions (good and bad) to our lives which have come directly as a result of this area of research.

The major problem that I see with this pole is that I could only support it while there was nothing more wasteful than space exploration going on. You know - like military expenditure.

Look at the annual budgets. The entire worldwide invenstment in theoretical physics and cosmology is dwarfed by the worldwide investment in arms. I dont have the figures to hand, but I would imagine that there are several orders of magnitude in the difference.

So - would I like research like Hubble cancelled in order to feed the starving, or cure the sick? No - I wouldnt - not while vastly larger amounts of money are being pumped into the destruction industry. Take their money instead.

Science offers us a brighter future. Weapons do not.

jc

Biffa Bacon

First of all, "we" aren't spending any money on space exploration, the Yanks are.
And on a slightly different note, picking up on something bonkey said:

Originally posted by bonkey

Science offers us a brighter future. Weapons do not.

And what if "science" leads us to more destructive weaponry. Is this a "brighter future"?

Lemming

My two cents (and points) top this argument

incidentally .. I voted for space exploration)

1) This world has finite resources/space for growth. If we don't get out into space and start colonisation, we're as good as dead as a species. Either the death of the ecosystem or war will get us. Neither will be pretty, and the war option will most likely end in extreme mass genocide of entire continents as countries fight over precious resources in a race for mere survival.


2) Planet-killer scenario (a la. "Armeggedon"). If we're taken out by an asteroid or something, what was the point of all those thousands of years of evolution, learning, all those who've died for freedom, justice?? etc etc. We may as well have never existed.

Meh

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
First of all, "we" aren't spending any money on space exploration...

Yes we are.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
And what if "science" leads us to more destructive weaponry. Is this a "brighter future"?

Science may provide some of the insight needed to spur this on (such as in the classic case of splitting the atom), but it does not create the weapons. Thats what the arms industry does.


I could equally say that improved healthcare could cause us to bring another Hitler into the world who otherwise would have died. On those grounds, surely improved healthcare doesnt offer us a brighter future either.

In fact...you can pretty much look at any aspect of life and determine that improving it may not lead to a brighter future. Does this mean we shouldnt try?

jc

Snaga

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
And what if "science" leads us to more destructive weaponry. Is this a "brighter future"?

Ok, lets all go back to living in caves and hunting food with flint tipped tree branches then :rolleyes:

Most of us are alive today one way or another because of science. The persuit of science is one thing humans will always do, and humans will go wherever that takes them and at whatever cost, monetary, or otherwise.

bonkey

Originally posted by Lemming
1) This world has finite resources/space for growth. If we don't get out into space and start colonisation, we're as good as dead as a species.

Thats not the question. The question is should we be exploring it today, when there are so many other things we could spend the money on.

Also - technically - the universe has finite resources and space for growth. Does this mean that if we dont find something outside the universe that we're as good as dead as a species too?

Kinda invalidates the argument, doesnt it?

Either the death of the ecosystem or war will get us. Neither will be pretty, and the war option will most likely end in extreme mass genocide of entire continents as countries fight over precious resources in a race for mere survival.

Or our civilisation gets regulated (as many others have been) by the lack of resources, causing a cyclical decline/growth pattern. This, of course, will only delay the inevitable, because eventually your point 2 would get us anyway :

Planet-killer scenario (a la. "Armeggedon"). If we're taken out by an asteroid or something, what was the point of all those thousands of years of evolution, learning, all those who've died for freedom, justice?? etc etc.

Who said there had to be a point?

Believing there must be a point is typically what gives credence to religion. However, once you go down that path, then it kinda invalidates the last comment you made :

We may as well have never existed.

We will cease to exist at some point. All we can do is delay the inevitable. So - do you still maintain we may as well never have existed?

jc

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Meh
Yes we are.

I stand corrected.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey
Science may provide some of the insight needed to spur this on (such as in the classic case of splitting the atom), but it does not create the weapons. Thats what the arms industry does.

The arms industry cannot create new weapons without scientific research. You're basically using the old "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument.

I could equally say that improved healthcare could cause us to bring another Hitler into the world who otherwise would have died. On those grounds, surely improved healthcare doesnt offer us a brighter future either.

The link between another Hitler and improved healthcare is very weak and indirect. The link between scientific research and more destructive technology is much stronger.

In fact...you can pretty much look at any aspect of life and determine that improving it may not lead to a brighter future. Does this mean we shouldnt try?

That depends entirely on the situation. If you feel that there is a very strong possibility of negative repurcussions from what you're doing then yes, you shouldn''t try.

Shinji

Heh, "exorbitant amounts"? It's depressing how LITTLE we spend on space exploration, frankly; how short sighted politicians and people in general are about the need to escape the cradle. If today's thinking had prevailed 500 years ago, Magellan would never have circumnavigated the world and Columbus would never have discovered America.

Here's an interesting one; societies which are engaged in a process of exploration don't generally get involved in wars. It's one or the other; if you're expending your resources on exploration and development, you don't have time to consider war. Once you settle down and get comfortable, you go to war. History proves this over, and over, and over.

There's only one place left to explore.

Thankfully it's infinitely large.

It's just a shame we don't seem to have the imagination, as a species, required to get out there. Killing each other is easier.

Biffa Bacon

double post

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Snaga
Ok, lets all go back to living in caves and hunting food with flint tipped tree branches then :rolleyes:

What for?

The persuit of science is one thing humans will always do, and humans will go wherever that takes them and at whatever cost, monetary, or otherwise.

Not true. Scientific enquiry is a relatively recent phenomenon in human history.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Shinji
If today's thinking had prevailed 500 years ago, Magellan would never have circumnavigated the world and Columbus would never have discovered America.

And millions of native peoples around the world wouldn't have been slaughtered and enslaved.

Here's an interesting one; societies which are engaged in a process of exploration don't generally get involved in wars. It's one or the other; if you're expending your resources on exploration and development, you don't have time to consider war. Once you settle down and get comfortable, you go to war. History proves this over, and over, and over.

Except for the US, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Russia, Japan...

Shinji

Scientific enquiry is a relatively recent phenomenon in human history.

I'd be interested in hearing your justification of this comment. Frankly, it's rubbish; scientific enquiry and curiosity about our environment is a basic part of the human psyche and has been such for millenia. Care to explain how you came to your conclusion to the contrary?

(Or is this just another one-line troll with no back-up argument or explanation from Biffa, eh?)

Shinji

Except for the US, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Russia, Japan...

All of which have been involved in major wars in the past 100 years. Thanks for providing such wonderful examples.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Shinji


I'd be interested in hearing your justification of this comment. Frankly, it's rubbish; scientific enquiry and curiosity about our environment is a basic part of the human psyche and has been such for millenia. Care to explain how you came to your conclusion to the contrary?

Certainly people have philosophised for as long as we've existed but experimental science only really began in the 17th century, and it was only in the 20th century that scientific research became commercialised on an industrial scale.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Shinji


All of which have been involved in major wars in the past 100 years. Thanks for providing such wonderful examples.

I though your point was that countries that engage in exploration and discovery don't get involved in wars. Surely these countries did both?

colinsky

Somebody really needs to frame this debate.

On one side there's criticism that governments are spending too much on space exploration versus other causes/areas.

But when, as an alternative to tax-support, a private citizen decides to support space exploration as a "commercial venture", he too is criticized as "overly indulgent" (in the words of an RTE story).


..."The Russians' decision to offer seats to paying tourists has provided a much-needed cash boost to the financially strapped agency, and stretched the boundaries of space exploration, said James Oberg, an expert on the Russian space program."

Its your choice -- should the government be allowed to reallocate wealth to a mix various social and scientific causes, or purely social? Should the wealthy be allowed to spend their own money on what they consider important, or that selfish too? Obviously some people are really enamoured of space research, and think it important. Is it really that bad?

Lemming

Originally posted by bonkey


Thats not the question. The question is should we be exploring it today, when there are so many other things we could spend the money on.

That, bonkey, is VERy dangerous thinking. What happens when tomorrow comes and the resources aren't there to explore because they're all gone?

Also - technically - the universe has finite resources and space for growth. Does this mean that if we dont find something outside the universe that we're as good as dead as a species too?

By the time we've reached that level of exploration, we'd probably have evolved into another state of being/dimension/take-your-sci-fi-pick

We will cease to exist at some point. All we can do is delay the inevitable. So - do you still maintain we may as well never have existed?

Well, we can make it as DAMN difficult to get taken out. Currently, once this world goes, we go with it. An "all your eggs in one basket" example.

Kairo

I would consider Space Exploration a worthy cause. The possibilities of making new scientific discoveries, like a new energy source, could make life better on earth. But Shinji's right, their isn't that much being spent on space projects at all.

The problems in the world are not a lack of money or resources. In the end, it all comes down to peoples and governments greed. Our lives are too comfortable.

Xterminator

I think space exploration is underfunded.

NASA in particular seem to be suffering from a lack of funding, and seem to be planning 'media events' that give; rather than planning for the future.

If only a fraction of the military budgets were ploughed into space, we'd be investing far better.

X

Saruman

It's just a shame we don't seem to have the imagination, as a species, required to get out there. Killing each other is easier.

Nice one Shinji good answer

I voted for some middle ground but we dont spend nearly enough on space exploration! As forworty causes.. thats not because we spend so much on space exploration.. hell IF we could stop killing each other the money saved on military crap would more than wipe out poverty i would imagine.. even so as it stands now we could probably have our cake and eat it.. i mean kill each other in stipid wars, explore space and wipe out poverty.. but all the money in the world is in a relatively small area.. the rich have plenty.. the poor have feck all!

Manach

Yes of course, without the space-industry we'd have no satelites to broadcast late night Sky TV. :rolleyes:

MelKor

sorry if this was said already, i didnt have time to read all the posts,

i take it by worthy cause you mean world hunger, overpopulation, disease, well look at it this way, what we need to fix these problems are resourses like more ground to plant/make food, moreplaces for people to live and to make living conditions more sanitary by making communities more comfortable,
well if we could put money into space exploration, findd and colonise even one planet as far as i can see it thats all the worthy causes solved.

i know i could have put my point accross better but im in a hurry and you probably get the point.

seamus

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

The arms industry cannot create new weapons without scientific research. You're basically using the old "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument.

And.....what's wrong with that?

Einstein came up with the power yield of atom splitting (basically), but he's not the one who thought "Oh, this'll make a GREAT bomb!". Who ordered the dropping of the bomb, and who pushed the button? It wasn't any scientific researchers anyway.

Besides, the common handgun is low-tech. If the arms industry is so exploitative of scientific research, why aren't we vapourizing eachother with high-powered lasers and destroying other countries with fusion bombs?

You can't write off scientific research funding because it has evil applications. You might as well kill us all because we have killed eachother in the past - "Oh don't procreate, you'll just be breeding the next charles manson".

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by seamus

And.....what's wrong with that?

Einstein came up with the power yield of atom splitting (basically), but he's not the one who thought "Oh, this'll make a GREAT bomb!". Who ordered the dropping of the bomb, and who pushed the button? It wasn't any scientific researchers anyway.

But if you research something that you believe is highly likely to end up killing innocent civilians, surely you are morally obliged not to do so? Robert Oppenheimer recognised this, as did Alfred Nobel.

You can't write off scientific research funding because it has evil applications. You might as well kill us all because we have killed eachother in the past - "Oh don't procreate, you'll just be breeding the next charles manson".

Surely you recognise that some actions have a higher probability of producing unintended negative consequences than others.
And just so we're clear, I'm not writing off all scientific research, I'm just arguing that science does not necessarily lead mankind to a brighter future.

seamus

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

But if you research something that you believe is highly likely to end up killing innocent civilians, surely you are morally obliged not to do so? Robert Oppenheimer recognised this, as did Alfred Nobel.

Oppenheimer did a lot of work on it before stopping though. He knew long before he stopped that it *would* be used to make a bomb. The atom is a different story though. If you're researching something that you know *will* be used as a weapon, but you have a different idea as to its uses, i.e. a neutral or benevolent application, you will probably keep working on it because it's not your fault someone came up with the wrong idea. As humans we like to explore. There are very few people who would grant a request to 'help make a weapon of mass destruction', but will carry on dangerous research for personal satisfaction or wealth. Oppenheimer and Einstein both admitted that they only *really* felt sorry after the bombs were dropped.

Very few scientific discoveries (especially in physics & chemistry) have no evil applications, yet people keep researching. Why? Instinct IMO.

Surely you recognise that some actions have a higher probability of producing unintended negative consequences than others.

It's called 'risk' and is only measurable before the action takes place. Discoveries are just that, discovered, they're not planned. Any negative consequences erupt from how the discovery is applied.

And just so we're clear, I'm not writing off all scientific research, I'm just arguing that science does not necessarily lead mankind to a brighter future.

Ah OK. No argument there.

Lemming

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

But if you research something that you believe is highly likely to end up killing innocent civilians, surely you are morally obliged not to do so? Robert Oppenheimer recognised this, as did Alfred Nobel.

What about the car? the Airplane? They've killed thousands the world over :rolleyes:

Consider thie Biffa - several institutions around the globe have working plasma reactors - ultra-efficiient and pretty much CLEAN nuke power. They're being developed to provide power. I'm sure that making plasma bombs is the last thing on the researchers minds, since they're trying to provide a new alternative power source.

Surely you recognise that some actions have a higher probability of producing unintended negative consequences than others.
And just so we're clear, I'm not writing off all scientific research, I'm just arguing that science does not necessarily lead mankind to a brighter future.

Science doesn't lead us anywhere - it provides us with the tools and know-how. It gives us the options. We MAKE the choices