Space Is Stupid!
Why do we spend millions of dollars on exploring boring old space when we have starving war torn countries on earth?
Can anyone give me a reasonable answer?
posted by Adrienne at
6:38 PM
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Can anyone give me a reasonable answer?
About Me
- Name: Adrienne
- Location: Canada
I like warm climates. I can't live without the sunshine and large bodies of water.
Previous Posts
- Sick of the Dating Game
- Insert Foot in Mouth
- My Definition of Art
- The Air Is Thick
- Sucker for a Charmer with Pretty Eyes
- How to Look Younger Without Botox
- Disposable People
- Google ME!
- Do I Live by Fear or by Faith
- My Thoughs on Voting
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
10 Comments:
A lot of times (not all) the problem with people starving in other countries is their government. India dumps enough wheat into the ocean every year to feed the world. It's the often corrupt, greedy leaders of these countries that starve their own people for their personal gain.
As far as money for space - NASA spends almost nothing in comparision to other things. American women spend more on cosmetics every year that NASA did to put that man on the moon.
Everyone who throws up the Space vs. Starving People agrument is mixing apples and oranges.
12:50 PM
Hmmm who are you anonymous? Did you forget to put your name or did you do it on purpose?
Apples and oranges eh?
Then the question should be why do we need to discover space? What is its use?
3:54 PM
Ahhh...a better question. That does indeed warrant some pondering.
At this time I don't know if I have a good answer for that.
The only thing I can say in defense of the space program is the indirect benefits (see below) and technological advancements which resulted from the "glory days" of NASA.
Personally, I don't really care how the universe evolved, but I think medical research that can only be done in zero gravity would be worth it if it can eventually save lives.
Known benefits -
1. digital imaging now used for CAT scans, MRI's, digital mammography etc.
2. Light Emitting Diodes (LED's)
3. Intrauterine pill sized transmitters to monitor fetal development. Pills also used for intestinal tracking plus blood pressure and temperature monitoring.
4. Cordless power tools.
5. Your smoke detector.
Tons more stuff, but you get the idea.
P.S. I first posted anonymous because I have several websites and still can't decide which of my multiple personalities to use.
11:57 AM
Well I would stilllike to know who you are? You sound very interesting.
I don't understand why need to discover space in order to discover that technology? Can't we find those things out through aviation rather than a huge ass space dollar.
9:04 PM
Anonymous back(with my name and website) - I can't completely disagree with your argument about discovering things through normal aviation. However, the technology developed in the past probably would not have happened without the need for the new methods that NASA required for doing things in the environment of space.
But back to the here and now. The only justification I have is that the exploration of space can, hopefully, result in more secondary benefits.
As far as money is concerned I can think of a lot more ways the government wastes our money on "pork" projects and studies than NASA could ever hope to spend.
I guess it's kind of like funding for The Arts. Some things benefit us in ways that go above and beyond the dollar cost.
7:08 PM
Of course space exploration is warranted. Countries like the US need to explore space as they use it as a means of covert intelligence. There are apparently like 42 spy satellites roaming around earth and something like 40 of them all belong to the US. I say the US has imperial ambitions for the moon and mars. They'll own it all and claim it as American territory and then when the world has exploited all of Earth's resources they'll take the wealthiest Americans and global elites to the moon to make large cities with decentralized governments who follow neo-liberal economic models. Oh the calamity!
On a more serious note, space exploration means power, which from a realist standpoint (might makes right) gives nations huge benefits. Why would a government care about poor people if they can gain global dominance by exploring space? Ex:Reagan's "Star Wars" in the 1980s. This investment was so critical for the US in the Cold War. One could even argue that space exploration led to the downfall of Communism.
The same rings true in regards to nuclear weapons. Why would a government deny their own people the basic needs of sustenance to embark on a new program for the refining of uranium? It is unfortunate to note that this has already occurred in Russia, China, India, Pakistan, potentially Iran and Libya(and other rogue states) and now North Korea.
The answer to your question is power, greed and self-interest.
1:27 PM
Johanna said again what I said in my first comment - greed.
I had another thought about the whole "starving people" issue. Why look to the government alone for aid? At $3 a gallon I'm sure there is a CEO somewhere out there who makes enough in bonus money to help feed the needy.
Yes, I know that many large companies already contribute to needy causes, but perhaps that is better than asking the government to pay for everything. We know the government will just pull the money out of the pockets of the struggling middle class in the form of increased taxes.
12:03 PM
John,
Your argument regarding increased taxation is such a common view held by many middle and working class people. This idea that there is not enough money and that services should be privatized is something that the right throws at us average people everyday. It's common sense for government to be small, to let the market rule, to have tax cuts and to privatize.
My response to this is... BULL SHIT! Our government has a responsibility, I would even say a duty, to care for ALL it's citizens. Despite what those in business spout, this IS possible. Case in point: Norway, Sweden and Germany. These are prime examples of progressive countries who have thriving economies based on a welfare/socialist state.
I agree that the corporate sector should give money to ODA, but that money should be garnered through an increase in corporate taxation not tax relief.
The impression you give is that the corporate sector is this powerful mega entity which should foot the bill for the average citizen by being a service provider. That is a slippery slope.
Government is responsible for curbing corporate interest and maintaining a decent standard of living for it's citizens, who pay taxes from their hard earned money.
That is my rant and I wish I could write more but... this is Ade's blog not a political science debate page.
2:32 AM
I think we're getting a little off track here.
My main point is still that funding the space program is just as viable as funding the arts.
Let's not keep making the argument about the money for NASA vs. the money we could be spending in other areas.
Sure, you can cut the space budget...but you can cut other "non-essential" programs the government funds as well. Let's not make NASA the favorite fallguy when it comes to government waste.
And, thanks to Adrienne for letting us use her space to have a discussion.
2:23 PM
No no no, I don't like any of those things to spend money on. Human's die, because their mortals. You can't save lives, only prolong them. and space travel is a wet dream. I say we spend money on nature(I know I know I'm a stupid hippie). Like land bridges over/under roads so animals can migrate without fear of being run over by the vrumbadoos!
Hey! I like the arts, and think it needs more funding and space travel needs less... not much more funding though...
But, seriously space men and military types are gettin' all the money and all they are doing is playing with god's metaphorical light switch.
Also we could spend money on terraforming our own planet with natural weeds and providing aid to speicies that need help surviving. Granted those people all over the world are god's children and are suffering, human's will survive the coming storm better than say wolves bears sharks and tigers.
Let's not forget the melting ice caps and 'supposed' global warming. It's seems like there is more funding for the other side of the good fight. Ahem, Guns and Snares are pretty cheap though. We are still improving upon our weapons and poaching is more lucrative than ever. If your kids were starving to death wouldn't you poach a tiger for some rich... nevermind. besides I don't think we can change global warming anyways, even if we wanted to.
Listen! We need a new renewable resource, and it needs to be good enough to replace coal and oil... yeah... that's gonna be expensive and a little impossible. Lets try not to bioengineer something out of plants though, that's too risky and God might smiting us. Another thing I wish we'd spend more on is the ocean's, um, like on eliminating jellyfish and supporting coral reefs. Sharks! They eat Jellyfish, and so do turtles! Yes, I know, I'm dumb and don't understand the big issue, but at least I care... actually nevermind caring doesn't seem to make much difference either.
Okay I cast my vote on Land briges, maybe even a man made bridge for Polar bears... if it's not too late. And lower the limit on hunting of polar bears. We can legally hunt and own alot of polar bear skins. Way too much. Some people talk a big game, but will kill a mother bear with two cubs just because it's the first bear they find. 1 Polar Bear per person is a good start seeing as though most people don't aspire to kill
polar bears, but even that seems like too much.
I know this is very off topic, but stop throwing paint on fur coats! That's a big stupid waste, and rich people will just buy a new fur coat to replace it dummies!
Anyway... My name is Will I'm a stranger debating science and money and i love you all!!!!1111337!!!@#semicolon. Okay I'm gonna read the original post now because I'm done being rude.
11:12 AM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home