Why should we spend public funds to learn about space?

  • 62 Replies
  • 28649 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5935
  • One of the other conditions of possibility
    • View Profile
« Reply #15 on: November 23, 2013, 08:04:03 pm »
I do agree with you completely, to cut space exploration(which is a cool thing to do) and continue to build drone dogs, seems silly. I also think that to have some kind of control on meteors that threaten the planet, should be worth spending some money on.

Space exploration is a natural thing for humans to do. We always explore everything, and our planet is almost fully explored.


Have you heard of Apophis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99942_Apophis

Its a asteroid that will pass close to earth twice. In 2029 it won't hit us but will pass underneath our communication satellites. If it passes though a region of space known as 'the keyhole', when it comes back around in 2036 it will hit us and wipe out life as we know it.

This is not one of those silly doomsday predictions like 2012 or any of that nostradomis crap, its a legitimate scientific end of world scenario. Granted, its still a pretty small chance that it will hit us, but if it does pass though the keyhole in 2029, it will probably be a bit late to start figuring out how to stop it  by 2036.

Well maybe not, we went to the moon in 10 years, but still who wants to take that chance? Might as well not bankrupt the economy to rush a production on some hurried last ditch effort since we could spend the next 20 years methodically researching, funding, and building the best solution.
One of the other conditions of possibility.

Madness

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Conversational Batman
  • Posts: 5275
  • Strength on the Journey - Journey Well
    • View Profile
    • The Second Apocalypse
« Reply #16 on: November 23, 2013, 09:31:40 pm »
Quote
No one even knows where all that military spending goes to

Check out what they do at DARPA. It is fucking scary as hell. Those drone dogs must be the creepiest shit out there. Imagine thousands of those running a wild attack on a village full of poor brown people. DARPA is a evil playground for war hungry eggheads.

My friends and I used to refer to it as the 20/80 split? What is publicly disseminated by private corporations or government/military projects is probably about 20% of what they are actually researching.
The Existential Scream
Weaponizing the Warrior Pose - Declare War Inwardly
carnificibus: multus sanguis fluit
Die Better
The Theory-Killer

Callan S.

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Warrior-Profit
  • Posts: 671
    • View Profile
    • Philosopher Gamer
« Reply #17 on: November 24, 2013, 12:56:54 am »
I'm willing to accept that if we cut back on military spending that "the terrorists would win" (by which, I mean, that there would be an increase in violence worldwide because the existence and presence of a world-policing force probably does deter some bad people from doing violent things to justify their beliefs).
That one set of terrorists would win over another set of terrorists.

Royce

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Resplendent
  • Posts: 591
  • There are no facts,only interpretations- Nietzsche
    • View Profile
« Reply #18 on: November 24, 2013, 07:45:40 am »
Quote
My friends and I used to refer to it as the 20/80 split? What is publicly disseminated by private corporations or government/military projects is probably about 20% of what they are actually researching.

Yeah, I should not jump to conclusions about DARPA, but those drone dogs are nasty though :)

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #19 on: November 25, 2013, 06:16:16 pm »
I still need to go through some replies, but let me fire off some points.

DARPA actually funds a lot of linguistics projects IIRC.

The asteroid detection seems like the best justification so far, though I'm still not convinced that money shouldn't be better spent on things like urban farming.

As for the side effect of beneficial technology, I'm not convinced this is a real point. We know the technologies or programs that might help more people so why not study that stuff directly?

Regarding the comparison to military spending, that only seems like an argument if your only goal is cutting out "wasteful" spending. There's also the moral argument as to whether or not progressives can justify spending money to learning varied factoids about space given the opportunity cost of where NASA funding could've gone. Saying Y is worse does not make X better.

Inspiring future engineers - I've seen more urban farming projects in high schools than anything space related. Not convinced NASA is inspiring that many people.

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5935
  • One of the other conditions of possibility
    • View Profile
« Reply #20 on: November 25, 2013, 07:01:41 pm »
As for the side effect of beneficial technology, I'm not convinced this is a real point. We know the technologies or programs that might help more people so why not study that stuff directly?

Its an extraordinarily valid point, because its shows how "science" really works. If you took 15 seconds to actually look at the link provided you might see that. Why do you think all those discoveries came about? Its because you don't get meaningful leaps in technological advancements by placing a bunch of brains in a room and telling them to stare at a problem. All of those discoveries, that you didn't look at, happened because people where looking at something completely unrelated.

Look if you stuck a bunch of thermodynamic engineers in a room and told them to make the best oven they could think of, they might make an oven thats 10% more efficient. Great. But no matter how long those people sat and thought, they'd never get to microwave ovens, becuase it has almost nothing to do with that field.

If you're determined not to believe in space study, that's cool, but "I'm not convinced" isn't really a counter point. Could you try to make it a conversational? I'm not saying to write an annotated scientific article, but its kind of a dead end when the response boils down to "Nope".

About urban farming: I've never heard a kid, or an adult in retrospect, say "I want to be an urban farmer when I grow up". Space is more inspirational in ways that farming never could be (biased opinion, sorry). By the time you get to high school, for most kids its too late. Being smart in high school is not cool, and if you are not interested in any type of science study before then, I'd argue that its typically far to late to begin. The kids that enter into science fairs do it because they like it. I'm not saying urban farming is a bad idea, but I doubt those kids where initially inspired by it.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 07:16:48 pm by Wilshire »
One of the other conditions of possibility.

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #21 on: November 25, 2013, 09:06:42 pm »
Quote
Its because you don't get meaningful leaps in technological advancements by placing a bunch of brains in a room and telling them to stare at a problem. All of those discoveries, that you didn't look at, happened because people where looking at something completely unrelated.

Maybe I'm not understanding this argument, but it seems to me companies with R&D divisions would likely disagree.

The argument seems to be, "Well learning about factoids relating to space is worth spending public money on because we'll get all these other technologies indirectly."

That comes across as a faith based argument to me.

Quote
I'm not saying to write an annotated scientific article, but its kind of a dead end when the response boils down to "Nope".

I've already given an argument about opportunity cost and the only good refutation for IMO is the asteroid detection.

What's the moral justification for learning about space when you can put that money into terrestrial research projects that can directly benefit people?

Quote
About urban farming: I've never heard a kid, or an adult in retrospect, say "I want to be an urban farmer when I grow up". Space is more inspirational in ways that farming never could be (biased opinion, sorry).

I don't think this is a real argument either, unless there's some survey out there about present engineers and others who were directly convinced to enter STEM b/c of NASA.

In any case, it doesn't have to be urban farming. There are likely many, many projects that would have greater benefits toward a variety of purported progressive goals than learning about cosmic mysteries or getting admittedly cool photos of space.

Note I'm not saying there's anything inherently problematic about private sector space exploration. I mean, there's nothing stopping people from crowdfunding space research.

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5935
  • One of the other conditions of possibility
    • View Profile
« Reply #22 on: November 25, 2013, 09:24:48 pm »
Well alright then the real issue here is that you believe the government could take NASA's budget, and put it somewhere else, and get results more relevant to life here on earth. Right?

(Even though there are clear implication of "space" research that have indelibly changed life on this planet for the better that you like to ignore.)

How about the fact that through this space research there have come benefits to not just 1 sector of science/technology, but pretty much everything. Biology, chemistry, infrastructure, communication, green technology, recycling, etc. etc?

Do you think that congress could be given the NASA budget, and come up with some other program that could make similar contributions?

Urban farming is great sure, but how can you justify taking away something that benefits just about every scientific discipline, and replace it with something so limited?
Do you think taking NASA's minuscule budget, and creating 5 or 10 separate scientific entities that research 1 thing, will create the same multi-faceted benefits?

Because to me, taking something as proven as space research, and hoping congress can agree to make something from nothing, is far more faith based.
Not to mention that if you pull the NASA budget, odds are that money won't go back into anything science related. It will just be absorbed into the other categories, or used to give raises to the idiots in Washington. By removing a successful program in order to hopefully create something you think you might like better, you'd end up with nothing. Again, a faith based argument.


EDIT
To me, creating disparate special interest groups who all clamor for their own funding, would be a disaster. Taking a small budget and splitting it up will not solve anything. Instead of 1 group that people see as useless, you would have 5 groups or 10 groups, with 1/5th or 1/10th of the budget doing even less.

Now, if you were saying, hey if we have NASA, why not take some more money and make other groups dedicated to other scientific endeavors, I'd probably agree. Raising scientific funding in any way should way more important than it is. I don't really care if it goes to existing groups or new ones.  Its the idea that you could transfer the .48% budget elsewhere and get better results that I don't agree with.

« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 09:48:04 pm by Wilshire »
One of the other conditions of possibility.

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5935
  • One of the other conditions of possibility
    • View Profile
« Reply #23 on: November 25, 2013, 09:51:05 pm »
Sorry double post:

It occurred to me that you might be looking at space/NASA 'wrong'. What is space research to you?

Because to me, its a massive collaboration of nearly every conceivable scientific discipline bent towards a specific goal. Its not a bunch of astrophysicists sitting in a room looking at a telescope. I am not aware of any endeavors that require such integration of different disciplines, other than the Manhattan project.

This is why there are so many "spin-off" technologies. Not because there is some oblique connection between looking at stars and having good ideas, but because through NASA, these things ARE directly funded. The space research is looking at hundreds of problems, thousands, and funding research to solve them all. To me, NASA is basically the government agency responsible for funding every sector of research. The thing that most people get hung up on is that they don't realize what this whole space thing is about.

Sure, they have a common goal to figure out new ways to traverse the Void, but why is that a bad thing?
I've never heard of anyone who thinks that the best scientific works come from isolation, single mindedness, and limited vision. By creating an environment where people from different backgrounds, and with different expertise, can interact, NASA creates an engine of creativity and solution that can scarcely be replicated.

Maybe if you could convince me that this isn't what space research is, then you could more easily show me why defunding it is a great idea.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 09:53:09 pm by Wilshire »
One of the other conditions of possibility.

Madness

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Conversational Batman
  • Posts: 5275
  • Strength on the Journey - Journey Well
    • View Profile
    • The Second Apocalypse
« Reply #24 on: November 26, 2013, 06:05:45 pm »
Forgive me for jumping in and ineffectually responding to both of you, especially as responding to your individual posts rather than the unfolding discussion, doesn't do it justice. I've tried to parse down the couple salient posts into something I can respond to.

So in no particularly coherent order:

The asteroid detection seems like the best justification so far, though I'm still not convinced that money shouldn't be better spent on things like urban farming.

As for the side effect of beneficial technology, I'm not convinced this is a real point. We know the technologies or programs that might help more people so why not study that stuff directly?

Regarding the comparison to military spending, that only seems like an argument if your only goal is cutting out "wasteful" spending. There's also the moral argument as to whether or not progressives can justify spending money to learning varied factoids about space given the opportunity cost of where NASA funding could've gone. Saying Y is worse does not make X better.

Recap
- 1. Asteroid detection (which isn't necessarily NASA specific) is the only worthwhile aim of spending tax-dollars (which is "crowd-funding," by the way, people shouldn't have to trust in cheap imitations of what is essentially supposed to be "crowd-funding" writ social funding large).
- 1a. NASA's interdisciplinary context inherently manifests secondary (rather than purpose of research) knowledge and technology (which may or may not have been discovered contemporaneously with directed and intended research).
- 2. Military funding is necessitated by threats, rather than promises, and non-essential to the discussion of funding NASA.

Momentary reflection
- 2. I will withdraw my points about military spending and focus on what we should alternatively do with NASA's 1/100th of the tax-paying pie; however, I think this constraints the discussion in a manner that leaves Wilshire and I, inherently, unable to respond. For this post, I'll continue writing under the assumption that re-purposing the whole pie is up for debate.

Look if you stuck a bunch of thermodynamic engineers in a room and told them to make the best oven they could think of, they might make an oven thats 10% more efficient. Great. But no matter how long those people sat and thought, they'd never get to microwave ovens, becuase it has almost nothing to do with that field.

Recap and additive
- 1. Successful directed research only accounts for a small percentage of discoveries. If we reframe this conversation in terms of ignoring all the accidental or secondary discoveries (and ignoring even how the lack of those secondary discoveries allow purposeful research to build upon it), the history of scientific discovery would not be as prodigious as it is.

Maybe I'm not understanding this argument, but it seems to me companies with R&D divisions would likely disagree.

The argument seems to be, "Well learning about factoids relating to space is worth spending public money on because we'll get all these other technologies indirectly."

It is actually difficult for me to take you seriously, sci, because I just can't imagine why you'd get so up in arms about NASA's 1/100th of the pie. Is that really the only piece of public spending up to debate by informed citizens?

I've already given an argument about opportunity cost and the only good refutation for IMO is the asteroid detection.

What's the moral justification for learning about space when you can put that money into terrestrial research projects that can directly benefit people?

Can't we ask this about any, but especially, military spending? Isn't that far more relevant?

Also, I feel your argument is predicated on the idea that NASA isn't successful enough. Well, this is obviously the case when their contemporaries who share public expenditure get 50 times more funding. For instance, should NASA ever experience proportionate spending, I feel, by the nature of their organization's interdisciplinary context, which Wilshire succintly describes, they would experience exponentially more advancements than other directed R&D departments, neh?

I mean, there's nothing stopping people from crowdfunding space research.

sci, really? For serious?

You are crowdfunding the military over space research. Tax-dollars is crowdfunding...

Well alright then the real issue here is that you believe the government could take NASA's budget, and put it somewhere else, and get results more relevant to life here on earth. Right?

I hazard so, though I'm still hoping the conversation can extend to justifying any and all publically funded research...

Because to me, its a massive collaboration of nearly every conceivable scientific discipline bent towards a specific goal. Its not a bunch of astrophysicists sitting in a room looking at a telescope. I am not aware of any endeavors that require such integration of different disciplines, other than the Manhattan project.

This is why there are so many "spin-off" technologies. Not because there is some oblique connection between looking at stars and having good ideas, but because through NASA, these things ARE directly funded. The space research is looking at hundreds of problems, thousands, and funding research to solve them all. To me, NASA is basically the government agency responsible for funding every sector of research. The thing that most people get hung up on is that they don't realize what this whole space thing is about.

...

Maybe if you could convince me that this isn't what space research is, then you could more easily show me why defunding it is a great idea.

Again, this seems like such a minute discussion to be having if it really is about what we should do with one penny out of a dollar...
« Last Edit: November 26, 2013, 06:08:55 pm by Madness »
The Existential Scream
Weaponizing the Warrior Pose - Declare War Inwardly
carnificibus: multus sanguis fluit
Die Better
The Theory-Killer

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #25 on: November 26, 2013, 06:11:08 pm »
Quote
Momentary reflection
- 2. I will withdraw my points about military spending and focus on what we should alternatively do with NASA's 1/100th of the tax-paying pie; however, I think this constraints the discussion in a manner that leaves Wilshire and I, inherently, unable to respond. For this post, I'll continue writing under the assumption that re-purposing the whole pie is up for debate.

Wait. I'm not trying to say what other people should or should not talk about.

I just wanted to clarify what I'm talking about. My focus is X, where X is "Can space monies be spent on things that deliver more benefits to the society being taxed?"

So yeah, military spending vs space spending is Y. Which is cool, just not an argument about X as far as I can tell.

Madness

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Conversational Batman
  • Posts: 5275
  • Strength on the Journey - Journey Well
    • View Profile
    • The Second Apocalypse
« Reply #26 on: November 26, 2013, 06:25:05 pm »
It's cool - my points in this thread just aren't capable of addressing your argument X nor will I waste more words trying as I think it's not a terribly important battle to pick.
The Existential Scream
Weaponizing the Warrior Pose - Declare War Inwardly
carnificibus: multus sanguis fluit
Die Better
The Theory-Killer

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #27 on: November 26, 2013, 07:33:04 pm »
It's cool - my points in this thread just aren't capable of addressing your argument X nor will I waste more words trying as I think it's not a terribly important battle to pick.

Yeah, I don't know if it's terribly important but then I think most philosophical questions are largely worthless in the grand scheme. So asking about space monies is only as important as anything on Bakker's blog.

If you want to expand X to include any research that provides interesting factoids at the expense of public funds directly benefiting the taxed be my guest.

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5935
  • One of the other conditions of possibility
    • View Profile
« Reply #28 on: November 26, 2013, 07:35:03 pm »
One of the other conditions of possibility.

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #29 on: November 26, 2013, 08:48:21 pm »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afzmwAKUppU

Love that film. Bell is totally my waifu!    ;)

Seriously though, is there anyone here strongly objecting to the idea that defense spending is almost certainly bloated and rife with waste? That in comparison NASA is a far better investment than handing out pork to defense contractors?

Defense spending being wasteful is definitely the higher priority question, but it's also the less interesting one for a self appointed Contrarian Wanker because there's no contention around these parts on that.

Ah well, I suppose I can start the "Materialist Skeptics' promise of a Moral Future is an offering of Snake Oil" thread a little earlier than scheduled...
« Last Edit: November 26, 2013, 08:50:15 pm by sciborg2 »