Space program vs. taking care of mother earth

[Dis]

The space program is kind of cool and all, but I really don't support it in any big fashion.

I believe it is just a pipe dream to go to any planet other than mars, and faster than light travel is not possible.

Face it, we are stuck here on earth, and should concentrate on improving it.

Yes I am an environmentalist. Our best bet is not destroying our planet.

Ideally we could do both, but the money is just not there. Shouldn't social programs take priority over the space program?

Doesn't it seem strange we are spending billions on this when people are starving to death all over the world?

Our environment is crap right now, at this rate the human race might not surive another 200 years at this level. The human race may survive, but it will be in much diminished numbers and without the capacity to keep up the standard of living we now have.

where to start. First of all we are running out of fish. I don't know what I'll do without my fish and chips with newcastle Ale . The coral reefs are dying due to global warming and other causes. Species are going endangered or extinct at alarming rates. Lack of biodiversity threatens nearly every eco system on the planet. Populations in the south pacific depend on the rain for drinking water, but global warming has caused their rains to be erratic. Their island is only 15 feet above sea level. They are losing more and more each passing year. Overpopulation in some areas may lead to a new strain of virus that may wipe out huge populations of humans and/or animals.

[Mr. President]

Re: Space program vs. taking care of mother earth

Originally posted by Dissident


Face it, we are stuck here on earth, and should concentrate on improving it.

That's a real positive attitude.

Overpopulation in some areas may lead to a new strain of virus that may wipe out huge populations of humans and/or animals.

That's not a bad thing in and of itself. Are you suggesting that viruses or pandemics aren't part of nature?

I think the more pressing danger with overpopulation is excessive resource consumption.

[Eli]

Both space and the enviroment are extremely important long and short term investments, but they shouldnt come one at the cost of another.

It's not like the NASA money is taken from the "Save the World Budget". Without NASA, all US Goverment departments(or whatever it's called) would've had 1% bigger budgets and nothing would've changed.

[The Mad Monk]

The space program is extremely important.

We really have to get off this rock.

[FrustratedPoet]

The space program is completely unimportant to me.

Shouldn't social programs take priority over the space program?

Pretty much everything, except perhaps daytime television, should take priority over the space program.

[CerberusIV]

There are more than enough resources to run a bigger space program than currently and also deal with global environmental and social issues. What is missing is not resources but a sufficiently strong perception that environmental and social problems must be tackled and the political will to do so.

Next question?

[laurentius]

Re: Space program vs. taking care of mother earth

Originally posted by Dissident
Ideally we could do both, but the money is just not there. Shouldn't social programs take priority over the space program?

Doesn't it seem strange we are spending billions on this when people are starving to death all over the world?

Doesn't it seem strange that americans are spending tens of billions of dollars to buy new weaponry when people are starving in america and all over the world?

Shouldn't social and scientific programs take priority over military spending?

You're barking at the wrong tree

[MRT144]

the way i imagine it happenening is the world itself is starving and that any energy to save itself will just wind up killing it.

[Dauphin]

I think you are setting up a false dilemma. Money is wasted at all levels of government and at all levels of private enterprise. To say space spending must be cut to pay for environmental or social programmes is to ignore the other programmes money is wasted on.

[The Mad Monk]

We should take a lesson from the myriad extinct species through time:

The more limited you are, whether in environment or geography, the more likely you will wind up dead.

We really, really have to get off this rock.

[Flandrien]

Yes, we need to get off this rock.
But who cares if it takes us another 500 or 1000 year to accomplish it ?

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Flandrien
Yes, we need to get off this rock.
But who cares if it takes us another 500 or 1000 year to accomplish it ?

True. The only thing that matters is that we find a way off to other places we can live before the next big asteriod hits.

[The Mad Monk]

There lies the rub -- when is it coming?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Flandrien
Yes, we need to get off this rock.
But who cares if it takes us another 500 or 1000 year to accomplish it ?

from which follows - we should slowly and gradually expand the space program and explore. No crash programs to land humans on Mars, but keep enough investment in manned space program to gradually improve. Most of space program should be unmanned - and most of that should be in programs that have returns here on earth - a limited amount for planetary exploration and pure astronomy - to keep the science going, and satisfy the spirit of exploration. Not enough to gut other important areas on earth.

More or less the status quo.

[Az]

Originally posted by Eli
Both space and the enviroment are extremely important long and short term investments, but they shouldnt come one at the cost of another.

It's not like the NASA money is taken from the "Save the World Budget". Without NASA, all US Goverment departments(or whatever it's called) would've had 1% bigger budgets and nothing would've changed.

Esp. with the NASA budget being badly misused.