/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2801144]

Hey /sci/

Im supposed to write a paper on Arguing whether we can Justify the expenditure on Space exploration when there is poverty in the world.

Hit me up with a few points as to why: Space > Africa.

Thanks bros.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2801150]

>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bIQLiKi3g <<<<<<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining
>At 1997 prices, a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1 mile contains more than $20 trillion US dollars worth of industrial and precious metals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_Earth_Objects#Near-Earth_asteroids
>As of May 2010, 7,075 near-Earth asteroids are known,[14] ranging in size up to ~32 kilometers (1036 Ganymed).[16] The number of near-Earth asteroids over one kilometer in diameter is estimated to be 500 - 1,000.

[Anonymous No.2801151]

>Space = Africa

ftfy, no one gives a shit about either.

[Anonymous No.2801160]

>>2801151
Not true, at least Africa has diamonds.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2801167]

>>2801160
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3492919.stm

>Twinkling in the sky is a diamond star of 10 billion trillion trillion carats, astronomers have discovered.

[tinycat !!qoWPGZQ4oQc No.2801168]

Space and africa are both fucked until we stop using money.

[Anonymous No.2801180]

Niggers are subhuman we can make that sacrifice.

[Anonymous No.2801184]

>>2801150
The full version CCM posted initially (in november iirc) was way better imho.

@OP: you chose the subject? because your subject looks like a conclusion (and a shitty one) and you're asking arguments for it..

[Anonymous No.2801185]

Space at this point in time is impractical. Ending world hunger could be achieved with considerably less funding. You're a selfish faggot OP

[Anonymous No.2801192]

>>2801144

1 reason is because giving charity doesn't help poor countries. We seem to be doubling our charity every 10 years or so yet poor countries are still worse off

for example, we give them malaria nets, and they just end up selling them on the black market

http://forums.infjs.com/showthread.php?t=6833

also giving money to africa ends up supporting oppressive regimes, or maintaining the status quo etc

[Anonymous No.2801195]

space spending *does* help poverty in the US: many space jobs are in Alabama, Utah, and Florida, where poverty levels are high.

Also, a big chunk of space spending is for communication satellites. One could argue that any aid to open communication in an impoverished area would aid a democratic process, which should lift poverty.

Also, space jobs keep smart rocket scientists busy so that they don't become Mad Scientists and subjugate the planet.

Also space spending goes hand in hand with missile and other weapon development. More and cheaper weapons in third world countries leads to less population and decreased poverty. (That might be a stretch, you'd have to measure the spending on weapons and increased chaos of strife against the smaller population).

[Anonymous No.2801198]

>>2801184
I didn't choose the subject, no. Although I do support space exploration because it captures my inner child and my symbolises all that I love about science. Im just having trouble conveying this; so I turn to 4chan...

[Anonymous No.2801200]

>>2801144

A fundamental flaw is the assumption that people are united in a goal to further space exploration or to relief others from poverty.

This obviously isn't true. Those who invest funds in space explorations don't even try to justify anything. They just don't care, period.

[Anonymous No.2801201]

>>2801185
>Ending world hunger could be achieved with considerably less funding.
True, we could set the funding to Africa to zero and thereby end the hunger problems through death by starvation. No people = no starvation.

[Anonymous No.2801205]

>>2801192
>http://forums.infjs.com/showthread.php?t=6833
>infjs

lol
enjoy your autism, bro.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2801206]

>>2801144
Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.

[Anonymous No.2801213]

>>2801201

What an incredibly credulous thing to say. You're so dark and edgy.

[Anonymous No.2801220]

Controlling poverty (aside from perpetuating it) is well beyond the grasp of government organizations. Welfare programs, although beneficial to those with legitimate needs, are only short term solutions to problems that are social and economic in nature. Government investment in space exploration, however, yields scientific breakthroughs in a diverse array of fields ranging from material science and astrophysics to medicine and agriculture.

[Anonymous No.2801219]

American space exploration died when Constellation got canned and NASA had the majority of its funding diverted to studying "Climate Science."

Shouldn't NASA's primary goal be colonizing space?

[Anonymous No.2801217]

I wrote a paper on it for class too

http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/01/11/is-space-exploration-worth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/

Also, it assumes its either, explore space or feed the poor

there is no dichotomy, the end result of that kinda philosophy is communism op

[Anonymous No.2801224]

The biggest fallacy about the whole "starving people" argument is that space exploration is a great way to find work for thousands and thousands of highly educated workers. The prevailing view seems to be that the money is spent in space, rather than supporting loads of science on earth.

Also, it's stupid that NASA gets singled out before the military, or anything else with more funding. Compute how much money people spend on relatively useless stuff such as movies or eating out, then compare that to the per capita space spending. Future of the species vs. going to starbucks or similar.

[Anonymous No.2801230]

You could just compare the proportions of the US budget. NASA gets around 0.7% while healthcare, medicare, social security and all that stuff to help poor people is around 70%. And what have we received more from? Certainly NASA. Spending money on NASA gives you more bang for you buck. It's kind of like: paying to house the homeless gives them a home, but teaching them to perform a job gives them the ability to house themselves. Social security and all that merely puts money into a money pit but NASA produces new technologies that help people much more.

[Anonymous No.2801240]

>>2801224
The 2010 NASA budget was over 18 billion dollars. With about 7 billion of that going specifically towards human space flight (NASA). While to an average person this might perhaps seem like a massive amount of money, to our federal government its chump change. To put it in some perspective the military budget for 2010 was over 534 billion dollars (Center for American Progress). The 18 billion NASA got represents less than one percent of the national budget. That’s not all, “In 2006, according to the USDA, Americans spent more than $154 billion on alcohol. We spend around $10 billion a month in Iraq( Freakonomics Quorum).” When looked at with that bit of perspective in mind you see the resources spent on our current space program are anything but vast.

[Anonymous No.2801245]

>>2801224

>implying that the military hasn't made massive breakthroughs in the pursuit of military dominance.

What you're seeing is the remnants of the cold war sentiment i the voting electorate. No politician would dare say "cut spending" because a vast majority of the voters grew up in a time when america actually had a rival superpower to complete with. Not saying that we have slowed or stopped our advancement in progress since NASA stopped space exploration. Tech trends have still grown in leeps and bounds without NASA.

[Anonymous No.2801248]

>>2801200

To expand on my post,

Before you make argument for and against you must take an assumption.

I.e.
Assume that the general purpose of the world is to end poverty.

......

Now, assume that the general aim of 1st world countries is to advance technologically.

.........

Now, take no assumptions and be realistic. People want both. State some points that people might not be consider.

For example, the vast, vast, majority of people are living in miserable conditions. That is a lot of wasted potential that could help the world advance technologically.

On the other hand, space exploration might give rise to cheap technologies and resources that might be fundamental for elevating everybody to a 1st world country state.

[Anonymous No.2801254]

>>2801240
The reason the money argument seems to hold so much sway with the public is that in general people seem to have the impression that NASA gets much more funding than they do. Polling done by Roger Launius shows the public impression is that NASA gets up to 20% of the federal budget (Smithsonian Institution). Furthermore, the argument that NASA is costly breaks down when closely examined. The patents and technologies they developed make more money than the program spends. In fact, “for every dollar we spend on the space program, the U.S. economy receives about $8 of economic benefit (Freakonomics Quorum).” Why then isn’t the organization self sufficient? Because as Joan Virnikos said “Royalties on NASA patents and licenses currently go directly to the U.S. Treasury, not back to NASA (Freakonomics Quorum).” So the program makes the country more than it costs.

[Anonymous No.2801272]

I don't think you guys understand the mentality of the average american at this moment. The average american has a single job that doesn't pay enough, has 2.5 kids, has sub optimal health insurance, and is religious. For them, space is fucking irrelevant, they'll never vote for expansion of a program they see as completely irrelevent to their lives or community.

But in the years to come, technology will still grow. And i it will get progressively cheaper and cheaper to do the same stuff we where doing in the 60's. In short, you guys are too early, we will see our speciies grow into a space faring one in maybe 60-100 years. But certainly not now, when it seems completely irrelevant in peoples lives.

[Anonymous No.2801273]

Also, I think it's imperative that you point out that money alone is not enough to end world poverty. First and foremost 3rd world countries must be reformed. That means, overthrowing current dictators, reducing corruption and build a new and solid infrastructure. It takes a lot of effort that no country is willing to undertake.

Besides that, there are a lot of countries that would rather most countries remain in their current state of misery.

[Anonymous No.2801274]

I wonder what would happen if we folded NASA into the USAF.

[Anonymous No.2801283]

compare USA's military budget to NASA's. im not super-liberal but i would certainly prefer to see another shuttle in space than another supercarrier in the sea.

[Anonymous No.2801286]

>>2801245

There isn't any reason the military can't do significant R&D with smaller budget. DARPA is only about .5% of the DoD budget, them plus the other various agencies can't account for very much.

[Anonymous No.2801287]

>>2801144
Because its our fucking money and we don't have to justify how we spend it? Once you realise this its a small step to see that space travel is both more fun and interesting than feeding nuiggers.

[Anonymous No.2801289]

>>2801245
>Leeps and bounds without NASA
>Leeps and Bounds
>Leeps

[Anonymous No.2801291]

Who cares about black 'people'? We aren't the world police neither are we the world parents. Black 'people' can help themselves. We should stop pumping money into their shitholes

[Anonymous No.2801295]

>>2801289

You don't need to be a douche over a typo

[Anonymous No.2801305]

Just watch Planetes.

[Anonymous No.2801303]

>>2801240
Military spending stimulates research and development directly through companies like General Electric, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman. When NASA places an order for a space ship, they are basically getting a customized piece of hardware that was originally designed for the military and then adapted for NASA's specifications.

Military research has done more for spaceflight in recent times than NASA.

[Anonymous No.2801304]

>>2801295
Its not a typo lol. a is no where near a.

Seriously. If it was lesps it would be a typo.
Putting two e's....

[Anonymous No.2801307]

>>2801167
Oh hey my prof was one of the major leads in this!

[Anonymous No.2801311]

>>2801291

Pumping money is a bad mentality. What we really need to do(and in some areas we are) is training individuals how to use the resources they have...well... resourcefully. Education is a powerful tool for any country, especially those who doesn't have very many natural resources.

[Anonymous No.2801318]

>>2801245
>ignoring the Russians and the Chinese

[Anonymous No.2801320]

>>2801291
agreed, for charity to work we first need to get rid of all the corrupt politicians and dictators who end up with the money, that task is effectivly impossible anyway. best option in the long term would be colonisation. most colonies turned out better than those left to their own devices.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2801321]

>>2801305

[Anonymous No.2801322]

aid creates dependence

africa could feed itself with good governance

[Anonymous No.2801323]

>>2801318

I'm not. They're just not rivals at this moment in time.

[Anonymous No.2801333]

>>2801323
Not clear and present threats, but they are rising powers. And I doubt that the scientific world would be better off with the Chinese in charge. Their economic system hardly provides the environment necessary to maintain the pace of technological development we experiences in the last half the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.2801366]

>>2801333

solar will be the cheapest form of energy per watt in 10 years. Environmental impact from China and India will be cut substantially by that

[Anonymous No.2801396]

Africa is definitely full of niggers.

Space possibly does not have niggers.

QED. OP you don't even have to cite me.

[Anonymous No.2801402]

>>2801366
Solar is unreliable and inefficient, as are all so called 'renewable energy sources' that are purported to be our solution at this point in time. The simple fact is that right now, they don't work. And they will be too damn expensive to make work, at least for the next 40 years. The only solution that we know for a fact will work is nuclear power. Any other solution will bankrupt us, and I doubt China or India will curb their pollution untill they create emissions pound for pound comparable with their American counterparts.

[Anonymous No.2801407]

>>2801402

Thats why i said 10 years. Current tech is terrible, the new tech will be quite different

[Anonymous No.2801437]

>>2801407
Solar will take at least 10 to 20 years to become feasible, and another 10 years to build the infrastructure to make it work. Even then it will cost us massive amounts of capital to get it started, and we need a solution now.
Nuclear has been around since the end of WW2. We know it works, and we know its a far more effective and cost efficient way of producing power short of coal. Thats scientific fact. Solar should be left to individuals, not for powering entire nations.

[Anonymous No.2801442]

>>2801437

Nuclear engineer huh?

[Anonymous No.2801462]

Money is useless to Africa. Literally, there is no true, long lasting solution to sub-Saharan Africa's problems. Giving them money only causes corruption, food only causes them to have more kids, hence, more hunger and poverty, which then leads to more crime and rape, again continuing the circle of unwanted baby's.
The one thing that has proven to help Africa, is white/western influence. Colonization to be specific. When African countries were colonies, blacks may have been oppressed, but at least they had a steady source of food and income. Crime wasn't rampant. Ever since the revolutions, Africa has become a wasteland, furhter proving that the sub-Saharan negro CANNOT govern himself...

[Anonymous No.2801481]

GEOMATICS
satellite imagery is essential for disaster aid
satellites the most efficient means of understanding the state of the planet
global warming, military applications (US is top bitch, detection of nuclear tests)
COMMUNICATIONS
again essential for disaster aid for when GSM is down or overloaded
military applications
GPS, GALILEO, GLONASS
positioning unlike ever before
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
denying funding for space exploration is just exceptionalism
also projects sound more expensive than they are because the costs are over years or decades

[Anonymous No.2801496]

>>2801442
Not living in Canada, Scandinavia or Russia?

[Anonymous No.2801518]

>>2801481
GPS requires constant maintenance. So either you spend money on research or have fuckhuge expenses forever.

[Anonymous No.2801525]

NASA makes up 1% of the budget, Welfare/medicare/etc make up about 5%.

My point is that people make a big fuss about things that are costing us very little while we spend the majority of our "money" on some things that are necessary, but mostly on bullshit. If the whole world cut the bullshit and used that money to feed the poor that would work as well, but cutting NASA will do absolutely nothing but make nerds angry.

[Anonymous No.2801527]

>>2801462
There is a solution. Close borders, cut the money for aid and let nature do its thing. Why complicate things with anthropic intervention when nature works a lot better.

This way any argument for western exploitation of their resources would be voided and there would be no connection between how much does a westerner consume and why does an African kid starve. Let them take their own matters into their own hands, like adults.

[Anonymous No.2801535]

>>2801283
> implying shuttles weren't an expensive half-failure

[Anonymous No.2801536]

Many of Africa's problems stem from the fact that the colonial powers who divided it up had no fucking clue what they were doing. Thanks to them, you've got countries with arch rivals living right next to each other. And as such, there is no salvation for Africa's problems.
Might as well find another planet and ship them there.

[Anonymous No.2801538]

It is naive to believe that money drawn away from science and fueled into development aid would make a significant difference. As long as countless multi-billion transnational companies make a profit of keeping wars in Africa ongoing, nothing will change ...

[Anonymous No.2801539]

>>2801525
Well, we need to start cutting back cause the countries broke. NPR and PBS is getting canned. Pretty soon NASA is going to get absorbed into the pentagon to save cash. At this point, NASA is hardly paying for itself every quarter, its just another sector of government subject to pork barrel spending.
Unless NASA comes up with an actual plan for space exploration, then whats the point of keeping it around?

[Anonymous No.2801545]

>>2801525
>NASA makes up 1% of the budget, Welfare/medicare/etc make up about 5%.

No. See chart.

[Anonymous No.2801550]

If Africa had stayed colonial, there would not be such rampant poverty.

[Anonymous No.2801560]

>>2801545
That money for social security was already promised to those people back in the 1950s. We can't touch it, so something has to give.

[Anonymous No.2801581]

>>2801560
We can certainly touch it. We can say "Social Security is done, go home" and stop giving people money. We can close down the entire program.

Sure, there will be riots, but nothing the threat of immolation can't handle.

[Anonymous No.2801589]

>>2801581
Social security goes to WW2 veterans, their family, and everyone else from that great war. Its their money, its law.

[Anonymous No.2801608]

>>2801589
Laws can be changed. As a matter of fact, laws can be just plain ignored if you have enough power. Even the Constitution can be ignored.

See the last few decades of government.

[Anonymous No.2802156]

>>2801535
It was a very successful project of the Nixon Era. A hell of a lot better than the crap that Obama has lined up for us on the launchpad.
Oh wait, we got NOTHING.