> This does nothing for people suffering from lack of fundamental necessities. This is a basic philosophical question -- shall we give the poor a fish, or shal

> This does nothing for people suffering from lack of fundamental necessities. This is a basic philosophical question -- shall we give the poor a fish, or shall we teach them how to fish? The answer should seem obvious, and in the modern world, science is the fishing pole. > I'd get it if we were all so smart we solved everything we needed to but we can't even solve our own planet. The problem on Planet Earth is very simple -- there are far too many people. The problem is easy to state, but almost impossible to solve. How do you tell people to have fewer children without violating one of the most basic rights we have? How do we know there are too many people? Science. How do we know that's a nearly impossible problem to solve? Science. > Your casual philandering with space exploration doesn't put anything on anyone's table but your own ... Christopher Columbus heard this argument too, as did every pioneer throughout human history. Your analysis overlooks the fact that space exploration is so valuable that it's in the verge of becoming a profitable enterprise and have no more need for public funding. How will you complain about it then? > ... much like how lots of minds are wasted crunching pointless numbers for data startups. A "data startup" succeeds or fails based on private funding by people who understand and accept the risks, so it can't be part of your argument about global poverty.