4 ms·
As much as I love the idea, it is fairly impractical for the reasons that other commentors have noted. Call me greedy, but within the constraints of a balanced
by danjayh 11y ago
As much as I love the idea, it is fairly impractical for the reasons that other commentors have noted. Call me greedy, but within the constraints of a balanced budget, I would like to see an increased portion dedicated to science (be it a 'cancer moonshot' or an actual marsshot) vs social programs ... maybe we could find some real solutions to these issues. In my own life I have a tendency to skimp on the 'now' in the name of investing in the future, so this is probably just me applying my own financial philosophies at a larger scale.
- melling 11y ago"Preaching to the choir". Since the government is not going to spend significantly more on science because most citizens don't want it, can you come up with a different solution that might work? For example, a Kickstarter for science that actually works. Crowdfunding X-Prizes, YC (incubator) for basic science companies, etc. The US economy is $15 trillion. How to redirect some of that into more research?
- chriswarbo 11y ago> Call me greedy, but within the constraints of a balanced budget, I would like to see an increased portion dedicated to science (be it a 'cancer moonshot' or an actual marsshot) vs social program Note that this basically happened already. As Apollo wound down, the War on Cancer wound up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Cancer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Cancer Turns out it's far more difficult to cure cancer than to reach the moon.