4 ms·

I agree we've definitely wasted far more money in far worse ways, but it still doesn't change the fact it's wasteful scientifically and economically speaking, j

I agree we've definitely wasted far more money in far worse ways, but it still doesn't change the fact it's wasteful scientifically and economically speaking, just because there are bigger wastes doesn't mean we should accept all smaller ones, this is known as the "fallacy of relative privation" or "not as bad as" fallacy.

melling 10y ago
When you say wasteful, you mean not the most efficient? Because science and engineering benefited from the project. we are better off for having done the project. However, we could've gained the same knowledge in other ways, for less money. So, if it costs of $25 billion to put a man on the moon, and the same knowledge could have acquired for $15 billion, you think the effort was wasted?
- danielbarla 10y ago
  I get the feeling many forget the value in simply inspiring generations of people; think of all those who have increased aspirations as a result of that event - what is the worth / value of that?
  - simonh 10y ago
    Or maybe the fact that we didn't do it would inspire a new generation to achieve something (going to the Moon) that is still out there to do. I don't think anyone is forgetting the inspirational value, just challenging whether it was value for money. For what it's worth the moon landing had a profound effect on me. I was 6 during Apollo 17 and still remember looking up at the moon and knowing there were people on it at that moment.
    - danielbarla 10y ago
      You may be right, it's very hard to measure these things. Though that's part of my point too - why are people so sure when they claim it's a waste? (they should at least consider they might be mistaken) Living around the time of Apollo 17 must have been very interesting. I was born a few years later, with no more manned trips to the moon. In line with your point, I guess I had to find other things to motivate me!
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

melling 10y ago

When you say wasteful, you mean not the most efficient? Because science and engineering benefited from the project. we are better off for having done the project. However, we could've gained the same knowledge in other ways, for less money. So, if it costs of $25 billion to put a man on the moon, and the same knowledge could have acquired for $15 billion, you think the effort was wasted?

danielbarla 10y ago
I get the feeling many forget the value in simply inspiring generations of people; think of all those who have increased aspirations as a result of that event - what is the worth / value of that?
- simonh 10y ago
  Or maybe the fact that we didn't do it would inspire a new generation to achieve something (going to the Moon) that is still out there to do. I don't think anyone is forgetting the inspirational value, just challenging whether it was value for money. For what it's worth the moon landing had a profound effect on me. I was 6 during Apollo 17 and still remember looking up at the moon and knowing there were people on it at that moment.
  - danielbarla 10y ago
    You may be right, it's very hard to measure these things. Though that's part of my point too - why are people so sure when they claim it's a waste? (they should at least consider they might be mistaken) Living around the time of Apollo 17 must have been very interesting. I was born a few years later, with no more manned trips to the moon. In line with your point, I guess I had to find other things to motivate me!
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]