5 ms·

Interesting point. Is money better spent feeding/clothing a bunch of Africans and preventing aids _or_ on research, bio-engineering, space/ocean exploration, e

by hbt 16y ago

Interesting point. Is money better spent feeding/clothing a bunch of Africans and preventing aids _or_ on research, bio-engineering, space/ocean exploration, education etc. here at home? Which one is short term and which one is long term?

sandipagr 16y ago
please educate me how is space/ocean exploration better than saving lives, even if its "bunch of Africans"
- ericb 16y ago
  Ok, I'm not the original poster, but here goes. The continued existence of the entire human race may depend on space exploration and subsequent colonization. One comet or black-swan type disaster could wipe out humanity as a whole. This is not without precedent (dinosaurs).
  - gridspy 16y ago
    The ongoing space exploration efforts will also serve to inspire up and coming young scientists. Their efforts will help to advance technologies across the board.
  - Setsuna 16y ago
    Sounds straight out of science fiction, I'm not saying that this would never happen but personally I'd rather live in the present rather than be worrying about something that may never happen in the near future.
  - sandipagr 16y ago
    I am sure you will be happy if Obama spent all tax dollars in making sure world doesn't end in 2012 (after all, it could wipe out humanity as a whole) than fixing health care, education and so forth. I am not against space exploration or anything, I just believe saving lives today is far more worthwhile than worrying about the black-swan type disaster that could happen.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - tmajor 16y ago
    In response to this reply: Ok, I'm not the original poster, but here goes. The continued existence of the entire human race may depend on space exploration and subsequent colonization. One comet or black-swan type disaster could wipe out humanity as a whole. This is not without precedent (dinosaurs). Each time we leave this planet we punch a whole in our ozone layer that can't be repaired! Some things were meant to be left alone. Simple education like teaching man to fish and read (not like our socialist education system here in America) will improve life and decerease deficits on this earth! Socialism is not the answer!
    - ericb 16y ago
      > Each time we leave this planet we punch a whole in our ozone layer that can't be repaired! Can you provide a source for the ozone whole claim? Where did I mention socialism?
      - ericb 16y ago
        Since you didn't cite a source, I looked it up. Not true: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#5 http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttl...
riffraff 16y ago
is a bunch of money better spent investing in US or creating stronger economies that can actually buy what is produced there? The post WWII marshall plan comes to mind.
muriithi 16y ago
As a Kenyan who falls under the OP's definition of "a bunch of Africans" I do not want American philanthropy to "feed or cloth" Africa. Most African economies are agricultural and it is therefore alarming that the EU uses 40% of it's budget(about 48B Euros annually) on agricultural subsidies. The US uses about $20B every year on the same.Ending these subsidies would enable Africa to export more, buy more products from the US and Europe as well as form the basis for industrialization. We need more trade and less aid. Is that asking for too much? More info; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1978963,00.html http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1978963,00.ht...
- 1053r 16y ago
  This sounds great in principal, and ending American and European food subsidies would be great for Africa. Additionally, food subsidies distort the market by, for example, making corn syrup cheaper than sugar in the US. The problem is that many Americans (I don't know as much about Europe) aren't actually that wealthy. Without food subsidies, our food quality would probably increase, but so would our costs. Poor Americans are overweight today because the distorted food costs make it cheaper to eat processed food (that is more expensive to make overall) than to eat basic fruits and veggies and grains. Without subsidies, they would be starving, or at least calorie deficient. Nixon put in our current system of subsidies because "food should never be an issue in a presidential race". And since then, it hasn't. America may be wealthy, but the wealth is very unevenly distributed. Without social programs, many of our people would be starving as well.
  - muriithi 16y ago
    I respectfully disagree. The same prophesies of doom were advanced when in 1984 New Zealand's Labor government took the dramatic step of ending all farm subsidies. Productivity and efficiency have increased much faster than when subsidies were in place. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3747430.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspon... http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/business/worldbusiness/02farm.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/business/worldbusiness/02f... http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3411 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3411
MikeCapone 16y ago
>Is money better spent feeding/clothing a bunch of Africans and preventing aids _or_ on research, bio-engineering, space/ocean exploration, education etc. here at home? With that much money you can do both.
Setsuna 16y ago
>"feeding/clothing a bunch of Africans and preventing aids" That's very harsh and insensitive. There are millions of people dying of hunger and all you care about is space exploration?

by hbt 16y ago

sandipagr 16y ago

please educate me how is space/ocean exploration better than saving lives, even if its "bunch of Africans"

ericb 16y ago
Ok, I'm not the original poster, but here goes. The continued existence of the entire human race may depend on space exploration and subsequent colonization. One comet or black-swan type disaster could wipe out humanity as a whole. This is not without precedent (dinosaurs).
- gridspy 16y ago
  The ongoing space exploration efforts will also serve to inspire up and coming young scientists. Their efforts will help to advance technologies across the board.
- Setsuna 16y ago
  Sounds straight out of science fiction, I'm not saying that this would never happen but personally I'd rather live in the present rather than be worrying about something that may never happen in the near future.
- sandipagr 16y ago
  I am sure you will be happy if Obama spent all tax dollars in making sure world doesn't end in 2012 (after all, it could wipe out humanity as a whole) than fixing health care, education and so forth. I am not against space exploration or anything, I just believe saving lives today is far more worthwhile than worrying about the black-swan type disaster that could happen.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- tmajor 16y ago
  In response to this reply: Ok, I'm not the original poster, but here goes. The continued existence of the entire human race may depend on space exploration and subsequent colonization. One comet or black-swan type disaster could wipe out humanity as a whole. This is not without precedent (dinosaurs). Each time we leave this planet we punch a whole in our ozone layer that can't be repaired! Some things were meant to be left alone. Simple education like teaching man to fish and read (not like our socialist education system here in America) will improve life and decerease deficits on this earth! Socialism is not the answer!
  - ericb 16y ago
    > Each time we leave this planet we punch a whole in our ozone layer that can't be repaired! Can you provide a source for the ozone whole claim? Where did I mention socialism?
    - ericb 16y ago
      Since you didn't cite a source, I looked it up. Not true: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#5 http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttl...

riffraff 16y ago

is a bunch of money better spent investing in US or creating stronger economies that can actually buy what is produced there? The post WWII marshall plan comes to mind.

muriithi 16y ago

As a Kenyan who falls under the OP's definition of "a bunch of Africans" I do not want American philanthropy to "feed or cloth" Africa. Most African economies are agricultural and it is therefore alarming that the EU uses 40% of it's budget(about 48B Euros annually) on agricultural subsidies. The US uses about $20B every year on the same.Ending these subsidies would enable Africa to export more, buy more products from the US and Europe as well as form the basis for industrialization. We need more trade and less aid. Is that asking for too much? More info; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1978963,00.html http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1978963,00.ht...

1053r 16y ago
This sounds great in principal, and ending American and European food subsidies would be great for Africa. Additionally, food subsidies distort the market by, for example, making corn syrup cheaper than sugar in the US. The problem is that many Americans (I don't know as much about Europe) aren't actually that wealthy. Without food subsidies, our food quality would probably increase, but so would our costs. Poor Americans are overweight today because the distorted food costs make it cheaper to eat processed food (that is more expensive to make overall) than to eat basic fruits and veggies and grains. Without subsidies, they would be starving, or at least calorie deficient. Nixon put in our current system of subsidies because "food should never be an issue in a presidential race". And since then, it hasn't. America may be wealthy, but the wealth is very unevenly distributed. Without social programs, many of our people would be starving as well.
- muriithi 16y ago
  I respectfully disagree. The same prophesies of doom were advanced when in 1984 New Zealand's Labor government took the dramatic step of ending all farm subsidies. Productivity and efficiency have increased much faster than when subsidies were in place. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3747430.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspon... http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/business/worldbusiness/02farm.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/business/worldbusiness/02f... http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3411 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3411

MikeCapone 16y ago

>Is money better spent feeding/clothing a bunch of Africans and preventing aids _or_ on research, bio-engineering, space/ocean exploration, education etc. here at home? With that much money you can do both.

Setsuna 16y ago

>"feeding/clothing a bunch of Africans and preventing aids" That's very harsh and insensitive. There are millions of people dying of hunger and all you care about is space exploration?