4 ms·
Okay, but as I said, I did not talk about NASA at all. I was talking about making sure all public money is used for public benefit and not for entertainment as
by TomMarius 7y ago
Okay, but as I said, I did not talk about NASA at all.
I was talking about making sure all public money is used for public benefit and not for entertainment as the OP suggested, because if you're taking money from someone with force "for their benefit", you better not waste it. I don't think what NASA does is wrong, btw.
Not an American as well.
- ben_w 7y agoEntertainment is a public benefit. Personally, I get nothing from spectator sports, “the great” artists, Shakespeare, opera, nor the majority [0] of musicians. But public funding for soccer or baseball or the Olympics, renaissance art galleries, theatre, and music… these things make most people happy. I don’t empathise with the emotional responses of their respective audiences, but I can acknowledge that to the average Joe, a football is much more than a plastic substitute for an inflated pig bladder. I assume it’s exciting to them in the same way that seeing Chris Hadfield singing in actual space is to me. I don’t get why government funds these things, at least not at a visceral gut level, but the fact that they fund these things indicates that the public has a decent level of support for public funding of entertainment. [0] with the occasional exception.