4 ms·
You touch on the primary flaw of "spend the money here on Earth" argument. Money spent on space programs IS spent here on Earth. The money paid to engineers an
by FlyMoreRockets 6y ago
You touch on the primary flaw of "spend the money here on Earth" argument.
Money spent on space programs IS spent here on Earth. The money paid to engineers and fabricators and for raw materials goes to pay for house payments, durable goods, food and taxes of the individuals working on these projects. And those payments create jobs delivering these services, which benefits an ever increasing number of people.
It's not as if dollar bills were litterally burned to provide rocket thrust.
- bumby 6y agoI think you’re taking the phrasing too literally. It is meant to confer the money should be spent on programs that directly contribute to more people’s lives than just those who work on the specific program. Your same argument can be used for the defense contractors as well and people will still line up to argue it’s not the best use of tax dollars
- nickik 6y agoThis program is about giving internet to under-served communities so their children can do remote schoolwork and things like that. What exactly is your problem with that?
- bumby 6y agoI, personally, don’t have an issue with it. The context was that I am trying to give a good faith steelman argument for those who don’t think it’s the best use of money when other, perhaps more pressing, problems exist here “on earth” (quotations being used because I think the original intent of the phrase was too literally interpreted). To extend that argument, is it better to give underserved internet access or spend the money on something that potentially saves someone’s life, like mosquito netting? I think even though HN is very in love with high tech problems, many would argue we could serve humanity better by prioritizing those lower tech problems that tend to solve more fundamental needs