4 ms·

I do not value scientific research in directions that are not important to me. If I don't need spaceflight in the next 100 years, there is no point spending va

I do not value scientific research in directions that are not important to me. If I don't need spaceflight in the next 100 years, there is no point spending valuable resources on researching human spaceflight. 100 years from now such research would be significantly less expensive and more meaningful. I'd rather see valuable resources spend on what's important. For example on better rating system on HN. Government is not capable of doing things like that.

pavel_lishin 15y ago
Sometimes it's hard to tell what ends up being important. Would you have valued scientific research into space travel in the 50's? Especially if there wasn't a cold-war powered space race? Because I sure enjoy GPS and other satellite-backed technologies.
- dennisgorelik 15y ago
  It would be much cheaper to develop space missiles 20 years later. Especially if saved resources would have been invested by private sector into more useful technologies such as chemistry, computers, machinery etc.
- jerf 15y ago
  That argument is too powerful. What if we spent the money we're dumping into a rather ineffective space program on $RESEARCH_X instead? Who knows what aspect of $RESEARCH_X will be important? You haven't proved money should be spent on the space program, you've proved money should be spent on X for all X. Though this does bear a certain resemblance to our budgetary priorities of late.
  - jjmaxwell4 15y ago
    This is exactly the problem - why should the government decide what is useful research? When you let the government do anything, it instantly becomes political. Nowadays professors have to constantly jockey for research dollars. I say that private markets/individuals do a pretty good job deciding what technologies are worth long term investment dollars/charitable donations. Let them figure out what research programs they should be funding.

pavel_lishin 15y ago

Sometimes it's hard to tell what ends up being important. Would you have valued scientific research into space travel in the 50's? Especially if there wasn't a cold-war powered space race? Because I sure enjoy GPS and other satellite-backed technologies.

dennisgorelik 15y ago
It would be much cheaper to develop space missiles 20 years later. Especially if saved resources would have been invested by private sector into more useful technologies such as chemistry, computers, machinery etc.
jerf 15y ago
That argument is too powerful. What if we spent the money we're dumping into a rather ineffective space program on $RESEARCH_X instead? Who knows what aspect of $RESEARCH_X will be important? You haven't proved money should be spent on the space program, you've proved money should be spent on X for all X. Though this does bear a certain resemblance to our budgetary priorities of late.
- jjmaxwell4 15y ago
  This is exactly the problem - why should the government decide what is useful research? When you let the government do anything, it instantly becomes political. Nowadays professors have to constantly jockey for research dollars. I say that private markets/individuals do a pretty good job deciding what technologies are worth long term investment dollars/charitable donations. Let them figure out what research programs they should be funding.