5 ms·
> Also, pure science is the part of eventually getting useful qol improvements that absolutely cannot be done through simple short sighted private research, but
by GDC7 5y ago
> Also, pure science is the part of eventually getting useful qol improvements that absolutely cannot be done through simple short sighted private research, but proves time and time again to be invaluable
Seems like a good pitch to fund National Labs instead.
National Labs != space.
Unless you have a clear and defined QOL plan then space has proven to be a money sink for the longest time.
The Apollo mission didn't have any clear plan, the Voyager-1-2 missions didn't have any clear plan, Mars missions won't have any clear plan, the ISS didn't have any clear plan, the space shuttle didn't have any clear plan.
Matter of fact it's the opposite of what you claim, if you leave space in the hands of military maybe some QOL trickle down will happen (GPS, Sat communications, ICBMs keeping us safe).
If you leave it in the hands of wide eyed individuals who want to discover exoplanets and clusters which we'll never reach then you'll just throw money down the sink.
- caconym_ 5y agoEarth is going to get very crowded in the next couple of centuries. The economic case for large-scale expansion into space isn't exactly clear at this point, but when things get tight I'd rather have state and corporate actors looking outwards for their next growth fix, and for that to be a possibility we need to be investing in space technology now even if there is no tangible short-term ROI. Unless we can change our essential nature, I don't see any sustainable path where human civilization stays confined to Earth forever. Those doomsday weapons "keeping us safe" will inevitably be used, especially when it becomes clear that we're utterly trapped.