3 ms·

> no productive utility to us tiny human beings whatsoever. It’s a racket Do you use GPS? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5253894/ https://www.nc

> no productive utility to us tiny human beings whatsoever. It’s a racket Do you use GPS? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5253894/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5253894/ Have you ever used a MRI or undergone a CAT scan? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDL_(programming_language)#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDL_(programming_language)#His... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRAF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRAF Used anything that involves interferometry - contact lenses, anything with a lens or a laser, optical coherence tomography (OCT) etc? https://nexsci.caltech.edu/workshop/2003/2003_MSS/07_Monday/history_030706a.pdf https://nexsci.caltech.edu/workshop/2003/2003_MSS/07_Monday/... I can go on, but I think I've made my point. But even if these fruits didn't come of it, something doesn't have to be "productive" or useful according to your definition to justify its existence. Just like art or music doesn't have to be "productive," useful or even beautiful by your definitions to exist. There is more to human existence than breathing, eating and leaving bad comments on websites.

redroyal 3y ago
I think you made my point actually
jamilton 3y ago
I'd rather have a billion dollars of art installments than another giant telescope. Or a billion dollars of art installments and a billion dollars of welfare, that'd still be much cheaper than the JWST alone. Are there any relatively recent societal benefits? These all seem 20+ years old. At first I was thinking it might be because NASA's budget got smaller since the 70s, but it's actually increased slightly. I think it's completely fair to see astrophysics as somewhat vain. The comparison to art is apt - it's essentially a luxury. And the fruits are somewhat of a bad defense, IMO. Besides satellite technology, they're basically side benefits, not something the money was actually spent for. Presumably if the same amount of money was spent on "make something useful to society" there would be higher yield to society than what we got from "get a rocket to the moon" and "make a better telescope". That being said, satellite technology is incredible and I'm glad we have it.

redroyal 3y ago

I think you made my point actually

jamilton 3y ago

I'd rather have a billion dollars of art installments than another giant telescope. Or a billion dollars of art installments and a billion dollars of welfare, that'd still be much cheaper than the JWST alone. Are there any relatively recent societal benefits? These all seem 20+ years old. At first I was thinking it might be because NASA's budget got smaller since the 70s, but it's actually increased slightly. I think it's completely fair to see astrophysics as somewhat vain. The comparison to art is apt - it's essentially a luxury. And the fruits are somewhat of a bad defense, IMO. Besides satellite technology, they're basically side benefits, not something the money was actually spent for. Presumably if the same amount of money was spent on "make something useful to society" there would be higher yield to society than what we got from "get a rocket to the moon" and "make a better telescope". That being said, satellite technology is incredible and I'm glad we have it.