3 ms·

Sum of all NASA budgets 1958 to 2011 are smaller than us military budget from 2011. http://steveharoz.com/blog/2012/science-and-war-visualizing-u-s-budget-prio

Sum of all NASA budgets 1958 to 2011 are smaller than us military budget from 2011. http://steveharoz.com/blog/2012/science-and-war-visualizing-u-s-budget-priorities/ http://steveharoz.com/blog/2012/science-and-war-visualizing-...

pfdietz 3y ago
This is the "bigger rat" defense. The rat, having been caught by the rat catcher, complains this isn't fair because there are other, larger rats. But it's still a rat. A program that isn't worth doing remains not worth doing even if there are larger programs that also weren't worth doing.
- roenxi 3y ago
  But your attack is limp. You're complaining about a project on the basis of cost when it is basically a financial rounding error. The US government is 34 trillion in debt [0], led mainly by the largest welfare state (by absolute size, not by generosity) in the history of the globe. The annual interest on that debt alone is about the size of the total 50 year history of spend on NASA [1]. If, in that context, if you're going to attack a productive project as a waste of money: 1) You aren't seriously looking at the political situation. There are actual budget problems without going to find imaginary ones. 2) You're representing a perspective that clearly has no political power, and you're representing it by attacking one of the easiest programs to justify. If you've got no political power, it makes more sense to attack weak opposing positions. Finding wasteful US government spending is like shooting fish in a barrel; the forever wars alone are enough to harp on for decades. But you're going to try and launch an attack on the space program, which did at least advance the state of humanity? You're setting yourself up to look silly. [0] It is already closer to 35 trillion, I wish my salary grew that quickly. [1] _trampeltier's link

3 ms·

Sum of all NASA budgets 1958 to 2011 are smaller than us military budget from 2011. http://steveharoz.com/blog/2012/science-and-war-visualizing-u-s-budget-prio

by _trampeltier 3y ago

pfdietz 3y ago
This is the "bigger rat" defense. The rat, having been caught by the rat catcher, complains this isn't fair because there are other, larger rats. But it's still a rat. A program that isn't worth doing remains not worth doing even if there are larger programs that also weren't worth doing.
- roenxi 3y ago
  But your attack is limp. You're complaining about a project on the basis of cost when it is basically a financial rounding error. The US government is 34 trillion in debt [0], led mainly by the largest welfare state (by absolute size, not by generosity) in the history of the globe. The annual interest on that debt alone is about the size of the total 50 year history of spend on NASA [1]. If, in that context, if you're going to attack a productive project as a waste of money: 1) You aren't seriously looking at the political situation. There are actual budget problems without going to find imaginary ones. 2) You're representing a perspective that clearly has no political power, and you're representing it by attacking one of the easiest programs to justify. If you've got no political power, it makes more sense to attack weak opposing positions. Finding wasteful US government spending is like shooting fish in a barrel; the forever wars alone are enough to harp on for decades. But you're going to try and launch an attack on the space program, which did at least advance the state of humanity? You're setting yourself up to look silly. [0] It is already closer to 35 trillion, I wish my salary grew that quickly. [1] _trampeltier's link