4 ms·

This is little more than "why are we spending money on electronic gadgets when cancer still needs to be cured", an argument that has zero traction in this commu

by jlgreco 13y ago

This is little more than "why are we spending money on electronic gadgets when cancer still needs to be cured", an argument that has zero traction in this community. It doesn't suddenly start making sense when the topic is space. Factories and schools are not failing to be built because of a deficient in engineering talent caused by the IRSO.

paganel 13y ago
> This is little more than "why are we spending money on electronic gadgets when cancer still needs to be cured", an argument that has zero traction in this community. It doesn't suddenly start making sense when the topic is space. Then the people that criticize space exploration based on similar arguments would be stupid to do that. In the long run (which may not be that long after all) we do need to get off this planet in order to survive as a species. This is just a fact, is how the observable Universe works.
venomsnake 13y ago
There was interesting exchange between Krugman and Ezra Klein few years back - Krugman insisted that macro models show that the Obama stimulus should have been 3-4 times bigger to take effect. The guy is probably right. But Klein replied that even if that big stimulus was passed into law, there just weren't enough quality projects in US which to absorb the stimulus. So next time someone ask this - the proper reply is - where is the cancer research infrastructure and promising leads which could absorb what we spend every year on smartphones and tablets.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Add enough corruption and fat to those cancer research programs and they would happily consume all the wealth you could ever dream of throwing at them. Eventually you'll reach a point where you realize that instead of throwing those millions at wasteful cancer research, you could get more bang for your buck funding some other startlingly efficient programs.
- 7952 13y ago
  It may be better to look for quality projects in basic research into fundamental science. Understanding more about biology and physics helps cure cancer and could devoir almost any budgets (see cern).
  - eru 13y ago
    American infrastructure is creaking. There's lots that can absorb resources. (Though probably not in a very short time, it takes a while to get projects shovel-ready.)
- jrs99 13y ago
  It could easily go into a project such as something like Masdar City.
mikeash 13y ago
I agree, that other argument is bad. However, just because an argument is bad does not mean any counterargument must be good. The counterargument presented, that the money spent doesn't matter because it recirculates within the economy afterwards, is also bad. I agree that this is probably a net gain. But you can't demonstrate that by saying that the money keeps moving within the economy, and you especially can't demonstrate that by holding up destruction of cash as some sort of worst-case scenario for waste.

by jlgreco 13y ago

paganel 13y ago

> This is little more than "why are we spending money on electronic gadgets when cancer still needs to be cured", an argument that has zero traction in this community. It doesn't suddenly start making sense when the topic is space. Then the people that criticize space exploration based on similar arguments would be stupid to do that. In the long run (which may not be that long after all) we do need to get off this planet in order to survive as a species. This is just a fact, is how the observable Universe works.

venomsnake 13y ago

There was interesting exchange between Krugman and Ezra Klein few years back - Krugman insisted that macro models show that the Obama stimulus should have been 3-4 times bigger to take effect. The guy is probably right. But Klein replied that even if that big stimulus was passed into law, there just weren't enough quality projects in US which to absorb the stimulus. So next time someone ask this - the proper reply is - where is the cancer research infrastructure and promising leads which could absorb what we spend every year on smartphones and tablets.

jlgreco 13y ago
Add enough corruption and fat to those cancer research programs and they would happily consume all the wealth you could ever dream of throwing at them. Eventually you'll reach a point where you realize that instead of throwing those millions at wasteful cancer research, you could get more bang for your buck funding some other startlingly efficient programs.
7952 13y ago
It may be better to look for quality projects in basic research into fundamental science. Understanding more about biology and physics helps cure cancer and could devoir almost any budgets (see cern).
- eru 13y ago
  American infrastructure is creaking. There's lots that can absorb resources. (Though probably not in a very short time, it takes a while to get projects shovel-ready.)
jrs99 13y ago
It could easily go into a project such as something like Masdar City.

mikeash 13y ago

I agree, that other argument is bad. However, just because an argument is bad does not mean any counterargument must be good. The counterargument presented, that the money spent doesn't matter because it recirculates within the economy afterwards, is also bad. I agree that this is probably a net gain. But you can't demonstrate that by saying that the money keeps moving within the economy, and you especially can't demonstrate that by holding up destruction of cash as some sort of worst-case scenario for waste.