It's difficult to do better than xkcd in bursting these sorts of arguments so succinctly: http://xkcd.com/1232/ http://xkcd.com/1232/ The fact is that the trad

It's difficult to do better than xkcd in bursting these sorts of arguments so succinctly: http://xkcd.com/1232/ http://xkcd.com/1232/ The fact is that the tradeoffs between important endeavors (like feeding the hungry and exploring the universe) are not as simple as people make out. To a certain extent there is a justification to do "useless" things even at the cost of "critical necessities". Should people stop pursuing art, music, philosophy, etc. in times of crisis? Certainly there are extremely hard times when you absolutely can't afford to do anything but concentrate on survival, but such times are rare. The world is never going to be perfect, but we can't let that stop us from making the world better, in every way. By pursuing science and art, and so on. Moreover, by investing in R&D and by advancing technology we frequently gain more than we spend. Consider, for example, the invention of the automobile. Originally a toy for the rich, today they help vastly increase the yield and efficiency of crops, and help to feed the poor. Imagine where we'd be if in the year 1200 the entire world had decided that it could not in good conscience pursue advancements in science or the arts until everyone in the world was no longer in danger of going hungry. We would still be in the middle ages, and there would be very much fewer people who were well fed. In the specific case of India, their investment in spaceflight technology is likely to bring them returns far in excess of the cost of this mission. Both in improvements to their industrial/technological base as well as in bringing new business for their growing aerospace industry.