6 ms·

It would be even better if we could spend this amount of money to fix the problems we already have on this planet, like global warming, pollution and hunger and

It would be even better if we could spend this amount of money to fix the problems we already have on this planet, like global warming, pollution and hunger and stuff.

waterlesscloud 12y ago
It's like the entire point of this video just whooshed right over your head.
avz 12y ago
This is fundamentally a question of the balance between our efforts focused on the long-term vs those focused on the short-term. Space exploration offers significant benefits long-term but generally provides no immediate pay-off next quarter. I'm personally baffled by the desire to focus all our resources on the short-term. The questions of the long-term future of humankind and our place in the universe, make the immediate issues like pollution and disease look petty and irrelevant by comparison. Also, from the practical angle, we're already spending a huge amount of money on solving our local, short-term problems here on Earth. Adding ~$2 trillion would be an increase, but not a game-changer. OTOH, humanity spends under $50 billion/year on space [1]. Adding $2 trillion would constitute 4000% increase! This might be enough to transform humanity from a precarious single-planet species into an interplanetary civilization in a few generations. Another important point is that a lot of our problems here on Earth are entirely self-inflicted (e.g. inequality, pollution, global warming) and so they can't simply be fixed by throwing money at them: they need political transformation. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies#Budgets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agenci...
- revscat 12y ago
  > Another important point is that a lot of our problems here on Earth are entirely self-inflicted (e.g. inequality, pollution, global warming) and so they can't simply be fixed by throwing money at them: they need political transformation. Yes, but so long as global warming is a threat then the notion of humanity expanding to the stars is a pipe-dream. If the planet becomes incapable of supporting advanced social structures -- or, worse, complex lifeforms whatsoever -- then no one is going to be going anywhere: there will be no one left to travel.
  - onewaystreet 12y ago
    None of that is going to happen anytime soon. Market forces (oil prices are down now, but in the long term they will go back up forcing us to move to cleaner alternatives) as well as the beginning effects of global warming (flooding) will force us to change long before the planet becomes uninhabitable.
    - einrealist 12y ago
      I hope so. But honestly, I think we will not be able to stop it. There is too much traction from behaviors that will prevent us from actually doing anything. Preventing it would require us to give up many luxuries and things we call a standard. Greed is too strong. Earth will probably end up like Venus because of us.
    - manu3000 12y ago
      IPCC says +5 deg at end of this century... isn't that soon ? Last time this happened (250 millions years ago) 95% of existing species were wiped out (http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/27714-are-humans-going-extinct http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/27714-are-humans-going-ex...)
- coryt 12y ago
  >Space exploration offers significant benefits long-term but generally provides no immediate pay-off next quarter. Really? What about all the inventions discovered during the space race...The biggest impact inventions being integrated circuits, satellite communications and GPS, but there were so many others like Corningware[1], Tempur foam [2], LEDs, Freeze Drying Technology, etc [3] that one could argue provided many short term benefits and enabled discoveries of countless others. [1] http://www.corning.com/about_us/inside_corning/did_you_know/index.aspx http://www.corning.com/about_us/inside_corning/did_you_know/... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempur-Pedic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempur-Pedic [3] http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html
  - avz 12y ago
    These short-term benefits are minuscule compared to both the costs and the long-term benefits. There are more cost-effective ways of developing better frying pans, pillows and small blinking lights than running a space exploration program. OTOH, there is no other way to ensure long term survival of human civilization than diversifying our real estate away from one planet. The only reliable way to argue for space exploration is by explaining how important the long-term benefits are.
    - einrealist 12y ago
      > The only reliable way to argue for space exploration is by explaining how important the long-term benefits are. It is a gamble. Gambling is nice as long we have the resources. Global warming can eat those easily.
- einrealist 12y ago
  I would agree, if space exploration was initiated under better terms than the Cold War. We started to send rockets into space in order to become better with annihilation of the opponent. We were really lucky that it turned into something we have today. But that will not last. Privatization of space travel is already underway. That bears the question: Who benefits? I am afraid that if we invest in space exploration and colonization, we would shift priorities from saving this world to escaping it. Only a few would be able to escape it - those who have the resources. (It is kind of what the movie Interstellar is about.) We need to save this world first, before we can allow ourself to "infect" other worlds. If we cannot sustain on this planet, e.g. stop global warming in the next years, we are doomed and it becomes impossible to even think about shooting a single human into space again. If we need to test things in space for that, I'm fine with that. But lets not lose track of our short term problems.
rasz_pl 12y ago
You seem to not realize those are problems for us, human virus, and not the planet problems. Those so called problems are natures way of trying to balance things. If you cut hunger and make a breakthrough in healthcare you will immediately accelerate population growth, and in effect accelerate pollution and energy use. Earth is unsustainable in the long run. No one is willing to accept euthanasia, birth limits, basically efforts to maintain population caps. People might say its a good idea others should implement, not them personally :)
- ChrisGranger 12y ago
  Don't the nations with the best health care also tend to (perhaps not always) have slower population growth?
  - eivarv 12y ago
    I think there is a host of factors to keep in mind about the nations in question. These nations (good health care, slow population growth) [1] tend to be highly developed countries [2], with relatively high average education of its citizens [3] and high life expectancy [4]. Many of them also have high social equality and high cost of living because of higher taxation (e.g. the cost of social programs and universal healthcare) [5]. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Deve... [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expec... [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality...
- bjelkeman-again 12y ago
  To learn more about population growth and the many misconceptions around it, I'd recommend watching something from Prof. Hans Rosling. Here are a few things: http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-population/ http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-p...
kabdib 12y ago
Explorer to Queen Izzabella (or whomever): "We'd like to sail west and find a shortcut to the Indies." Queenie: "Sorry. We've got poverty and people who are hungry here, you'll have to wait." (400 years later) Descendant of that Explorer: "Can we go now?" Queenie: "Sorry, still haven't solved that poverty stuff. Go do some farming or something." ---- A lot of the "poverty and hunger stuff" is caused by corruption and unworkable politics and ideologies. Another big factor is simple human nature. "The poor will be with us always." It's a wicked problem that will probably never go away. We shouldn't use it as an excuse. (I would be quite happy trading military and secret-police spending, which is basically out of control). Oh, we can try to address poverty. But putting everything else on hold doesn't make sense. A rising tide floats all boats; more resources and better technology will help everyone, at least a little. [I'm actually not a big fan of manned exploration any more; it's expensive, and robots can do way better than we can, for the foreseeable future. Oh, putting men on other planets has undeniable poetry and significance, but if you want to do science or mining or whatever, you're better off with metal than monkeys].
- swagasaurus-rex 12y ago
  A man named Thomas Malthus proposed an explanation why this is and will always be the case, back in the early 1800s. Populations will always grow, even if there aren't enough resources for the next generation. As a result, some catastrophe must happen to keep the population in check: war, disease or famine. These days we like to think that we've escaped the malthusian limit, as first world nations tend to have a naturally shrinking population. Of course, we haven't solved any other of our philosophical vices, I'm inclined to think this isn't any different. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe
  - jafaku 12y ago
    > These days we like to think that we've escaped the malthusian limit, as first world nations tend to have a naturally shrinking population Ugh, that's not how we escaped Malthus' predictions. We escaped precisely thanks to scientific discoveries and technological advancements.
rbanffy 12y ago
Plain and simple, either our species spreads or we die. We die not only because we can't seem to solve our immediate problems (I bet global temperatures will cross the +6 Celsius in this century) but we die the next big space rock hits Earth or the next time Yellowstone erupts, or the next time some weird highly energetic phenomenon we are absolutely clueless about roasts our high atmosphere just enough it starts letting the sun's UV through. It's stupid to colonize other worlds and ignore our current problems because they'll kill us before we get there, but it's equally stupid to ignore the long-term problems of putting all our eggs on a single planetary basket around a single star. While I'm quite sure the Sun will not blow up on the next quarter or before the next couple elections, I'm quite sure it'll not last forever and really think it'll eventually misbehave in some deadly fashion. There are several mass extinctions in fossil record and I'd much prefer our species would not end up as a museum curiosity for the following civilisation.

It would be even better if we could spend this amount of money to fix the problems we already have on this planet, like global warming, pollution and hunger and stuff.

waterlesscloud 12y ago

It's like the entire point of this video just whooshed right over your head.

avz 12y ago

This is fundamentally a question of the balance between our efforts focused on the long-term vs those focused on the short-term. Space exploration offers significant benefits long-term but generally provides no immediate pay-off next quarter. I'm personally baffled by the desire to focus all our resources on the short-term. The questions of the long-term future of humankind and our place in the universe, make the immediate issues like pollution and disease look petty and irrelevant by comparison. Also, from the practical angle, we're already spending a huge amount of money on solving our local, short-term problems here on Earth. Adding ~$2 trillion would be an increase, but not a game-changer. OTOH, humanity spends under $50 billion/year on space [1]. Adding $2 trillion would constitute 4000% increase! This might be enough to transform humanity from a precarious single-planet species into an interplanetary civilization in a few generations. Another important point is that a lot of our problems here on Earth are entirely self-inflicted (e.g. inequality, pollution, global warming) and so they can't simply be fixed by throwing money at them: they need political transformation. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies#Budgets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agenci...

revscat 12y ago
> Another important point is that a lot of our problems here on Earth are entirely self-inflicted (e.g. inequality, pollution, global warming) and so they can't simply be fixed by throwing money at them: they need political transformation. Yes, but so long as global warming is a threat then the notion of humanity expanding to the stars is a pipe-dream. If the planet becomes incapable of supporting advanced social structures -- or, worse, complex lifeforms whatsoever -- then no one is going to be going anywhere: there will be no one left to travel.
- onewaystreet 12y ago
  None of that is going to happen anytime soon. Market forces (oil prices are down now, but in the long term they will go back up forcing us to move to cleaner alternatives) as well as the beginning effects of global warming (flooding) will force us to change long before the planet becomes uninhabitable.
  - einrealist 12y ago
    I hope so. But honestly, I think we will not be able to stop it. There is too much traction from behaviors that will prevent us from actually doing anything. Preventing it would require us to give up many luxuries and things we call a standard. Greed is too strong. Earth will probably end up like Venus because of us.
  - manu3000 12y ago
    IPCC says +5 deg at end of this century... isn't that soon ? Last time this happened (250 millions years ago) 95% of existing species were wiped out (http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/27714-are-humans-going-extinct http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/27714-are-humans-going-ex...)
coryt 12y ago
>Space exploration offers significant benefits long-term but generally provides no immediate pay-off next quarter. Really? What about all the inventions discovered during the space race...The biggest impact inventions being integrated circuits, satellite communications and GPS, but there were so many others like Corningware[1], Tempur foam [2], LEDs, Freeze Drying Technology, etc [3] that one could argue provided many short term benefits and enabled discoveries of countless others. [1] http://www.corning.com/about_us/inside_corning/did_you_know/index.aspx http://www.corning.com/about_us/inside_corning/did_you_know/... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempur-Pedic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempur-Pedic [3] http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html
- avz 12y ago
  These short-term benefits are minuscule compared to both the costs and the long-term benefits. There are more cost-effective ways of developing better frying pans, pillows and small blinking lights than running a space exploration program. OTOH, there is no other way to ensure long term survival of human civilization than diversifying our real estate away from one planet. The only reliable way to argue for space exploration is by explaining how important the long-term benefits are.
  - einrealist 12y ago
    > The only reliable way to argue for space exploration is by explaining how important the long-term benefits are. It is a gamble. Gambling is nice as long we have the resources. Global warming can eat those easily.
einrealist 12y ago
I would agree, if space exploration was initiated under better terms than the Cold War. We started to send rockets into space in order to become better with annihilation of the opponent. We were really lucky that it turned into something we have today. But that will not last. Privatization of space travel is already underway. That bears the question: Who benefits? I am afraid that if we invest in space exploration and colonization, we would shift priorities from saving this world to escaping it. Only a few would be able to escape it - those who have the resources. (It is kind of what the movie Interstellar is about.) We need to save this world first, before we can allow ourself to "infect" other worlds. If we cannot sustain on this planet, e.g. stop global warming in the next years, we are doomed and it becomes impossible to even think about shooting a single human into space again. If we need to test things in space for that, I'm fine with that. But lets not lose track of our short term problems.

rasz_pl 12y ago

You seem to not realize those are problems for us, human virus, and not the planet problems. Those so called problems are natures way of trying to balance things. If you cut hunger and make a breakthrough in healthcare you will immediately accelerate population growth, and in effect accelerate pollution and energy use. Earth is unsustainable in the long run. No one is willing to accept euthanasia, birth limits, basically efforts to maintain population caps. People might say its a good idea others should implement, not them personally :)

ChrisGranger 12y ago
Don't the nations with the best health care also tend to (perhaps not always) have slower population growth?
- eivarv 12y ago
  I think there is a host of factors to keep in mind about the nations in question. These nations (good health care, slow population growth) [1] tend to be highly developed countries [2], with relatively high average education of its citizens [3] and high life expectancy [4]. Many of them also have high social equality and high cost of living because of higher taxation (e.g. the cost of social programs and universal healthcare) [5]. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Deve... [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expec... [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality...
bjelkeman-again 12y ago
To learn more about population growth and the many misconceptions around it, I'd recommend watching something from Prof. Hans Rosling. Here are a few things: http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-population/ http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-p...

kabdib 12y ago

Explorer to Queen Izzabella (or whomever): "We'd like to sail west and find a shortcut to the Indies." Queenie: "Sorry. We've got poverty and people who are hungry here, you'll have to wait." (400 years later) Descendant of that Explorer: "Can we go now?" Queenie: "Sorry, still haven't solved that poverty stuff. Go do some farming or something." ---- A lot of the "poverty and hunger stuff" is caused by corruption and unworkable politics and ideologies. Another big factor is simple human nature. "The poor will be with us always." It's a wicked problem that will probably never go away. We shouldn't use it as an excuse. (I would be quite happy trading military and secret-police spending, which is basically out of control). Oh, we can try to address poverty. But putting everything else on hold doesn't make sense. A rising tide floats all boats; more resources and better technology will help everyone, at least a little. [I'm actually not a big fan of manned exploration any more; it's expensive, and robots can do way better than we can, for the foreseeable future. Oh, putting men on other planets has undeniable poetry and significance, but if you want to do science or mining or whatever, you're better off with metal than monkeys].

swagasaurus-rex 12y ago
A man named Thomas Malthus proposed an explanation why this is and will always be the case, back in the early 1800s. Populations will always grow, even if there aren't enough resources for the next generation. As a result, some catastrophe must happen to keep the population in check: war, disease or famine. These days we like to think that we've escaped the malthusian limit, as first world nations tend to have a naturally shrinking population. Of course, we haven't solved any other of our philosophical vices, I'm inclined to think this isn't any different. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe
- jafaku 12y ago
  > These days we like to think that we've escaped the malthusian limit, as first world nations tend to have a naturally shrinking population Ugh, that's not how we escaped Malthus' predictions. We escaped precisely thanks to scientific discoveries and technological advancements.

rbanffy 12y ago

Plain and simple, either our species spreads or we die. We die not only because we can't seem to solve our immediate problems (I bet global temperatures will cross the +6 Celsius in this century) but we die the next big space rock hits Earth or the next time Yellowstone erupts, or the next time some weird highly energetic phenomenon we are absolutely clueless about roasts our high atmosphere just enough it starts letting the sun's UV through. It's stupid to colonize other worlds and ignore our current problems because they'll kill us before we get there, but it's equally stupid to ignore the long-term problems of putting all our eggs on a single planetary basket around a single star. While I'm quite sure the Sun will not blow up on the next quarter or before the next couple elections, I'm quite sure it'll not last forever and really think it'll eventually misbehave in some deadly fashion. There are several mass extinctions in fossil record and I'd much prefer our species would not end up as a museum curiosity for the following civilisation.