3 ms·

Israel and Turkey are on that list, because the US spends most of their foreign aid on them (Not sure about Turkey, it used to be Egypt.). This is for political

by quonn 12y ago

Israel and Turkey are on that list, because the US spends most of their foreign aid on them (Not sure about Turkey, it used to be Egypt.). This is for political reasons, not because those countries are in a bad shape. > Did you know we spend about 38 times as much on our armed forces as our space agency? I know India spends a lot on defense, which is just as questionable.

pm90 12y ago
Then it is an even worse reason than why they get aid, don't you think? :)
jogjayr 12y ago
Egypt is also ranked above India on the list but they can also be classed as "developing". I would argue that even our defense spending is less questionable than many developed countries. We have two hostile neighbors with whom we've fought 5 wars (give or take) since 1947, none of which (from the history books I know) we initiated (well maybe 1). Not a justification, but the war-wariness (deliberately spelled that way) is understandable. The point I wanted to make is "feed your hungry" is a lazy and uninformed position to take when you hear about India doing science. If you read about $1000 toilet seats, by all means, fire away.
- quonn 12y ago
  But I never commented on India doing science. I commented on them spending on specific high-cost projects that are unlikely to have a positive economic impact.
  - jogjayr 12y ago
    So it's OK for India to do science as long as it's cheap? Define cheap. How much should it cost for you to be OK with it? How high-cost is too high? How much impact is necessary in order to greenlight a project, according to you? Your objections are particularly nonsensical because the article doesn't mention the cost of the project anywhere. You've reflexively decided that it's $BIG_NUMBER and it's wasteful. With practically no information. (It will cost in the region of $250m, FYI) How do you even know it will be costly (relative to the magnitude of the project)? We did launch the Mars mission pretty cheap you know :-) (yes, I know it's easier to launch cheaper when you pay Indian salaries, so don't bring that up) EDIT: Big scientific discoveries haven't happened by the balance of probability. Many new advances come from unexpected places, by obscure scientists doing crazy-sounding things. No expert can declare with 100% certainty that something is "unlikely to yield a positive economic impact". This is my last comment on the topic. It sounds like you've pretty much made up your mind and nothing can convince you to see the other side. Good luck.

by quonn 12y ago

pm90 12y ago

Then it is an even worse reason than why they get aid, don't you think? :)

jogjayr 12y ago

Egypt is also ranked above India on the list but they can also be classed as "developing". I would argue that even our defense spending is less questionable than many developed countries. We have two hostile neighbors with whom we've fought 5 wars (give or take) since 1947, none of which (from the history books I know) we initiated (well maybe 1). Not a justification, but the war-wariness (deliberately spelled that way) is understandable. The point I wanted to make is "feed your hungry" is a lazy and uninformed position to take when you hear about India doing science. If you read about $1000 toilet seats, by all means, fire away.

quonn 12y ago
But I never commented on India doing science. I commented on them spending on specific high-cost projects that are unlikely to have a positive economic impact.
- jogjayr 12y ago
  So it's OK for India to do science as long as it's cheap? Define cheap. How much should it cost for you to be OK with it? How high-cost is too high? How much impact is necessary in order to greenlight a project, according to you? Your objections are particularly nonsensical because the article doesn't mention the cost of the project anywhere. You've reflexively decided that it's $BIG_NUMBER and it's wasteful. With practically no information. (It will cost in the region of $250m, FYI) How do you even know it will be costly (relative to the magnitude of the project)? We did launch the Mars mission pretty cheap you know :-) (yes, I know it's easier to launch cheaper when you pay Indian salaries, so don't bring that up) EDIT: Big scientific discoveries haven't happened by the balance of probability. Many new advances come from unexpected places, by obscure scientists doing crazy-sounding things. No expert can declare with 100% certainty that something is "unlikely to yield a positive economic impact". This is my last comment on the topic. It sounds like you've pretty much made up your mind and nothing can convince you to see the other side. Good luck.