gorgon wrote:
Yodhrin wrote: The US taxpayer(and, again, others elsewhere you'd hope) should be on their knees
begging to fund space exploration considering what the Apollo Program did for your economy. What's the figure, $14 growth for every $1 of government money spent, something like that? It was probably the most effective "infrastructure" spend made by any government in history, creating hundreds of thousands of good jobs and inspiring generations of students to go into STEM subjects - not to mention the technologies that have come about as a
direct result; I don't think I'd ever want to live in a world without even simple things like microwaves and non-stick pans.
Setting aside exactly HOW those numbers were calculated and by WHOM, it's positively Underpants Gnomes thinking to suggest that Space Spending + ? = Profit!
Why's that again? State spending is demonstrably effective at stimulating the economy, indeed it's the most effective way during a recession. You know, like we're in now. You talk like governments have never spent money and seen that returned to them in taxes and GDP growth before - who's "Underpants Gnome thinking" here again?
Again, if it's such an obvious, guaranteed windfall, then why isn't EVERY first world government making its economy go KA-BOOM by throwing money at space exploration?
Why do some first world governments spend ridiculous amounts of money on military procurement despite the fact that the corruption and inefficiency riddling the defence industry is well known? FFS the
UK just spent a fortune on two aircraft carriers - one will be mothballed because we don't have enough men to crew it and the other doesn't have any bloody planes! Politics. Ideology. "Negative optics". That's why. Between Austerian ideologues who're against state spending on principle, to burbling morons who oppose science spending in general "bcuz EVILooshun ain't jeebus!", to the concern-troll wing of the political centre who profess to support some state spending but then argue against any
specific instance of state spending that's actually proposed, to the unreconstructed lefties who can only grasp the idea of state spending having utility when it's being directed to old school working class industries, and finally the politically unengaged who's response to everything seems to be "aye that'd be nice, but can we really afford it? I read in the Daily Mail blah blah also foreigners tuk ur jerbs!".
Any politician wanting to spend money on space right now has to wade through a pretty much international media consensus that neoliberal austerity is good, then fight past all the ideological opposition to science specifically and public spending generally, all for a project which requires a long-term commitment to get results meaning most politicians will be out of office before the benefits become obvious to the general voting populace.
And you're genuinely going to pretend that the most logical reason politicians who's main goal is re-election don't push space funding is "it doesn't work that way, dem scientists just be trying to scam us brah!"?
The largest government science program ever only happened for a political reason -- beating the Russians. With a side helping of realizing an assassinated President's vision. We won't see that kind of effort again without factors much more compelling than pure science or some resulting advancements in cooking technology.
That's not an argument against space funding, it's an indictment of our media and polity.
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
(more)
(building)
(less)
