Post #2790656
2026-04-12 10:25 UTC
@PoLaRobs@fediscience.org
This comes across like a zero-sum equation. I think back to the likes of Carl Sagan and the arguments for space missions, and many many other scientific endeavours. I like to think the question isn't so much "why spend this much money on space exploration" and more "why don't we spend more on health and education at home" instead of weapons of war or corporate welfare.
I also feel too much of science careers are spent justifying money and efficiency and relevance, instead of encouraging innovation. Universities have been forced into justifying their capacity to serve industry, instead of serving society. Same goes for Arts funding. We need humanities skills as much as knowledge itself.
I just listened to a fascinating talk by the late Stephen Garton on this topic:
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/bigideas/stephen-garton-universities-humanities-academy-lecture/106341138
Replies (1)
-
@PoLaRobs@fediscience.org 2026-04-12 10:38
@ewen@social.ewenbell.com I agree with most of that, but resources are finite and when spending on a particular endeavour runs into billions of dollars I think it is right to ask what the benefits are. When numbers get that large many people lose all sense of proportion. I agree that there is value to space exploration in general, but I question whether it is necessary for missions to be crewed. I absolutely agree we spend too much time justifying research. If the proportion of their working hours academics spend writing research proposals that are never funded (in the UK at least) was widely known it would be a national scadal.