OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Space or Food

Entry 873, on 2008-10-21 at 21:13:20 (Rating 2, Science)

As a result of my recent comments about the world financial system and capitalism in general I was challenged to decide between spending money on a space program or on eliminating (or significantly reducing) world hunger. My original point was that hunger could be eliminated for about $60 billion which is just a few percent of the trillions spent on the recent financial bail out packages. So my opponent's point was: if I think its OK to spend money, which would have gone to the banks, on food instead why wouldn't I be equally enthusiastic about spending money that was originally destined for the space program.

I did make two comments on this. First, there is no need to take money from the space program because there is plenty of money elsewhere. The fact that these trillions have been found when governments around the world have been claiming there is no funding for science, overseas aid, etc shows there is some deep dishonesty involved. There is money available obviously. Its just they would rather spend it on propping up banks than saving the third world from hunger and disease.

But let's just ignore all of that and make a forced decision between a space program (the Apollo program cost $90 billion in today's terms) and eliminating hunger (various organisations estimate the cost of this as up to $60 billion). Which should it be? I opted for a space program. This may seem hypocritical because I was happy about taking money destined for helping financial institutions to help relieve hunger but I would not do the same with money destined for the space program. But I don't think it really is hypocritical. Here's why...

First, there are the relative amounts. To pay for hunger relief from the space program budget would require a significant part of that budget (which has already been reduced to the extent that it is limiting what can be done). It would take about 67% of the entire Apollo budget but only 2% of the financial bail out budget. Taking that amount from the space budget means we effectively have no space program. Taking it from the bank bail out budget means the banks still get 98% of the original amount.

But that is still avoiding the issue a bit. If I had to forget about other sources of money how would I justify spending money on space while people starved on Earth?

Most people believe in creating the greatest good for the greatest number. Its simplistic but in the end its the only logical objective morality. Does the space program create any good for a significant number of people? It may not be obvious but I think it does. There are two justifications for this...

First, the main reason we have a reasonable standard of living on Earth at all is because of technology. This goes all the way back to fire and domestication of animals and extends to modern antibiotics and other benefits from modern science. I know some people reject this and say the real benefits come from our economic system. I disagree. The economic system is just a way of (poorly) distributing the benefits of science and technology. What would you rather do without: your local bank or modern medicine?

So its important that science (and its practical offshoot, technology) is continually supported and extended. The space program may not seem to be a major practical contributor to widely used technologies but it is. Science progresses through exploration on all fronts and the most unlikely research can lead to real benefits. Its important that all science, including the space program, be continued for this reason.

The second reason is perhaps more fanciful but ultimately more important. There will be major global disasters on Earth in the future (for example: asteroid impact, major volcanism, climate change, etc). If we care about our species (and we should if the idea of the greatest good for the greatest number is being followed) then we should protect it against these disasters. The only sure way to do this is to colonise other planets. The only way to colonise other planets is through a space program.

So by allowing people to starve now we divert money to a program which will save everyone on the planet some time in the future. I know that sounds harsh and calculating but ultimately it is the most logical decision. But before I finish I must say again that this is an artificial question. We could easily spend ten times the current budget on space and the same on hunger prevention. Its not that it can't be done, its that the current corrupt financial system won't allow it to be done!

There are no comments for this entry.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.