Explore Space, or feed the homeless?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Or, "What is the value and justification of pure knowledge?"

As most of you know from my posts, I'm a strong supporter of the sciences and of exploration. But if we were to debate the value of science exploration and knowledge in comparison to its cost, how would we measure it? How would we justify it, and should we need to justify it?

Many people would say for example, that we should be feeding the starving millions rather than spending time and money taking pictures of black holes and looking for microbes on Mars. Often as a defense to this challenge we note the benefits of medical science due to discovery, and that at least is a practical benefit, but what about those bits of knowledge which are unlikely to have a direct payoff anytime soon, if at all (like understanding the topology of the Universe, or knowing what color the dinosaurs were). What are those bits of knowledge worth?

One argument might be that exploration and knowledge are food for the soul, and a reflection of the essence of what it is to be human. But how many of us would choose knowledge, over food and shelter if it were our own survival in the balance?

The pragmatic answer of providing humanitarian benefit through discover is an easy one, and even the most hardcore humanitarian will usually grant you some capital expenditure in those cases (though grudgingly), but how do we answer the challenge to the pure endeavors where knowledge is sought for the sake of knowledge itself. I'm assuming that like most things, there is a point at which a balance can be attained, but without a good measure of benefits and costs, how do we define that balance?

Thanks,

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 795 • Replies: 8

No top replies

If exploration depended upon a time when the money used for exploration could not be used for "more pressing problems" -- we would do no explotation.

Everything we have learned about our universe has come at a cost -- and I absolutely guarantee that the money spent could have been used to help alleviate some of the problems found here on Earth.

But humanity demands exploration.

Humans make the curiosity of cats look like small time stuff.

We are going to send humans off the planet -- and this is as good a time as any.

It will mean spending money.

It will mean spending money that definitely could be used to combat problems here on planet Earth.

MY VOTE: Go for the exploration.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

If exploration depended upon a time when the money used for exploration could not be used for "more pressing problems" -- we would do no explotation.

Heh heh, you came dangerously close to saying "exploitation" instead of exploration Smile

Frank Apisa wrote:

Humans make the curiosity of cats look like small time stuff.

So, are you saying that satisfying our curiosity is justification enough for the search for knowledge? Is that like saying that spending $10 to see a movie in the theater is worth it for the entertainment. Does knowledge equate to entertainment at some level?

Frank Apisa wrote:

We are going to send humans off the planet

I'm playing devils advocate here Frank, but why send people off the planet? Is the core of our argument for exploration the need to expand our territories? I'm sure this is a good thing in the long run (to prepare for future asteroid impact and the swelling Sun), but is that a compelling argument for our current place in history?

Suppose I suggested that we would be better off doing this type of thing at some point in the future, after more of the worlds problems have been solved.

Frank Apisa wrote:

It will mean spending money.

It will mean spending money that definitely could be used to combat problems here on planet Earth.

MY VOTE: Go for the exploration.

Yes, and it would be my vote as well, but why? What is our rationale for arguing for this exploration in the face of other needs? I'm looking for a concise summary argument which rationalizes our expendature of manpower and money, as it relates to conflicting needs (and I'm looking for an interesting discussion, of course) Smile

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Humans make the curiosity of cats look like small time stuff.

So, are you saying that satisfying our curiosity is justification enough for the search for knowledge? Is that like saying that spending $10 to see a movie in the theater is worth it for the entertainment. Does knowledge equate to entertainment at some level?

Yep!

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
We are going to send humans off the planet

I'm playing devils advocate here Frank, but why send people off the planet?

We want to go into space -- because it is there.

Reason enough.

Quote:

Is the core of our argument for exploration the need to expand our territories? I'm sure this is a good thing in the long run (to prepare for future asteroid impact and the swelling Sun), but is that a compelling argument for our current place in history?

Couldn't care less for any of that stuff.

Space is there.

We should explore it.

Quote:

Suppose I suggested that we would be better off doing this type of thing at some point in the future, after more of the worlds problems have been solved.

The problems will always be here.

Go for the exploration.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
It will mean spending money.

It will mean spending money that definitely could be used to combat problems here on planet Earth.

MY VOTE: Go for the exploration.

Yes, and it would be my vote as well, but why? What is our rationale for arguing for this exploration in the face of other needs? I'm looking for a concise summary argument which rationalizes our expendature of manpower and money, as it relates to conflicting needs (and I'm looking for an interesting discussion, of course)

Go -- because it is there.

We'll see what other people say.

(I've already discussed this in several other threads, so I'm kinda talked out on it.)

0 Replies

This is a bit trite, but Boolean algebra, when it was invented, was an engaging intellectual exercise and nothing more. Your computer, and particularly the Internet, could not function without it.

0 Replies

Sorry you're "talked out" on this Frank. I guess I haven't seen those other threads.

Hi Acq,

Acquiunk wrote:

This is a bit trite, but Boolean algebra, when it was invented, was an engaging intellectual exercise and nothing more. Your computer, and particularly the Internet, could not function without it.

There seem to be two classes to the argument for exploration and learning:

One is to discover things which will benefit humanity in such a way that offsets the cost which could otherwise be used for more immediate needs.

The other argument is more of an "argument from the human condition" so to speak (Frank's reference to Human Curiosity); it's basis seems to be that life isn't worth living without exploration and knowledge. To me this seems to be a very strong argument, but it doesn't carry quite the same weight with everyone. I guess I'm finding it hard to quantify this argument into a form which could be used to help justify a budget for example.

Let's say we wanted to argue for a larger NASA budget. How would we do it exactly? Would we list all the accidental discoveries of the past which benefit us today, and would that be enough, or is it more compelling to weave a vision of hubris and adventure (to boldly go where no one has gone before)?

I'm intrugued with aspects of presentation and argument which motivate groups of people. My professional skills are technical in nature, but I've come to appreciate the value of well crafted emotional approaches as well (John F. Kennedy's speech for getting us to the Moon back in the 60's). This particular challenge seemed like a good one to explore given that the arguments can not be completely grounded in factual expectations.

0 Replies

Hope this thread is still continuing.

rosborne979 wrote:

This particular challenge seemed like a good one to explore given that the arguments can not be completely grounded in factual expectations.

I had a book published about the fifth dimension of the universe that argues beyond today's astrophysics, and that challenge seemed like a very good one to explore, even though the arguments were in fact completely grounded in my factual expectations of rejection and homelessness.

I still go for exploration while I was grounded in a homeless shelter for some years because both come at cost.

It is not either/or; I do and did both.
Why don't we launch a space shuttle and feed the ex-homeless like me at the same time - there's always another dollar in your pocket.

0 Replies

Space shuttle. And we need to fix the hubble.

Don't forget that progress creates jobs, and jobs feed people.

0 Replies

Couldn't we explore space and if we find any homeless out there, then we can feed them. Kind of a win-win situation

I don't know..... just a thought.

0 Replies

Explore Space, or feed the homeless?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know