It is natural to answer a money question with a money answer. Well, goes the retort, it is because of the space program that we have such things as no-stick frying pans and digital watches. Someplace or other Carl Sagan made the comment, "What sort of deal is that?! Give me 18 billion dollars and I'll give you a frying pan?!" The answer to a question in organic chemistry, as we all know, may just possibly be an inorganic answer. The answer to a money question is not necessarily a money answer. We don't, and perhaps should never, go someplace to make a quick buck.
(By the way no-stick frying pans were invented in the 1930's. Digital watches were the product of defense projects). I'd imagine that some technology has come out of the space program as a by-product {perhaps a lot of technology}, but that is not the propose of the space program. The purpose is to find out things. Making money is NOT a consideration of the space program.
And why should it be?
Making money for the country certainly has nothing to do with the defense budget. Billions and billions of bucks are spent every year on nuclear warheads that we'll never use (with any luck). What sort of deal is that?!
The ultimate validity of something is not a function of its money-making potential. As soon as everything is reduced to dollars and cents everything then begins to look ridiculous. Why raise children when all they are is a gigantic negative flow of income? Why cure the sick and comfort the dying--especially if they haven't got any money or insurance? Why have a military? Why have a space program?
The clever person can find economic answers to all of these questions. Children might be equated with being actual or potential consumers. Medical care, of course, is twisted into a variety of factory-like models (as if patients were Model-T's and doctors were entrepreneurial automatons). The military is excused for the many contractors that supply it (though, interestingly, the space program is generally excluded from this kind of monetary excuse even though it relies on many of the same contractors). The point is, no economic necessity needs to be imposed upon any of these institutions or practices for their survival and none needs be put on the space program, either.
If we begin to equate everything with its dollar-making potential then we become some kind of anti communists. Just as in the old USSR everything but everything went better with socialism (from politics, economics and their space program too sex, apples and dirty diapers), we are turning into a society where everything must go with capitalism and must, henceforth, be equated with its earning potential. It is as if, now that the Soviet Union is gone a void in monochrome thought must be filled and so the USA will step in with its version of an opposite number.
Sure the space program will pay dividends in the end. The future is in the stars (all astrology aside). The point is that something does not have to make money to be a good thing. Finding out stuff is important. It is a need of humanity every bit as much as food, shelter and comfort. The space program strives to meet this important need. We must learn.
There is no reason to justify this statement. We must learn!
A person who does not strive to improve himself is an idiot or an ass. We must continue to learn because that is part of what being a person is all about. We must put effort into this and not allow ourselves to simply accept whatever may happen to drift by our way. We must seek things out. In this way we are not ignoramuses nor asses!
We do not do everything for one reason. Why should we try to fit everything into one agenda? Such thinking leads to fascism.
What about the problems here on Earth? What about the starving masses and other social problems that could be helped with the money and effort being shot out into space?
Why cut funding for knowledge? We could simply build one less Stealth Bomber. That alone would free up billions of dollars right there and, since we plan on not using it in the first place we wouldn't miss anything from its absence.
Why not cut some of the perks for our Senators and other representatives? Why not cut their salaries as well. After all, they make a lot of money. They're all wealthy people who can afford drastic cuts in their income. But why would anyone want to serve their country without some kind of real recompense? Out of altruism?!
That question leads us back to our original argument.
What to do next?
by Scott Marcus Giles
Dr. Scott M. Giles