Quote:
Originally Posted by ILLigitt
The author elaborates on it here: Bloggingheads.tv - diavlogs
"For every dollar that's spent on NASA, we get twenty bucks back through technology."
^^That's not a waste of money. It's a waste not to make that investment. Even the promotion of astronomy is crucial... and the most important way anything pays off (not just astronomy) is in the indirect consequences (i.e. the digital camera industry he references, which was an unintended side-effect of the Hubble project). Whatever the "direct" consequences of promoting astronomy aren't even important... what's important is the number of doors you're opening. Astronomy is just about the best investment you can make. |
Irrelevant - the money is not being spent on NASA. Again, my main point was not arguing that it is not a worthwhile program (double negative)- you seem to be responding and highlighting the reasons why it is worthwhile. There is no argument from me there. I spent a lot of time studying astronomy.
Also I was pointing out the bridge comparison. There's an even easier way to do it. If you had a choice, and needed to make a decision on the best way to spend $1 trillion dollars, with the goal being to stimulate the economy SHORT-TERM (as in 1 year or less) - would you (a) spent $1 trillion on infrastructure and construction projects, creating 20 million jobs or (b) spend $1 trillion on promoting astronomy? I hope to all heck the common sense person would say the obvious answer is (a). Doesn't mean that you are saying astronomy is not important.
Quote:
Actually, I would change your analogy a bit:
If you're in major debt - is it the right time to go spend money on an astronomy education (college usually being a NECESSARY CONDITION for long-term success, which is what astronomy and science in general are)? Absolutely. You can't afford not to. If you don't make such an investment, and only think about "getting through the current situation" with a series of "quick fixes," those quick fixes are ultimately going to make things much worse for you. You're going to spend your life working at McDonald's, trying to get the bills paid because you "can't afford" to make the investment that's going to improve your quality of life.
^^"College" = "science funding"
"McDonald's" = "the quick fix"
|
Irrelevant and completely disagree. Because astronomy is one subject in a field of thousands. So are you saying that money spent on astronomy is better than biology? How about marine biology? Physics? Advanced physics? Quantum physics?
It makes sense if you are in debt and you want to make a career as an astronomer. And that is the only condition your statement makes any sense. If you want to be a marine biologist, or a farmer, and you are in debt, it's not the time to go in more debt for an astronomer education is it? That's why this doesn't make sense!
Also, as a restaurateur myself, I completely disagree with your analogy on McDonald's, and probably so does anyone that manages restaurants or above for a living. I started my career as one of those lowly cooks in a fast food restaurant, and ended up running 8 of them and not having to worry about trying to get the bills paid anymore. Education is important, but work ethic and integrity trumps education any day of the week. Of course combine the two and you're even better - I understand that. But I'll take a hard working non-educated 40 year old to run my restaurant way, way, way before a 22 year old business management Master's degree college grad. I know there's lots of room for disagreement there, but that's the way it is.
Again, it is somewhat irrelevant, because you keep changing the definition. Here's the definition as it stands right now - "the promotion of astronomy" .. Not "astronomy education", not "NASA" .. the promotion of astronomy.
Does not belong in a short term stimulus package. It belongs in something else, even a long term stimulus package. But not something that is going to generate returns in 365 days or less. That is my whole point. You can argue all you want about how the long term is more important, about how this will pay dividends years down the road. That is not the point.
The point is - if you had to create a package that will have the best short-term effect, this is not it.
Another way to put it .. It's like asking this question, and you must choose an answer and not create your own. If I needed $100 in the absolute shortest time possible and I am a farmer, would it be easier to get this money by (a) going to apply at McDonalds as an hourly employee or (b) go to school to become an astronomer? I know that scenario sounds silly - but again, that's my point. It's about the definition of a short-term stimulus package targeted to stimulate the economy in less than one year. Promotion of astronomy is not going to have a 365 day impact. Building a bridge will have a much bigger impact in under 365 days on the economy than promoting astronomy in Hawaii. It just will. Is that the right way to do things with a short term stimulus to quick fix a problem? That's not the question, and that's not my point.