[ILLigitt]

Originally Posted by Brian

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.

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.

We're arguing about different things. First, it depends on what you mean by "promotion of astronomy." I'm not talking about what will generate short-term stimulus.

My problem isn't with this particular comment, my problem is with his attitude toward science funding in general. He doesn't understand it well enough to be making ANY decisions about what should be cut and what shouldn't... and he just so happens to understand it poorly enough that he acts as though it's useless in the abstract (and science in the abstract is exponentially more important than the stuff you can apply (like building a bridge)).

Originally Posted by Brian

So are you saying that money spent on astronomy is better than biology? How about marine biology? Physics? Advanced physics? Quantum physics?

Without any doubt whatsoever.

Our planet is dying. Our #1 priority needs to be GETTING OFF and moving elsewhere. If we don't do that, our species is going to go extinct due to lack of resources, and then nothing else matters. Everything else we worry about is not as important as basic survival, which is totally dependent on astronomy. That's not to say it's the only important thing... but it does mean that no serious person should be sneering at it, or thinking about cutting its funding.

The economic crisis is a luxury in comparison.

You also took my analogy too literally. The point was: investing in a college education (of any kind, astronomy, biology, English, 18th century European History... it doesn't matter) is, in almost every sense, a BETTER solution to your own personal economic crisis, than working day to day to pay the bills. Thinking in the short term is only going to hurt you if you're not working even harder on a long-term solution, at the same time. That's especially true when you consider the overall health of the society (because you wind up with morons in charge who "worked hard to get where they are" but don't understand the first thing about what they're making decisions about, and are in no way qualified to make said decisions--i.e. McCain).

Funding astronomy is civilization's equivalent of investing in a college education. Actually, funding astronomy is civilization's equivalent of investing in medical insurance. It's one of the first things any responsible person worries about (and literally the last thing to worry about cutting back on).