A colleague of mine asked me why India was now spending billions as well on space probes when they have so many starving.<p>There are many others as well, who are starving in other ways. Once the immediate need of food and water are met, what do people strive for then? Safety, a place to live? We watch thousands drown in boats trying to cross the ocean to richer lands, even though there was food back home.<p>If food were the only thing a person wanted in life, we'd have focused on and solved it centuries ago, if it had ever become a problem to begin with.<p>There must be goals, dreams, things to yearn for once those basic needs are met. The thousands of children the nun cared for will not be content to simply be fed for the rest of their lives. Their lives must mean something, there must be things to strive for.<p>It's not a question of whether or not we should explore space, it will happen regardless. Societies fed, nurtured, and taught their children, and those children will put their gifts to reach every higher. The child eating porridge out of a dusty bowl today may be building bridges tomorrow, or curing disease, or viewing the distant stars.<p>Space exploration is towards the apex of our technological achievement, and so it must seem far removed to those addressing more earthly concerns. But it's built on the those foundations.<p>We'll explore space so long as there are mouths to feed and minds to grow.
So the basic argument goes: "Doing space research/exploration will yield scientific and technological breakthroughs to help our problems here on Earth."<p>Ok I buy that. I agree we need to spend some % of our societal resources on basic research.<p>The real question is - what is best bang for the buck when doing basic research? Opponents would argue that space research (specifically exploring other planets) is a very expensive way to do basic research.<p>I'm all for exploring space because I think humanity needs to, but does the basic research argument really hold?
I believe one of the biggest advantages of space exploration, if done seriously, is that keeps us from stagnating on and inevitably overblowing the various quibbles we have today. I think it's clear that either space exploration or the technology borne of it will have enormous implications for our society; it's simply a matter of time. With that being the case, what good reason could we possibly have to strangle it and push off meaningful progress for another 50, 100, or 200 years? The sooner the better.<p>As far as the cash needed goes, it's really nothing compared to military expenditures. If NASA had even a fifth of what we spend on our military it would do wonders.
This question remains relevant today. Perhaps the best answer to this question is that having a space program is actually a cheap insurance policy against a civilization ending asteroid killing more than 99% of the world's population.
We've explored the solar system. We now know what all the planets look like in some detail. There's no life anywhere off Earth. Not even bacteria. Venus is too hot, Mars is too airless, and everything else is worse. The most worthless real estate on Earth is more habitable than the best real estate off-planet.<p>As the Economist points out, the final frontier, Pluto, was reached this week.