Should mankind concentrate on space exploration or development on Earth?

[Haris]

Should mankind as a whole (not just NASA) be working to reduce poverty, war, water/food shortages, improve health & sanitation, human rights and general standards of living around the world OR should we concentrate on exploring Mars, the Moon and other planets, looking for alien life and the origins of our Universe?




To me it is a no-brainer.



Edit: Try to look at it from an objective point of view.

[Shamaar]

I think we should definitely look to Earth first. Scientists are so caught up in terraforming other planets like Mars and Venus so that people could one day live there, but it's not very practical. It could take centuries to synthetically alter the environments of other planets via biochemical means, and even if the alteration is possible, what are the chances people will be able to live the same way?

Mankind has damaged the Earth so much for the sake of luxury and now all they are looking towards is colonizing other planets. You're right, it's a no-brainer. We should take care of the Earth.

[طالب]

1. The poll is flawed, it is lacking a third "Other" option.

2. I don't think this is a no-brainer at all. We have achieved lot of knowledge in many fields due to space exploration. Some of this knowledge can be used to improve our lives on Earth. As an example can be mentioned the launch of the EOS which monitored ozone depletion, a global environmental problem. The people on the ISS are not wasting their time up there, they're actually doing scientific experiments in numerous fields including Medicine, something that I'm sure we can all agree on is pretty useful here on Earth.

3. I'm actually quite interested in whether or not there are alien lifeforms out there, and who knows, if we were to find microscopic life within the solar system maybe we would gain a little bit of unity on Earth and stop treating each other like crap.

4. Who says we can't do both?

5. Instead of cutting down on research in/about space, how about cutting down on the military budget?

[Haris]

1. The poll is flawed, it is lacking a third "Other" option.

2. I don't think this is a no-brainer at all. We have achieved lot of knowledge in many fields due to space exploration. Some of this knowledge can be used to improve our lives on Earth. As an example can be mentioned the launch of the EOS which monitored ozone depletion, a global environmental problem. The people on the ISS are not wasting their time up there, they're actually doing scientific experiments in numerous fields including Medicine, something that I'm sure we can all agree on is pretty useful here on Earth.

3. I'm actually quite interested in whether or not there are alien lifeforms out there, and who knows, if we were to find microscopic life within the solar system maybe we would gain a little bit of unity on Earth and stop treating each other like crap.

4. Who says we can't do both?

5. Instead of cutting down on research in/about space, how about cutting down on the military budget?

Regarding 2) Let us disregard geological analyses and other scientific experiments concerning the Earth. I am talking about finding life on mars and trying to set up colonies/bases on the Moon etc

Regarding 3) Would you prefer to increase the quality of living for humans at the moment or look for aliens in space?

Regarding 4) Let us assume for the sake of argument that we have a choice between one or the other in this scenario.

Regarding 5) There are many things we could do rather than cutting down space exploration such as changing the Western consumer lifestyle where millions are spent on gambling, alcohol and pet collars etc...but that would be an obvious answer and not what the question is asking.




Think about this,

It costs approximately over half a billion dollars to send a shuttle to space.

It costs $10 to provide enough water for 10 years for one person. That's 50 million people with clean drinkable water.



Out of these two options which would you pick?

[طالب]

Regarding 2) Let us disregard geological analyses and other scientific experiments concerning the Earth. I am talking about finding life on mars and trying to set up colonies/bases on the Moon etc

Okay, but that wasn't the original question. The OP referred to all space exploration.

How about the Mars Exploration Rover mission or Mariner program or Viking program, are you talking about those? What about all the unmanned spacecraft that have been launched in order to explore the different planets in our solar system, are they part of the question?

Sorry if I'm coming across as pedantic I'm just trying to understand which missions you consider part of the question. You know most of the missions had more than one objective. While one of the objectives might be a search for life, another objective might be to study the geology of a planet in order to compare it with Earth.

Regarding 3) Would you prefer to increase the quality of living for humans at the moment or look for aliens in space?

Okay, since I'm not allowed to say both, I'd like to ask what you mean by quality of living.

Are we talking about people who if they're not helped will die of abject poverty, or are we talking about giving more people access to big plasma TVs?

It costs approximately over half a billion dollars to send a shuttle to space.

Actually it's $1.3 billion per launch.

It costs $10 to provide enough water for 10 years for one person. That's 50 million people with clean drinkable water.

Out of these two options which would you pick?

I'm not sure about the validity of that statistic, but of course I would rather give people access to clean water than send a space shuttle into space.

But that's elementary really, I mean who wouldn't "do the right thing"?

The Space Shuttle program is (soon to be was) expensive, and there have been criticisms of the costs. I agree with many of those criticisms. But the Space Shuttle program isn't the only space exploration program, we have many other programs going on, many of them unmanned flights that give us much knowledge at a fraction of the cost of the Space Shuttle program.

The fact of the matter is that in this day and age we have plenty of resources to do both, the problem is that those resources are unfairly distributed with a small amount of individuals having by far the largest share.

On that basis I believe the question is merely hypothetical and quite frankly presenting a false dilemma.

The real problem is that of a profit driven society with an unfair distribution of wealth, not scientists sending unmanned spacecraft into space.

[Haris]

Okay, but that wasn't the original question. The OP referred to all space exploration.

I did say "should we concentrate on exploring Mars, the Moon and other planets, looking for alien life and the origins of our Universe?"

How about the Mars Exploration Rover mission or Mariner program or Viking program, are you talking about those? What about all the unmanned spacecraft that have been launched in order to explore the different planets in our solar system, are they part of the question?

Sorry if I'm coming across as pedantic I'm just trying to understand which missions you consider part of the question. You know most of the missions had more than one objective. While one of the objectives might be a search for life, another objective might be to study the geology of a planet in order to compare it with Earth.

Yes let us include those missions. They do have their benefits but the question is....are they really worth it?

Look at India for example, they sent an unmanned space shuttle a year or two ago but look at the immense poverty there...is that morally right?

Okay, since I'm not allowed to say both, I'd like to ask what you mean by quality of living.

Are we talking about people who if they're not helped will die of abject poverty, or are we talking about giving more people access to big plasma TVs?

The former of course.

Actually it's $1.3 billion per launch.

Really? Different sources were giving me different figures, could you provide a link?

I'm not sure about the validity of that statistic, but of course I would rather give people access to clean water than send a space shuttle into space.

I think it was from PumpAid or WaterAid or somewhere, I can't remember the exact link now but apparently £1.86 provides clean drinking water for life for one person http://www.pumpaid.org/support-us/your-donation

But that's elementary really, I mean who wouldn't "do the right thing"?

Thing is, what should be prioritised?

I have seen people who believe in the ideology that 'we can all live like cavemen and get nowhere or we can look after ourselves and lead civilisation'.

The Space Shuttle program is (soon to be was) expensive, and there have been criticisms of the costs. I agree with many of those criticisms. But the Space Shuttle program isn't the only space exploration program, we have many other programs going on, many of them unmanned flights that give us much knowledge at a fraction of the cost of the Space Shuttle program.

Manned missions are far more expensive indeed. As an example, would you prefer a manned-mars mission within the next 30 years or would you prefer that money to be spent elsewhere?


At this current moment in time, do the benefits of setting foot on Mars and taking some rocks outweigh the problems we face right now?

The fact of the matter is that in this day and age we have plenty of resources to do both, the problem is that those resources are unfairly distributed with a small amount of individuals having by far the largest share.

Indeed, a sad reality.

[faye]

this space exploration is catered to for the selfish few. most of the information and answers about health, medicine etc, could be found here on earth (i believe) that is just the excuse they use to further their self indulgent cause.
there is so much to be mended and explored here on earth and in the mind of human beings, spending on space exploration is an abomination!!! just because people like you are 'curious', mountain goat.

[badmash_khel]

Mankind should concentrate on self exploration first.

[Talal]

nah man earth has had it, time to pack up

[tor_khan]

You guys who call it "mankind" are SO last century.

Even Star Trek changed it from "Where no man has gone before" to "Where no human has gone before". Actually even the PC brigade were wrong - it should have been "people".

Personally, I think it's Earth first, but people will always seek adventure, so I guess there is little stopping them.

Anyway, time to honour Abdul Mohmand, first Pashtoon in space. See, we made it.

[randolph85]

lol the russians took aboard some communist afghan pilot clown with them for propoganda purposes.

its not like we are asking or answering this question from the perspective of all of mankind. different nations have different priorities. a US space program makes more sense than say...a tajikistan space program. progress usually happens when its allowed to take place.

[tor_khan]

Space is very political, so communists in space doesn't surprise me in the slightest. One line of conjecture is that the reason "man" ended up on the moon in the first place was because the Americans wanted to hoist their flag before the Russians could.

Ronald Reagan actually tried to make peace with the Russians staking a claim that the treat of an alien race descending upon Earth would force people to put aside their differences.

Ronald Regan warns us of the Alien agenda - YouTube

[Karachi]

to be honest space exploration is needed and yes it does cost money but there many many other things that cost much more, and there are many benefits of space exploration because many new inventions can come out of it

I think the biggest problem with humans is the Gap between Rich and Poor, the unequal division of wealth is the main problem and thats why so many people are suffering

[Tjanaparh]

I think both - the purpose is what counts!