>>7756882
By that logic we shouldn't be doing anything BUT feeding the hungry people.

>>7756882
"why are you still feeding your kids as tons of people needs their food a lot more ?"
Or, in a more rational way, "are these mutually exclusive or hindering each other ?"

her point of view is naive

in the short term, not spending money on other things and spending it on hungry people helps the problem, but only temporarily and for as long as you continue to do it

in the long term, spending money on technology and exploration results in advances which reduce the amount of hungry people permanently, while also improving the well being and living conditions of everyone else permanently

if the people who made decisions were as naive as her, we'd still be living in the dark ages with many, many more hungry people and needless and senseless death all around us.

>>7756882
There will always be hungry people. She needs to grow the fuck up and realize that its not a perfect world, and that't the way it always will be.

I agree, but only because space exploration is a big fucking meme, just like mars bases or asteroid mining and there really isn't any point to it other than "woaah imagine like - STARS dude" Sagan faggotry.

>but but but the spinoffs

By that argument you could support almost any endeavour that works with cutting edge technology, like drilling to earth's core or whatever. And it's not like we can't research those technologies on their own.

There's lots of actualy useful science that desperately needs funding, we don't need to throw money at bullshit pipe dreams.
If some private company wants to waste its cash shootting rockets back and forth that's fine by me though.

>>7756882
>we shouldn't have schools while there are hungy people on the world.
>we shouldn't build cars while there are hungy people on the world.
>we shouldn't protect any species while there are hungy people on the world.
>we shouldn't plant food while there are hungy people on the world.

Sorry OP, but your friend is an idiot. You don't choose where to spend your money. You spend your money on what you need to spend it.

There is a current threat to the earth; Asteroids.

Just a while ago we discovered one of them on a close trajectory to the earth barely a day before it passed.

>Imagine this: We have just saved all children of the world, erased all pollution, establiched proper economies on the whole earth and all but erased poverty.
>Suddenly someone looks at the skies on east africa and sees a bright light on the skies plummetting to the west at fast speeds.
>right after it hits a blinding flash blinds the person, and a roaring boom deafs him.
>he looks, and a huge shockwave tearing down trees, houses buildings and FUCKING MOUNTAINS rushes torwards him.
>he is no more and all of the earth follows soon after; while thousands of meteorites destroy the buildings of man and all but erase his existance if it wasn't for a pair of things left on the moon and a bunch of robots under the sands of mars.
>tfw all of this would have been prevented by spending a fraction (Like 0,01) of the money spent on erasing hunger; torwards space.

Also; tell your friend that the budgets of Nasa, and most space programs come from the Military budget; so we are making less tanks for rockets; not less food.

>>7756922
>we don't need to throw money at bullshit pipe dreams.

Lol, What about Asteroids. and Comets. and the whole fucking Colonization of Space thing that just needs a fucking reliable way to go to LEO.

>>7756954
>Asteroids
I agree that asteroids are a danger. However we don't need space exploration to deal with them.

>the whole fucking Colonization of Space
And this is an urgent issue because why? Why is space colonization more relevant than achieving fusion, or carbon neutral socieites or aritficial intelligence or immortality or whatever?

>>7756974
>However we don't need space exploration to deal with them.
"We don't need ship building to discover america"
>Why is space colonization more relevant than achieving fusion, or carbon neutral socieites or aritficial intelligence or immortality or whatever?
Because non of these become an issue if we expand earth Economical and Social influence to the moon and Mars; (Moon makes oxygen and metals; enabling In-Space Shipbuilding; Mars Makes industries and produces food once Phosphorus can be delivered from asteroids)

Why need fusion when Massive Solar farms are cheaper (and beamed power is better btw in propulsion and efficiency)

Carbon neutral societies are easy when your industry is in mars (where the Global warming gasses are actually needed).

AI is easier to make when there is enough economical development so people can equally study higher subjects like engineering.

Inmortality is irrelevant when tyou can live 200 years on the moon due to reduced gravity.

That whatever; is in Space.

>>7757011
>Inmortality is irrelevant when tyou can live 200 years on the moon due to reduced gravity.

Come on dude, your whole sentence was kind of ok but please dont start pulling shit out of your ass. Going to need a source that reduced gravity increases life span

>>7757845
Dude, haven't you heard? People near the equator live 1.5x as long as the rest of the world because there's less net gravity due to the centripetal force. Just look it up there's loads of studies on this.

>>7756882
There will always be hungry people.
Because people are dicks.
But hungry people can feel nourished by the thought of living in a sci-fi future where space travel happens.

OR

If you can't afford to feed it, don't have a fucking baby, people being selfish retards should not stop the clever people who work together from being awesome.

>>7756974
>And this is an urgent issue because why? Why is space colonization more relevant than achieving fusion, or carbon neutral socieites or aritficial intelligence or immortality or whatever?
The base drive to guard against extinction and have a means of escape, you fucking moron. What the hell do you think is going on here, romanticised ideas of exploration, awe, and wonder? Fuck no. The core is fear and disgust of other people, and even oneself.

We know we aren't good at change, and we know collectively we're becoming increasingly terrible at keeping it together. If someone, somewhere, gets to go somewhere else, that would be enough. It's a slim chance, and life does not allow fresh starts, but maybe they could even become something new.

That's the drive. Becoming.

>>7756929
>Just a while ago we discovered one of them on a close trajectory to the earth barely a day before it passed.
Literally happens every other year. Not really new, can't really stop it either.