From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Moral argument for exploration
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:52:07 GMT


Judy MacMillan asks:
>>|>    Can any of you think of any moral or philosophical justification
>>|>    for using huge amounts of taxpayer money to fund the "space
>>|>    program" at all?  Not counting, of course, it provides high-
>>|>    pay, high-tech jobs for a bunch of us.

The jobs argument is a fallacy.  The money the government spends, which
eventually creates jobs, could just as easily have been spent by the
people it was taken from, which would have created just as many jobs.
To further erode this argument, consider that the gov., since it gets
it's money from tax-payers, rather than customers, can spend it on things
that don't make any money.  I.E., the money goes up in smoke, instead
of going on to create more wealth, which is better for all, and leads
to even more job creation.

John sez:
>How about, "If we want to avoid the fate of the dinosaurs, at some time in the
>future (never mind that it might not be in OUR lifetimes), then we better
>get something up there that can track every asteroid, and comet.  Better yet,
>we better build something that can deflect one of these at some time in the
>future."

I like this argument.  I'll remeber it for use on child-bearing people.

Jahred sez:
>Sure.  Very easy.  How about, "Where do we go now?"  We've
>been everywhere on this planet, it's time to start exploring
>everything else in the universe.  Let's go see what's on Mars,
>or the moons of Jupiter.

This may be (I think it is) a good reason to go into space, but it is
not a moral justification, simply because there may be some people who
could care less about exploration, and you won't have convinced them
that their tax money is well spent by this endeavor.  It isn't moral
to take another's money to spend on something not in their interests.
(It's even worse to convince them that it's in their interests, when
it might not be.  We called that propaganda, when Soviets did it.)
That's why John's argument is a moral justification, right up there
with police, courts, fire departments, and a military.

Also, if exploration is part of our irrepressible nature, we don't need
to spend gov bucks on it.  It'll happen regardless.  You could argue,
in fact, that if the gov. wasn't hampering private-sector investment
so much, with confiscatory taxation, a tax-code that punishes some
types of investment, and investment in dead-end enterprises, we would
already have a healthy space-infrastructure, due to our exploratory
drive.

One more possible argument, though also not strictly a moral justification,
is that there are potentially limitless resources up there, and we
should risk a little capital to find out if they can be used or not.

-Tommy Mac
------------------------------===========================================
Tom McWilliams               |Is Faith a short '  `      '   *.;     +%
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu       |cut for attaining    +    .      '
(517) 355-2178 -or- 353-2986 |  . knowledge? ;"'       ,'    .   '     .
a scrub Astronomy undergrad  |      *     ,    or is it just  .       .
at Michigan State University |   ';   '        * a short-circuit?   ,
------------------------------===========================================
Newsgroups: sci.space