ing NASA and wouldn't that money be put to better use elsewhere such as feeding people here in our country? I looked at Paul and Gideon, the two that were with me at the time and we had no clue where the question came from. I tried to explain why we fund NASA and why it's important to our national priorities, and ended up pontificating for a good 15 minutes on how research that doesn't produce fruit now may be incredibly important one day, and we shouldn't let funding decide which issues get the most attention. After that, she was more confused than when she asked the question, and I looked more confused than her. So that got me to thinking, is it really worth it? Of course it is; and after some research and number crunching I finally have the backup.
The common misconception is that we spend a lot of money on NASA. True, the budget for NASA is $16.143 Billion (as of 2007); however please take that into perspective. The national budget that year was $2.784 trillion, which means NASA funding accounted for 0.58% of the national budget. Wow that's a whopper. We spend $1.581 trillion on social services in 2007 (the budgets for the Department of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Veterans Affairs, Social Security, Agriculture, and Labor). For every $1 we spend on NASA, we spend $98 on social services. If we cut social programs by 1% we could double the budget for NASA. Of course, the amount we spend on social services is really even more than the $1.581 trillion since that's only FEDERAL spending. If we were to add together the state and local governments' spending on social services, we could very nearly double that amount. Now I think it's fair to assume that state and local gov'ts aren't spending money on space exploration right?Many people, including the youth group kid, believe that we should solve our problems here on earth before we try to conquer space. The reality of it is, even if we increased social services budget by 1% (the reality is, it could very well be less than the 1% when state and local govt spending is taken into account), do you really think that 1% will make a difference? Honestly, it's a drop in a bucket.
When we look at the benefits of space exploration, keep in mind the intangibles, the things that we gain that cannot be quantified. Space travel is inspirational, not only for children, but for adults as well. There is currently various forms of research done aboard the International Space Station as well as on all Shuttle missions. We haven't fully grasped the benefits of what space research has garnered, but that doesn't mean we should give it up. And at $17 billion a year, or 0.58% of the Federal budget, that's a steal.
3 comments:
Is it worth spending tens of thousands of dollars to send people on short term missions for a few weeks, for an outside chance of possibly reaching/saving 1 soul? I mean..1 person in a world of BILLIONS is barely a drop in the bucket.
The case with the NASA funding is that the funding (known variable)was a drop in the bucket, not necessarily the potential gain (unknown variable).
In the case of missions, again, the funding is the known variable, and the lives possibly saved is the unknown (it could be 1 or many souls). Is the potential outcome worth it? Let me put it this way, does the unknown variable change if it's long term vs short term missions? Is the long term missions GUARANTEED more than 1 soul saved? We have no control over how God works, we can only control the known variable, funding.
In that case, is spending thousands of dollars to save potentially that one soul worth it? I guess it depends on who you ask; but to that one soul you save, it probably was worth it.
I think my comment was in regards to the YG kids argument about spending more money at home. You said increasing it 1% is a small drop in the bucket, but like you commented about missions, the small drop may be worth it to the individuals that are affected by the budget increase. just a different perspective...
and does the $1.whatever trillion we spend on health services include income? probably not right? it's just a gross expense total most likely yea?
Post a Comment