Larry Niven, an award-winning American fictional writer, once said: “The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn’t have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don’t have a space program, it’ll serve us right!” Niven’s take on space exploration is quite positive, and after making such a reflective statement, Niven expresses the same opinion many others have. Perhaps the majority of the population feels as though a space program is what our country needs, but really, it would end up sending America into a frenzy. Americans do not live in a stable enough environment as of right now, to be exploring outer space, and the bliss of ignorance is something many are accustomed to in terms of the environment and the current state of the world. It would be purely unethical for the United States to fund a huge space program in the midst of other worldly crises and the current state of our country.
The American perspective is that the United States is a “can-do” country. But it is unfair to make such a claim without taking a step back and realizing that there are problems that already exist on Earth that are overwhelming enough. Sure, dinosaurs could have saved themselves if they had a space program. But with abominable global warming conditions and more, Americans need to save themselves from their own actions. Most Americans are completely unaware of the costs of funding a space program. According to The Planetary Society, “NASA spent $10.6 billion to develop the Space Shuttle and its related components… also includes $444 million in construction costs.” $10.6 billion for a singular space shuttle is an amount which will never ever be recovered. Ever. And without knowing confidently the outcomes of such a large expenditure, it really does not make much sense to spend that money towards an unknown result. Instead, the money could be spent on poverty alleviation; it is extremely important to know what causes to prioritize instead of overfilling our country’s plate.
Past debates on whether funding a space program is efficient or not have argued that a space program could improve our technology. NASA even claims that missions, “creat[e] new career paths, and advanc[e] everyday technologies all around us.” However, putting the money that goes towards space exploration can create new career paths in itself. By decreasing poverty in other countries, those people could actually receive an education, instead of living in distress. Without an education, it is extremely difficult for one to make revolutionary discoveries. And a noteworthy issue of this current time period is the overuse of technology, specifically artificial intelligence. While AI has significant contributions to society, younger populations are consumed with the reliance of allowing AI to do the thinking for them. Sometimes, with technology, less is more. There are limits and boundaries to technology; humanity and man’s feeling of safety should be prioritized before any search in the field of technology.
While it is true that exploring space could have potential life-changing discoveries or technology that can transform society exceptionally, nobody can guarantee that. It would be a much safer bet to put government funding to causes that really need it in a world of crisis and war. Our people come first, humanity comes first, and then comes technology. Humans were all created to help each other out and live as a community, not be the first ones in a Space Race to “win”. The truth is that space is a whole new world, it exists not for us but for itself. Sometimes, things are meant to be left untouched and the importance of focusing on the present will never be less significant. Huge sums of money cannot be put into a cause that is unstable, when people are suffering and having a hard time putting a meal on their table. Coming back to Niven’s ideology that a space program can save us, the hard truth is that it is simply unethical to reserve such a high amount of respect, time, money, and energy for an uncertain and risky endeavor; the present is waiting to be saved.