It isn't an either/or, that's just implicitly accepting the liberal "limited resources" framing. We can and should both send people into space and prevent people from freezing to death.
We live in a reality where resources are literally limited, and all of them should go to stopping people from freezing to death until none of the people are freezing to death.
Then there's a few more things to fix before considering Mars.
It has to do with out allocation of limited resources, doesn't it? If we wouldn't spend so much on the military ventures (including space armament) we could be funding infrastructure and aid.
This project is in no way "space armament". And importantly, you're missing the point: we easily have the resources and technology to eliminate poverty and want, be environmentally sustainable, and explore space all at the same time. We don't because doing so would not be profitable.
The only rationale behind funding NASA in the government's eyes is to develop space technology for US dominance. They don't just throw money away to go to Mars for national morale. Our satellite program is space warfare.
It isn't an either/or, that's just implicitly accepting the liberal "limited resources" framing. We can and should both send people into space and prevent people from freezing to death.
deleted by creator
We live in a reality where resources are literally limited, and all of them should go to stopping people from freezing to death until none of the people are freezing to death.
Then there's a few more things to fix before considering Mars.
this framing is honestly bizarre. the people feeezing to death have absolutely nothing to do with any limitation on resources
It has to do with out allocation of limited resources, doesn't it? If we wouldn't spend so much on the military ventures (including space armament) we could be funding infrastructure and aid.
This project is in no way "space armament". And importantly, you're missing the point: we easily have the resources and technology to eliminate poverty and want, be environmentally sustainable, and explore space all at the same time. We don't because doing so would not be profitable.
Your argument doesn't make sense then, how is exploring water on Mars profitable in your vision of the world?
You've already given the rationale for went the US funds these programs elsewhere in this thread so why are you asking me?
Because you're making the argument that "This project is in no way “space armament”"
So what is it? Why do we fund it? Seems like you agree that it's for the MIC, like I've been saying.
The only rationale behind funding NASA in the government's eyes is to develop space technology for US dominance. They don't just throw money away to go to Mars for national morale. Our satellite program is space warfare.
ah doing the "sustainability isnt possible because thermodynamics" ben shapiro thing are we?
Yeah, Ben Shapiro advocates for aiding the poor a bunch.