On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 7:46:46 AM UTC-5, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 19:46:05 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
wrote:
The side benefits from the space program, both manned and unmanned,
far, far exceed the costs. Entire industries exist because of it,
including a great deal of life-saving medical technology that would

Isn't it terribly inefficient to, instead of working towards some
highly desirable goal, work on some other completely different goal
and then hope for positive side effects?

Mankind should go into space if going into space produces good
effects, not just because the side effects are useful.

War is another human activity which produces useful side effects. For
instance WWII caused technology to evolve considerably. Should we
therefore go to war with one another on a large scale just because of
the technological benefits?

The US bought Alaska from Russia without having any particular plan for what to do with it. The same might be even be said for the purchase of Louisiana from France.

The US developed ARPAnet without envisioning what it would lead to.

Early computer companies never envisioned the PC and the related consumer and business tech.

The Interstate highway system led to an improved standard of living everywhere in the US, but that was not its purpose.

Going into space led very quickly to improved communication capabilities and weather forecasting. The Apollo program led to major improvements without which the US would have a space program about as dull as Sweden's.