why is nasa more important than feeding starving people?

[overtone]

The dinosaurs didn't starve to death. They were wiped out because they didn't have a space program.

[Phi for All]

The dinosaurs didn't starve to death. They were wiped out because they didn't have a space program.

 

+1. That's going on a bumper sticker.

[Moontanman]

yeah, I'd buy that bumper sticker...

[iNow]

Reminds me of this:

 

[john5746]

That might work in some states, but this would be more like it in others

 

 

Asteroids: Another reason I needs me a bigger n' better gun.

Edited February 20, 2013 by john5746

[SamBridge]

+1. That's going on a bumper sticker.

It was a multitude of factors. It wasn't from a meteor shockwave alone, the meteor combined with many volcanic eruptions created atmospheric conditions which made many ecosystems collapse and also lessened the amount of sunlight from dust in the air. Many plants died, so food chains collapsed, taking the dinosaurs with it. Some species were more adapted to survive cold, or live underground, or store food for longer periods of time, those animals survived.

[Phi for All]

It was a multitude of factors. It wasn't from a meteor shockwave alone, the meteor combined with many volcanic eruptions created atmospheric conditions which made many ecosystems collapse and also lessened the amount of sunlight from dust in the air. Many plants died, so food chains collapsed, taking the dinosaurs with it. Some species were more adapted to survive cold, or live underground, or store food for longer periods of time, those animals survived.

 

Worst bumper sticker EVER..

[SamBridge]

Worst bumper sticker EVER..

Not for rich people, they of plenty of room.

[Mellinia]

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69602-objective-of-nasa-space-programme-to-create-jobs-only/

some guy did ask a similar question before though.

[SomethingToPonder]

"why is nasa more important than feeding starving people?"

I have heard this question a lot lately. (with the implication that nasa funding should spent on something elses like humanatarian aid but I have heard other variations such as sugesting the us should focus on its infustructure instead of having its head in the clouds)

it is hard to try to explain that advanseing technology will help everyone...

what are good argeuemtns for spending on nasa as oposed to giving it to starving people somewhere or on schools etc?

In my opinion it's a lot of rubbish.

The amount of money donated to charities for food for starving people combined with the programs that help starving people vastly outweighs any money nasa receives.

anybody who says otherwise has not really looked at the numbers. Look how much was made at ;live aid a few years back, compare that alone to the nasa budget for the same year.

[krash661]

"why is nasa more important than feeding starving people?"

 

simple,

 

humanities survival (expanding as population grow, evolving and partly decreasing resources)is far more important than someone who is not productive in society,finances or anything except a burden on society as a whole.

 

nasa is very important for this to occur.

some say if this is not done,

humanity will not survive.it would destroy it's self.

it's about humanity as a whole rather than an individual(s).

 

once you evolve your self to higher levels of your mentality with understanding,

things like this will be obvious.

[Moontanman]

It should be noted that the vast majority of money given to help the poor is filtered through religious charities which use the lions share of it to build churches, pay for vast estates for their pastors or priests and proselytizing, quite a bit of the money never filters down to the poor it was donated to...

[Phi for All]

"why is nasa more important than feeding starving people?"

 

simple,

 

humanities survival (expanding as population grow, evolving and partly decreasing resources)is far more important than someone who is not productive in society,finances or anything except a burden on society as a whole.

 

nasa is very important for this to occur.

some say if this is not done,

humanity will not survive.it would destroy it's self.

it's about humanity as a whole rather than an individual(s).

 

once you evolve your self to higher levels of your mentality with understanding,

things like this will be obvious.

 

Two things.

 

First, there are many people who are considered "starving" that are also considered "productive". I'm offended you might consider these people "a burden". Not everyone has the same set of circumstances in life, but that doesn't mean they don't contribute to society as a whole.

 

Second, I think it's very important for science-minded folks not to misuse terms like "evolve". Your first use of "evolving" was fine, your second, well, not so much. A person doesn't evolve, evolution takes place only among populations over time. Also, there are no "higher levels" of evolution.

 

Just sayin'.

[krash661]

umm ok.

 

and second,

 

" A person doesn't evolve, evolution takes place only among populations over time.Also, there are no "higher levels" of evolution.",

 

think about this.

 

weird.

 

" Second, I think it's very important for science-minded folks not to misuse terms like "evolve". Your first use of "evolving" was fine, your second, well, "

 

to help you understand,

e·volve

 

e·volve [i vólv]

(past and past participle e·volved, present participle e·volv·ing, 3rd person present singular e·volves)

v

1. vti develop gradually: to develop something gradually, often into something more complex or advanced, or undergo such development

2. vti biology develop via evolutionary change: in evolutionary theory, to develop from an earlier biological form

3. vt physics emit heat or gas: to give off heat, gas, or vapor

 

 

[Early 17th century. < Latin evolvere "roll out" < volvere "to roll"]

 

 

-e·volv·a·ble, , adj

-e·volve·ment, , n

it appears you have evolve and evolution mixed up, but I'm not sure. Edited April 22, 2013 by krash661

[Phi for All]

If you aren't referring to the process of evolution, then I misinterpreted. It just seemed like you were referring to evolution the first time, but not the second.

[krash661]

and also, i should have put in there " ( as it's seen by majority) ",

 

for the offensive remark.

that is not my view.

 

I apologize for that.