Hahaha, what? Are you implying that semiconductors were developed from space researchers? Where did you get that from?

Sure, war wastes more money. But just because space research is less squandering that does not mean it has a raison d’être :>
Oh and regarding the population ... what time span are you talking about? Because I referred to predictions regarding the time until 2050 where the growth rate will flatten and the world population will remain constant. Yes, in the near time the growth rate will continue to increase exponentially but in about two generations? Whole different story.

Such as? The only things that came to my mind are satellites and Teflon and I don’t think these few achievements are worth the trillions spent. And you didn’t explain what you meant by “semiconductors” which, as far as I know, have been produced decades before space research took off (pun intended).

It's always fun to read people's ignorance when it comes to the oft-repeated line that space related programs and research have given us nothing.

Let's just ignore satellites and how integral they are to modern societies. Or medical scanning related technologies like MRIs, or even low-tech items like smoke detectors, or...well, the list is very, very long, without even going into all the technologies that were byproducts of technologies gained from space related research.

No, to these people, space has only given them Tang, and the world would be just the same if we hadn't "wasted" all those billions and trilliions. Never mind that the space program takes up less than half of one percent of the Gross National Product. Or that the military's space program gets more than twice that amount of money (it's always shut down NASA, and never shut down the Military one, which I'm pretty sure 99% of those constantly crying about how the space program does nothing have absolutely no idea what the Military program is doing either).

There will always be Luddites in society. That's what's so great about humanity, in a way. Our incredible diverseness. Even if I think they're complete nutjobs that we should create plantations for so they can live in their ideal utopia where only their ideal utopian budgetary measures, though I suspect they'd quickly realize things are far more interconnected than they realize. I can still appreciate the wonder that human brains can develop in such different ways.

That’s the point ... byproducts. And obviously you aren’t implying that without space related research these things would have never been invented, right? But pointing out that the military consumes way, way more resources is valid. Are you going to do anything about it though? Are you going to hold your elected officials responsible for it? Naaaw, that’s too bothersome. Let the oligarchy flourish.

Why would I? I have no issues with either space or military budgets (well, I think the space budget should be increased, but that's inconsequential to this argument).

Who knows what technologies would or would not have been developed without the space programs. Satellites, by their very nature, I suspect would never have been for one. MRI was not a byproduct at all. You happen to take my comment about byproducts completely out of context and implied all technologies have been mere byproducts, when I clearly stated "that's not even getting into" such areas.

It's like people who argue about how useless war is, without contemplating how many advances actually come out of conflict. That's even more difficult to try to judge what we would have developed even in the absence of war.

As I said before, it's fine. You can keep your narrow view of things. Luckily, you get to live in a world that works the way it is, despite your views. ;) Heck, lucky we all get to live in a world where 99% of us don't really impact the direction it goes. Thank goodness. Can you really imagine how messed up things would be if everyone's opinions actually had a real effect on societies? :p

Yeah, no, you are right. One shouldn’t have issues with a military budget of such proportions. Let’s build tons of (illegal, huh, what?) cluster bombs while over 700 children starve per hour. Much better way to spend one’s resources. And sure, there’s probably a good side to war, too. There is no way technology would have developed as fast as it did without the military pushing it forward.

With the sheer amount of food surplus that simply gets thrown out by modern countries, I really doubt military budgets are actually to blame for 700 starving children. But, it sure makes an attractive target to play the blame game with, doesn't it? :)

Which, again, brings me back to my earlier point, that things are so much more interconnected than stupidly simple thing X is good or thing X is bad, that arguments like the one going on this thread are completely meaningless and serve only to give each simple-minded side a warm and fuzzy, and nothing else. Granted, much of this is because society likes to break things down into the simplest sound bites, which tends to make people incapable of actually thinking things through, since they're never forced to, but that's a whole other issue.

I'll stop arguing now. I have no real need to try to change your opinion. When I was much younger, I came to the conclusion that diversity in opinions is actually a really good thing, no matter how much I might disagree with them. :)

I think you and I are very lucky to live in a country in a world where by the grace of history things have worked out "the way it is". Indirect effects work in all directions not just in your argument's favor. I wouldn't presume to assume that someone hasn't thought through the costs or benefits as indirect as they may be simply because they disagree with you. People can take the same benefits and costs and apply very different weights to them based on who gets the cost and who gets the benefit. Something to think about.

To pull an example from this thread, lets take military spending and war. It is true that military spending does lead to technological advancements and wars themselves have even been known occasionally, through a variety of factors, to revitalize flagging economies. WWII for America is an excellent example of this. That said, I would not argue with a European over the cost/benefit of technological advancement versus destruction caused by WWII if I were you. America has been very fortunate in its geography, especially in recent history. There have been no major wars fought on our soil since the American Civil War 150 years ago. Europe has had somewhat worse "luck" with regards to that. With millions dead and cities in ruin, those experiences might lead Europeans in general to have a slightly different take on the cost versus the benefit of war and military spending and the technological advances associated with each.

So while I do respect your overall live and let live view towards differing opinions, his opinion on the costs of war and military spending is not necessarily some simple sound bite of a luddite/peace'nick filtered through the lens of a forum, but can be grounded in a very different history with very different associated costs than what we as Americans have faced. (again not necessarily since this is the internet and I don't know the poster personally)

But yay space travel is fun! ... and crazy_dave gets back on topic. ;)

^This.

Especially since I didn’t even propagate a causal relationship between starvation and military expenses. I just wanted to illustrate how badly the US government (or basically any government for that matter) spends its resources. And I think no one can convince me that the military is where your money is best spent. Almost anything else - be it domestic or foreign - is a better cause to invest in.

But to get somewhat back to the topic: I do think that space research (and astronomy in particular) is definitely an interesting and worthwhile field. Cosmology above all could be the modern human’s equivalent of Dante’s travel beyond seeing as how many analogies were revealed by it. But I’m not sure if this is something we should busy ourselves with extensively while there are much more urgent problems at hand. If your house is one fire you’re not thinking “Huh, right now I feel like studying the stars — let‘s continue to do this” either. And this comparison does anything but fall short. I see though why space research shouldn’t be among the first things to blame when you keep its extent in mind.

Are you sure about that? I’m pretty certain that it surpasses the one-trillion (that’s a thousand billions, right?) mark at the very least. I might have messed up the unit though — you Americans have a different way of naming numbers, it seems.

Woah woah woah, no, that’s not what I meant at all. I was talking about the total amount of money invested in NASA and similar institutes.

Like it or not, space exploration has almost no practical value to us right now.

The oil boom has brought us far more in the terms of better technology for everybody than what the space program ever did.

The site's a little dated and it only covers the stuff that has been derived from NASA's efforts, not any international space programs, but the list a fairly long and arguably contradicts exactly what you just said:
http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

Uh, dude.

Cars.

Plastics.

That's a start.

Your point? No one denies that the petroleum industry has led to the creation of tons of different products (but not cars, they existed before what we currently know as the petroleum industry and the first ones were steam and electric powered anyway), however to deny that the space program has produced anything useful is frankly, ignorant. You likely wouldn't even have the computer that you are using to post in this forum if the space program hadn't pushed forward efforts to create a smaller, faster computer.