Should we stop exploring space and start fixing up our planet instead?

Let's get right into this.

I don't think we should stop exploring space. Sure our planet might be going to Hell in some situations, but what if something in space could possibly be there that could help our planet out? This would be my first thought. If we continue to explore space, we might just find an element that could be brought back to Earth, get tested on, and it could possibly be a great impact for our planet. I don't really have much detail into this at the back of my hand right now, but I am sure with later research or other knowledge I could think of something.

Another thought or idea ... The planet isn't going to just get better because one or two people say for people to stop doing things. Our planet is going down because of pollution and green house effects. Damaging the Ozone layer. It isn't something that be stopped at the snap of a finger. A process like that takes time and it's difficult to get every single person living on the planet to follow through with it. Earth is going to go through whatever phase it has to go through, there really is no stopping it just like that. Maybe through a slow process, but to just stop exploring space? There really would be no point.

My opinions are kind of vague. Note how I said "opinions" and not "answers" like some silly people here on the Internet.

Anyways, what do you guys think?

 

It's not as if there's not enough people to do both at the same time.

 

What I think would be cool would be if they took all the effort they are putting into space and put it into researching things that are on our own planet that we don't know about (like the oceans and things like that). I mean, I love the concept of space as much as the next guy but I feel like we could learn a couple things from our own environment... in my opinion.

 

I see where you are coming at from this. I guess ... Our planet just doesn't seem so "exotic" and "as interesting" as scientists could have thought if they decided to drop everything in researching things such as oceans and what not, but then again, some things just can't be explained. Now, not going off of exact facts and just off the top of the brain ideas, I would say scientists and people generally in that field do study our Earth and the strange "phenomena" in certain places (looking for new types of animals, sea creatures, fossils, etc.) or just trying to figure out how the Earth works. While some questions can be answered, some questions just can't even be explained. So they could have researched areas in which you had in mind, but through everything they went through, they could have no found the answer to the question they were looking for.

I guess space seems to be more "out there" considering the endless vastness of it all and so many, many, things and new places that could be researched, and as Aiden Pearce had stated, there could always be something out there that can be extremely useful to the human species. So to speak.

 

I think honestly that we should focus on keeping our planet alive. Do I see it happening? Eh... Maybe, but I don't see a lot of companies jumping on the bandwagon of spending millions of dollars on fixing their plants either. One of the reasons why our planet is like it is because it's economical for the companies to not spend money on making their factories more environmentally clean. If you mean in general scientists cleaning up the planets atmosphere and oceans without involving the companies, then yes they should totally focus on that than exploring space.

 

OK, let's talk about processes that take time. How long do you think that finding a miracle element, bringing it back to Earth, figuring out a lab environment that won't break down your rare and precious element, conducting experiments on it, putting it to practical use and then mass-producing that practical use is going to take? My guess is: pretty fucking long. And that's assuming that you haven't screwed up in Phase 2.
Your argument is basically one huge double standard, treating two long shots completely differently when they shouldn't be. Invoking an environmental epiphany en masse and getting into action to stop the planet's deterioration is a hugely unlikely event, but so is "finding that one element that will save mankind". The difference is that the former at least has a somewhat predictable outcome.

Nobody is contesting that. It's not the allocation of people that is questioned here; it's the budget.

Thing is, you didn't have to actually go to space to invent any of those things. The materials and methods are as terrestrial as can be, and a vaguely related research question would have yielded the same results. Refining helmet visors has given you the technology to craft scratch-resistant lenses, but you could have just as easily invented those if you actually wanted to make scratch-resistant lenses.

You basically re-iterated that it's a terrible idea to stop space exploration in 53 different ways without giving actual valid reasons why it's such a terrible idea. I'm not saying space exploration is useless, far from it, but a slight priority shift wouldn't hurt. Is there really no better way to spend the cash burning a hole in your pocket than having a $2.5 billion dollar gizmo dig through Martian dirt?

I don't think space exploration should be stopped by the way

 

^ I did notice the OP was poorly worded, but I think the idea she was going for is that all the fields of science are interdependant. Thinking outside the box is easier when you don' t investigate just the one box.

As for budget, as far as I know we' re pretty much stuck at searching ideas. I think the status quo for investors right now when it comes to ideas that would (significantly) decrease pollution, at least in the US, is "prove me your idea would save money and/or create jobs, or GTFO of my office". Environmental concerns step on an awful lot of big toes, space exploration doesn' t.

 

i don't think we need to stop space stuff to help the environment. there's enough money to go towards both and from what i've heard, not that much goes into space stuff. i remember reading somewhere that they don't even put 0.5% of tax dollars into Nasa, so whatever funding they have isn't sapping much away from other causes. i learned in school that experiments are conducted in space because they can remove gravity from the equation. i'm not really an expert on the subject so i don't really know why that's so helpful. but i'm guessing they won't be able to do that anywhere else. also, it's not like we can't do both at once, it's not like it's one or the other. given how little seems to go into NASA, i don't think anyone is even prioritizing that over environmental issues anyways.

 

Exactly. You can't predict it, and you may solve problems. The problems that we do know to exist should take priority over the ones that might. Taking risks with huge amounts of resources is a dumbass move in any branch, why should it be different in science?

Don't get me wrong, I acknowledge that space exploration has been useful though, and I'd never shut it down altogether. The ISS has been a rather fruitful project, satellites are indeed important in our daily lives, and research concerning helium-3 extraction from the moon definitely has my approval. In fact I was only referring to your list of inventions which, though useful, really didn't require space travel to come up with.

That being said, I suspect that some of the more prestigious projects such as the Curiosity mission have had little to do with practicality. It wouldn't have hurt to have stuffed those in the fridge in favor of more urgent matters.

That's exactly what I mean by knowing your priorities. Terraforming is all well and good but you probably won't know it's even a viable option until you've already begun the procedure. Earth has well-outlined problems now, problems you'll just drag along to your terraformed planet anyway if you don't straighten them out sooner than that. It's not a matter of choosing one or the other, that would be stupid. But if I'd have to redistribute scientific budgets, I wouldn't give the lion's share to Mars missions to put it kindly. Thing is, those happen to be among the most expensive scientific projects...

Isn't it? Good luck getting your paper published if you can't at least imply its practical uses. There are theoretical fields and their respective journals of course, but the bulk of scientific literature in functional morphology, ecology, chemistry, medicine or even your field (physics as I recall?) all but demands a tangible use for your work in order to publish it.

To tell you the truth, I don't blame them. Pragmatism has been playing second fiddle in scientific research for too long. It's about time that curiosity became the byproduct, and not the main goal. I'm not even going to be hypocritical on this one. My own field is that of evolutionary and behavioral biology, a subclass of biology that doesn't exactly come to mind when we're talking pragmatic uses. I'd be perfectly fine with having our budgets cut for other, more useful research to prosper.

Which is exactly why the majority of our research should stay down-to-earth. Solar panels are said to have a life span of 40 years, but they usually don't last quite as long and even so, may start performing subpar sooner than that. All of this has made people reluctant to buy them. If you could make them more cost-efficient, then fossil fuels would not be cheaper anymore.

Plus, there's the entirely non-scientific aspect to consider, which is business. Hate to piss in your orange juice, but it's not enough to simply re-invent the wheel and hope your revolutionary research finds its way to a broad audience. The oil industry for example is well-established and powerful indeed, and innovative solutions such as electric cars have trouble competing. An inquiry in my country has shown that the two major reasons that people don't buy an electric car are its price tag and its lack of recharging points, both of which can be resolved with the right investments. Not in research, but in the application thereof (such as these charging points).

REVERSAL TIME!!! DING DING DING
We could spend billions that will benefit us in our lifetime and the generations to come, because there's no such thing as true short term research. Everything we invent now can be used or improved later (making the term "short term" kind of moot). Or we could take a shot in the dark and hope we hit something. Setting scientific arguments aside for now, I think I could predict what every economist in the world would choose. What say you?

I'm perfectly okay with solutions taking up a large amount of time, as long as they get there in the end. I can feel blissful staring through the window on the back of the bus, only to be mighty pissed upon finding out I took the wrong one.
Scientists shouldn't be forced into doing what's practical, nor should they get heaps of cash in order to sate a limited audience's curiosity.

 

The problem with that is interest. There are people who are interested in space and therefore study for careers that involve researching space. Generally, those people are (a) not qualified to do research on other things and (b) probably unwilling to study for the necessary qualifications to research how things work "at home." It's not as simple as a research team saying, "Okay, we're going to study the rainforest now."