Is it really necessary to send humans to those places just to get the knock-on benefits? Couldn’t we do those things directly, without going there?
It seems to me that, today, those who have the money to spend on these endeavors would only do so if there were perceived short-term benefits to themselves. That means they plan to exploit the resources, or increase their own power somehow.
I know the good engineers that make this happen are doing it for the challenge and in the pursuit of knowledge, and I know that’s why we poors support it, but that doesn’t “pay the bills.” What is the motivation behind the money? Why are they really doing this?
Other people have made solid points, but one thing I think people miss a lot of the time is that “because it’s cool” is a good reason in its own right.
I could argue almost any endeavor that isn’t actively feeding the poor is a waste of resources. Oh, you’re making art? Why aren’t you working in a soup kitchen instead. Oh, you’re building a monument celebrating a civil rights victory? Why not a homeless shelter? Literally any end that isn’t active altruism can be attacked as “why are you wasting time on that.”
But one of the best things about living in organized society is that we can pool our collective resources to do awesome stuff that otherwise wouldn’t be possible. It’s good that there are wonders in the world. I’m glad the pyramids exist. I’m glad the Taj Mahal exists. The Eiffle Tower. The Statue of Liberty. It’s amazing what people can do.
And sure, that money, time, and energy could have gone to helping the poor. And sure, none of those were made in a society without significant social problems.
But we can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. And the fact that the poor exist shouldn’t stop us from doing cool things. Even if they don’t have immediate and apparent “value.” I don’t have an MBA. I’m not looking to maximize shareholder value. And I’m all on board with doing cool stuff, even if it doesn’t have a positive ROI.