Do we really have to spent billions in the space reseach when there are fellow human die without food..?

Question

We do feed poor in the name of "charity". If a poor die without food on this earth right now after all these advancement isn't it shame on us? Aren't we absolute "selfish" to spend on things outside earth(in the name of gaining knowledge) and not taking care of the people in need. Its the human who created countries and introduced money. How could we leave them to die witout food while we enjoy the images from mars and to get excited about the new space inventions...

Answer 1

An amazing concept, isn't it? Hard to believe we can close our eyes to hunger, homelessness and hopelessness, in the name of advancing 'Science'.

Answer 2

You're right- to a point. But which would you rather; spend billions on research that may yet also benefit humankind in the long run, or spend it on the poor- who'll ultimately use it to make MORE babies & thus perpetuate the worlds plight & poverty? And here's another way to look at it: in the past 5 years we've spent several billion dollars on space research- that may or may not make the world a better place- At the SAME time we've spent almost 500 billion dollars fighting the "war" in Iraq that we now can't get out of... Pick your poison. From my standpoint, I'd rather "waste" my money on research that may one day save lives- than throw it away hand over fist on a war where death is the only result.

Answer 3

We give way to much to those who are not starving. Read luke 19-12/27 The poor get poorer becaus they do not have gratitude and do not take advantage of the opportunities they do get. then they lose even that which they have. Basicly prosperity is like muscle strength,the more you use it the more you have,the less you use it the less you have. I feel for the poor ,not because of their poor physical condition but because of their ignorance and inability to see why they are poor. ONE IS ALWAYS POOR BECAUSE OF IGNORANCE. The number of poor peolple will allways increace when good hearted people meaning well give them to much,thereby removing the incentitive to change there circumstances. Charity should be given to those in very bad need. what the poor need is to learn the laws of prosperity. Read the little book "As a man thinketh" by james Allen.

Answer 4

in a life where we take care of the poor so they can eat, then why would they work , and also why is it out fault they can't eat, further more many of those places would be better off if they had 1 or 2 children insted of 7 or 8 children to fed, they try to mass produce so there children have to support them, where if they had few children with what little money they do have could go into that child, and be less of a problem, and further more with the rate that the population is rising, there would be way to many people very quickly, and there be no space left on earth, so with out spending the billons in space to learn what we know, where would we go?

Answer 5

The food is there whether we spend money to go to space or not. Our society and government have decided that we will not just hand out food to all the poor people. That's called "enabling". Talk to your fellow voters on why they didnt vote for politicians who promise to feed every hungry person.

Answer 6

You are assuming that the poor have the highest priority in the redistribution of tax monies. You are ignoring the good that is already being done for the poor and destitute. And you are assuming that the poor had no responsibility in preventing or currently have no responsibility in resolving their own problems. Finally you are attempting to lay a guilt trip on others to suck them into your own lack of appreciation of any human destiny beyond a destructive passion for compassion.

That is a bit arrogant and short sighted of you.

Answer 7

we do and we must.
this is where Darwinism comes in play.
as we accelerate to space age, the ones left behind will be eliminated.
it's cruel and it's nature.

and for myself, i rather starve of food than starve of knowledge.

but be happy of human nature. there are much more philantropy organization vs. 100yrs ago.

and i hope the lives we saved will gain knowledge of the universe. Or, what's the point of saving them?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i have to disagree with Todd M.
they have lots of kids because of nature. Many dies in poor regions. Having more kids increase the survival chance of some kids to pass down the bloodline. (i.e. turtles) i mean that's the real reason of all the living beings on this planet.

Answer 8

I ask myself and politicians this same question all of the time. While it is true that they build deterrents to weapons from other countries in space, I feel just going to a planet to discover other life forms is a waste of money.
But then our government knows how to waste money.

Answer 9

Yeah, the sun's gonna die about 5 million years from now, and then we have to go somewhere to another solar system so we won't die. Instead of trying to get along with each other and achieve world peace, do something about global warming, stop cutting trees, etc., we fly out in space so we can get out when we destroy this earth. It's ridiculous. And believe me, we'll go extinct long before the sun dies.

Answer 10

But we do try to feed the poor. It's the dictators who refuse to feed them. We send food and then it sits in a warehouse until the dictator says ok...send a little. Then, a soldier holds a gun while they grab as much as they can and kicks them when they fall. It's a sick, sick world.

Answer 11

There is never enough to solve the woes of this planet even if the space program were applied it would hardly suffice after the organizers took their lions share.