Is Science As Important As Football? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is Science As Important As Football?

#11

Post by alexgartrell » Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 6:56 PM UTC

noonespecial wrote: post #3

Its an aside, but it always frustrates me to hear about the cuts at NASA and how the budget simply won't allow this or that project when every city in America seems to think it needs an $800mm tax-payer funded arena to "stimulate the local economy." No, you don't get moon bases, hover cars and cures for cancer. You spent your allowance on football, remember?

From the point of view of the average taxpayer, deliverables on space missions are too few and far between.

When you build an arena (even for non mainstream sport), you make money off of taxing the Franchise, but more substantially off of the local businesses that opened up to serve the fans of the team. Over priced beer, food, and jerseys can make a lot of money if there's a well-liked team behind it all.

Plus, people LIKE it. It's a regional pride thing.

If you're an average guy, do you want to see three astronauts orbit the earth for 6 months, or go down town with your buddies, get drunk, and watch a game?

That's why the average guy votes for the new stadium over NASA.

Re: Is Science As Important As Football?

#12

Post by ajross » Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 6:56 PM UTC

noonespecial wrote: post #3

Its an aside, but it always frustrates me to hear about the cuts at NASA and how the budget simply won't allow this or that project when every city in America seems to think it needs an $800mm tax-payer funded arena to "stimulate the local economy." No, you don't get moon bases, hover cars and cures for cancer. You spent your allowance on football, remember?

I don't want to spoil your rant by throwing numbers on it, but unfortunately that doesn't add up. Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis is (I think) the newest stadium in the NFL. Wikipedia tells me that the cost to taxpayers was $620 million. Let's say that the average stadium lasts 20 years, and note that there are 4 major sports leagues in the US with about 30 teams each, so that an average of 6 such arenas that must be built every year, at a total taxpayer cost of $3.7 billion each year.

NASA's budget for 2009 is $17.6 billion. And obviously that's just a fraction of total federal science spending, much of which lives under DoD, DoE, NIH, etc...

Re: Is Science As Important As Football?

#13

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 6:58 PM UTC

crescendo wrote: post #9

noonespecial wrote: post #3

Its an aside, but it always frustrates me to hear about the cuts at NASA and how the budget simply won't allow this or that project when every city in America seems to think it needs an $800mm tax-payer funded arena to "stimulate the local economy." No, you don't get moon bases, hover cars and cures for cancer. You spent your allowance on football, remember?

Football is a very important pastime to a lot of people. Just playing devil's advocate here: can you name one reason why those NASA programs are more important than the football arena, without making reference to your own subjective value system which would be at odds with that of the ardent football fan's?

[deleted]

Re: Is Science As Important As Football?

#14

Post by alexgartrell » Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 6:58 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #10

crescendo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Football is a very important pastime to a lot of people. Just playing devil's advocate here: can you name one reason why those NASA programs are more important than the football arena, without making reference to your own subjective value system which would be at odds with that of the ardent football fan's?

Football can and would exist without subsidies. Spending public funds to support private industry is a bad economic decision. Funding space travel on the other hand is something that would not exist without public funds. So it's outside of the effecency debate. “debating gladiator reform while Rome burns…”

Football can and would exist without subsidies"

Yeah, but it'd exist in a different city. City's have to compete for the franchise. It's a supply and demand thing (LOTS more cities than franchises).

Re: Is Science As Important As Football?

#15

Post by wattersjames » Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 7:10 PM UTC

Let's not confuse science and NASA too much in the discussion here I'd say. Flying the existing shuttle back and forth to space for 3 decades is as much dog and pony as it is science.

I'd like to agree with part of this article though. The science olympiad would have been a LOT more fun if the contest was to create the biggest explosion instead of the strongest toothpick bridge.

Re: Is Science As Important As Football?

#16

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 7:15 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Is Science As Important As Football?

#17

Post by m0th87 » Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 7:19 PM UTC

crescendo wrote: post #9

noonespecial wrote: post #3

Its an aside, but it always frustrates me to hear about the cuts at NASA and how the budget simply won't allow this or that project when every city in America seems to think it needs an $800mm tax-payer funded arena to "stimulate the local economy." No, you don't get moon bases, hover cars and cures for cancer. You spent your allowance on football, remember?

Football is a very important pastime to a lot of people. Just playing devil's advocate here: can you name one reason why those NASA programs are more important than the football arena, without making reference to your own subjective value system which would be at odds with that of the ardent football fan's?

The Apollo program inspired a generation of engineers that got America on the fast track to victory in the Cold War. Furthermore, NASA has facilitated a great deal of technological and scientific innovation in the past few decades, both directly and indirectly.

It is understandably difficult for a politician to justify this value to an apathetic audience when NASA projects are so expensive and they rarely provide any directly observable positive economic impacts. But I don't think it's unfair for noonespecial to assert that the sciences should be prioritized above something whose sole purpose is entertainment. It's interesting to observe how something like NASA can shape a society, public discourse, and the economy in a positive direction. I wish it could be quantifiable to express this value to the voting base, but I doubt it can be done.

Re: Is Science As Important As Football?

#18

Post by req2 » Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 7:30 PM UTC

crescendo wrote: post #9

noonespecial wrote: post #3

Its an aside, but it always frustrates me to hear about the cuts at NASA and how the budget simply won't allow this or that project when every city in America seems to think it needs an $800mm tax-payer funded arena to "stimulate the local economy." No, you don't get moon bases, hover cars and cures for cancer. You spent your allowance on football, remember?

Football is a very important pastime to a lot of people. Just playing devil's advocate here: can you name one reason why those NASA programs are more important than the football arena, without making reference to your own subjective value system which would be at odds with that of the ardent football fan's?

How about limiting health calamities caused by hypertension or congestive heart failure? http://ims.ivv.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/news/pressrel/2008/08-...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Spinoff has a nice list.

Re: Is Science As Important As Football?

#19

Post by bgutierrez » Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 7:57 PM UTC

My middle school was willing to make us play frisbee dodgeball (with the expected results), and then spent millions tearing apart a couple of classrooms after some kids dropped mercury on the floor and stomped on it.

I think Phys. Ed. would be a good target level for danger in the classroom.

Re: Is Science As Important As Football?

#20

Post by sili » Thu, Jun 04, 2009, 7:57 PM UTC

tybris wrote: post #5

I don't remember my science classes to be that exciting. Then again, my sports teacher didn't like football either.

Usually in US schools there are two parts to a science course: the lectures and the labs. The lectures and homework do get boring and tedious if you are really not into that particular field. However, labs are meant to not only show students science in practice but to show how cool it can be. By doing experiments themselves and seeing real-life demonstrations by teachers, some few students will become interested enough in the field to persue it seriously, and others will at least gain more perspective on the world around them.

However, with our misguided obsession with safety, science education has been neutered of this exiting part and all that's left is dry formulas and obscure vocabulary.