Robin Hanson, a huge lover of science fiction and technological progress (who also happens to be an economist) writes:On Monday I was interviewed on BBC Radio about what if any economic value we get out of NASA. I said the benefits were mostly like the pyramids - national prestige and being part of history. I was not told I would be debating a NASA fan, who said gave the tang/teflon argument that all research is good, and also said we don't want to be like the Chinese who pulled their advanced ships back just before the Europeans took over the world. There was not time to respond.
Sigh. The US government spends more on space research than on NIH and NSF combined, which most scientists consider far out of proportion to its science value. Most any ambitious tech project, like floating cities, 3DTV, or robot mules, gives similar indirect tech spinoffs per dollar spent, and surely we can find other projects with larger direct payoffs. Sure the Chinese might have colonized the Americas, but we can see now there are no similarly lush gardens accessible in space - we'll colonize Antarctica and the Earth oceans long before, as these are far less harsh environments with plenty of the sunlight and materials which are mainly what space has to offer. Yes someday we'll run out of stuff here on Earth, but that day is far off. We'll probably use kite power before solar satellites, world population is not proportional to oil production, and hopes for more than a tiny space tourism market anytime soon are pure fantasy.
To which Bryan Caplan responds:
I've often heard Robin Hanson called a "space cadet" or even a "replicant." So it's pretty dramatic to see him throw cold water on his fellow cadets. Technophiles, I beg of you - don't throw Robin out the airlock! :-)
Hanson started his career as a scientist and computer guy and later turned to economics. As an engineer turned economist, I completely agree with Hanson's assessment. Incidentally, most people I hear arguing the opposite perspective most vociferously have little training in either science/technology or economics.
Having said all that, I do have to admit seeing displays of space technology in action can be quite amazing (just like those pyramids). But that still doesn't make it a good economic investment.
1 comment:
Yes, but sometimes the benefit is more than what can be measured by the raw, cold economics.
Poetry has little economic value, but contributes much to human culture and thus the human condition. A poet could add more economically by being a plumber or laying down asphalt for roads.
When couples choose to have a child, that is not a good economic investment for the couple in terms of dollars and cents, yet carries other value.
For that matter, going to church has only cost me the amount of money I tithe, and that time in church could be spent making more money. Yet the value transcends a purely monetary analysis.
The list goes on and on. The point is that human life is more than economics, and thus sometimes we need to spend on some things that just don't make much economic sense, at least that we can see at the moment.
Sure, that's a matter of judgement, and makes things a bit more complicated than following an economics formula. But that's life! We all live on the slippery slope, where value judgements requiring higher level reasoning and creativity have to constantly be made, and where no perfect answers always exist.
Post a Comment