So I'm sitting at work and my coworker and I were having

>>8467549
Investing in space travel now increases our ability to space travel later.

Earth is also the cradle of humanity, and we can't stay in here forever.

>>8467556
Obvious counter argument: That is an extremely long term investment and therefore not exactly necessary at this point, and there are plenty of other things that need our attention and resources.

OP here and I'm taking the side of investment, but even I can see that much of a counter argument. Are you even trying? /b/ did better with this question.

You could maybe argue the case that the time to start increasing measures to explore space is a good thing to do now, just because of how popular space and technology currently is

>>8467567
>because of how popular space and technology currently is
Not anymore. With the new US president, fundings for various scientific research institutions including but not limited to NASA and various university research partnerships are going to be cut.

If anything, Trump will resurrect the joint Russo-American space exploration by maintaining good relations with them.

>>8467580
Not gonna happen.

Have you not been paying attention? The newly elected president doesn't give a flying fuck about anything scientific, much less space programs. Nonetheless, what I'm talking about here is much more specific and practical aspects than just the space program. In fact, we could do away with the space program altogether, but the remaining problems related to it can have some profound effects. Mostly negative.

File: mariner-4-mars-mission-planet-flyby-orbiter-spacecraft-solar-system-image-01d-full.jpg (56KB, 522x478px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 522x478px

>>8467549
Plenty off good points here. There are a vast number of technological advances that have come about as a result of space exploration, most of which you don't even realize had anything to do with space (digital cameras, for example). Just because we don't know all of the short-to-mid-term benefits of space exploration right now doesn't mean we won't find any new ones, and that only happens with the infrastructure in place to pursue it. Investing in space now gets us there. Long term, obviously, it has a lot of useful potential that people have been hashing out for forever.

It's also not a zero sum game. Money spent on space exploration isn't being taken from somewhere else that "needs it more." You could completely eliminate NASA's funding and throw it at some other government department, and it wouldn't make much of a dent. We spend so little on space exploration right now, compared to everything else, that your coworker is basically advocating feeding starving children by giving them the parsley garnish from your plate.

Pic related--it's the first photo ever taken on another planet, and it they didn't get it by mailing film back from Mars and dropping it off at CVS to be developed.

>>8467580
Only if he gets to put a big gold "T" on the moon for everyone to see. And it'll be a new Space Race, not a "friendly cooperative effort."

>>8467562
>not exactly necessary at this point
And if it ever becomes necessary and you're not ready, you're completely, utterly fucked.

The time to prepare is vastly longer than the time between detecting the problem and when you need the solution.

>there are plenty of other things that need our attention and resources.
Okay, why not just devote the entire budget to the single most important thing, if that's what you're worried about? Of course that's retarded, but where's the cutoff? Why is space below that cutoff?

New "urgent" problems will keep popping up and you have to be able to multitask.

>>8467620
>New "urgent" problems will keep popping up and you have to be able to multitask

Exactly. It's a false dichotomy to (for example) say "why should we spend money on space when we have problems in the MIddle East," as if one can only exist to the exclusion of the other.

>>8467574
And yet theres other countries in the world

>>8467620
Not convincing. For a rudimentary guideline on how to sound convincing, please consult OP: >>8467549
Keep in mind here, I'm not even taking the side of the science investment deniers. But if I needed some overly general and vague speculations I could come up with perfectly good ones myself, maybe even better than the ones you proposed. With all due respect, this is not what I am looking for, which has been clearly specified and provided examples for in the OP.
And please be aware that we are using these arguments to talk to various types of people who might not have the habit of thinking on the same level as us, so clear and specific examples are necessary.

>>8467641
Sure there are. I come from one of those "other countries in the world" myself. However are most of them half as advanced in scientific research as the US supposedly has been? Probably not. And even if they are, that is no reason for the whole science community to just stand there and take this much of a hit. Did you just suggest exactly that, simply because the US is not the only nation to ever do science? I can't believe this is how my first time on /sci/ looks like. This is a science board, for Carl Sagan's sake.

>>8467613
Thanks for this reply. I was beginning to lose hope in humanity. You saved a tiny tiny portion of it. I'd ask you to go on, but really I need to go and take a breather right now. I might or might not be back, but I'll be sure to save your answer.