Greetings Economists, On Jul 16, 2006, at 7:51 AM, ravi wrote:
A question arises: better understanding of what? If we spent the millions wasted on NASA in public health, we may get a better understanding of health issues, or we may not, but it may still be money better spent.
Doyle; I see where Gates and Buggett (I mean Buffet) combined their fortunes to address Public Health. So I don't think that ends up with a better understanding because Gates is definitely not someone who represents my point of view. NASA is just a subset of military spending on space based technology. Obviously that military spending is a waste. Astrophysics is not really about space exploration I would think. It benefits from space technology, but most of the universe is too far away to gain much from shooting a spacecraft in some definite direction. In any case is that astrophysics really enough to hold back global development in the public sphere? I would say in terms of technology, that a better understanding has to do with technology that connects all humans better. In fact I would take a step further and say that all animal cognition ought to be on the agenda for technological connection. That would point at a 'better understanding'. What's a benchmark of better practical understanding now? Well the big languages imply that very large populations of humans can understand each other's speech. These cognitively common objects are obvious examples of what a more general 'understanding' would point at. Is health more important than cognition? Cognition means doing some sort of mental work. So I would say yes work is more important than the static 'health' of individuals. The work allows us to define 'health'. We ought to focus if you want us to have a goal for spending public money to develop the whole world. Public Health being a subset of the whole social commitment developing the whole world requires. Care to explore this Ravi? thanks, Doyle Saylor
