I agree with Emmeline. The alternate argument is equivalent to saying manufacturing gold plated lamas is effective in alleviating poverty to the same degree as purchasing clean water facilities.

Mukesh Ambani, India's richest man, has a personal wealth of $20 billion. Imagine what he could do to poverty with that money. Instead, he built a hideous 27-story house, Antilia. It has a garage with space for 168 cars, and there are 3 helipads on the roof. The official cost is $50 - $70 million, but the property is believed to be worth more than $1 billion. But hey, who cares. Let's focus on India's space program instead

Individuals being selfish is different to governments neglecting their impoverished.

Just think what we could do in 'merika with the Military Budget! A chicken in every pot in the world most likely!

Emmeline wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Emmeline wrote:The WHO classes India as having a critical shortage of health workers (only 17 per 10,000 population). 1.4 million children don't reach their 5th birthday. Of those who live, 48% of children under 5 are stunted through malnutrition, illness or disease. How many health workers would $74 million provide in India?

Well, frankly none, because India gets to choose where to spend its money and it clearly doesn't value the increase in health workers sufficiently to be spending that budget on it. However, no matter whether we agree or disagree with their budgetary choices, not sending a spacecraft to Mars doesn't mean that money will automatically get spent on healthcare - they might spend it on something else, in fact they probably would.

Another problem is that the $74 million does not represent the entirety of the Indian budget - there are numerous other areas you could say should be cut to extend health provision, but again that's possibly because you value this one issue, whereas the national governers of India have to contend with many different factors. Their responsibilities are far more complicated than yours in deciding where the budget should be spent.

In an ideal world they'd have done more to improve the lot of the poorest people, but in that same ideal world they'd still be sending a spacecraft to Mars.

Well of course they'd do both in an ideal world but while they are cheering and patting themselves on the back for the success of this mission, there are children dying for want of food, shelter, clean water & medicine in their own country, which I find sickening. Feel free to call me irrational & emotive, I really don't give a shit what you think of me or my views.

Firstly, you will undoubtedly note that I didn't call you irrational or emotive, I called your argument that.

Secondly, I would hope that you do give a shit what I think about you considering we've known each other for many years.

Thirdly, you are not forwarding any rational arguments here - are we not here to engage in rational skepticism?

You keep reiterating a point which has been explained to be irrational, rather than defend it, you have either repeated it or doubled down on it.

You are, of course, entirely welcome to maintain an irrational and emotive position - but you must also understand that it is entirely unconvincing to anyone who is prepared to engage it substantively. It might cause a few people to agree for a purely emotional perspective, but I wouldn't expect they'd be the people you'd want to convince.

Please note again that I, and I presume everyone here, finds the death or harm of children to be just as sickening as you - but the point is that you are making a connection from that to the space program - that's the point of contention, not the harm caused to children.

Emmeline wrote:

Acetone wrote:Think of the children. Oh noeeeeessss!

I guess I should give up my aspirations to do research in biochemistry! The money it takes to train a biochemist can probably provide enough drinking water to a small village for a day. Much better spent doing that! The children afterall!

Ridiculous strawman.

It's not a strawman - it's a reductio ad absurdum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

a common form of argument which seeks... to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.

It is certainly valid in this case.

Actually Mars is a deep mystery. That planets has rivers, lakes and oceans all dried up. it also has big mountains and canyons.

People are trying to see if there ever was life on Mars and why it turned into a big desert planets and didn't survive like Earth....This project will benefit India because no one knows what form of knowledge they can discover with this Mangalyaan thing

Keep It Real wrote:I agree with Emmeline. The alternate argument is equivalent to saying manufacturing gold plated lamas is effective in alleviating poverty to the same degree as purchasing clean water facilities.

No, this is not remotely equivalent.

No one is arguing that the spacecraft is meant to alleviate poverty. It may have some knock on effect to that end, but it is not it's objective, so your analogy is incorrect.

An apposite coincidence:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29341850

This is a mission that has been budgeted at 4.5bn rupees ($74m), which, by Western standards, is staggeringly cheap.

The American Maven orbiter that arrived at the Red Planet on Monday is costing almost 10 times as much.

Back in June, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi even quipped that India's real-life Martian adventure was costing less than the make-believe Hollywood film Gravity.

Even Bollywood sci-fi movies like Ra.One cost a good chunk of what it has taken to get Mangalyaan to Mars.

Spearthrower wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:I agree with Emmeline. The alternate argument is equivalent to saying manufacturing gold plated lamas is effective in alleviating poverty to the same degree as purchasing clean water facilities.

No, this is not remotely equivalent.

No one is arguing that the spacecraft is meant to alleviate poverty. It may have some knock on effect to that end, but it is not it's objective, so your analogy is incorrect.

I was writing about results, not goals. Read what I wrote again and have a think. Plenty of people in this thread have argued along the line that India's space program is a good thing because it will alleviate poverty.

I can eradicate all the hunger in this world without a single penny only if people seriously consider the possibility of Inedia. I think researching Inedia is a much better interesting and a useful research programme to eradicate hunger rather than growing fucking genetic crops which the European Union took the right decision to ban it or going to a fucking red planet which exists only inside people's heads. The people of India are the most foolish people on the planet their children are brought up in Christian missionary schools and their only encounter with religion is on December of 25th when Jesus is born from the virgin mother Mary inside a hut and Santa Claus throws chocolates at children. They have no fucking clue whatsoever about their own history and what's good for them otherwise they wouldn't have been fucking poor or be a slave to others.

Yeah, go and research Inedia, Savithru. Come back in three months and let us know how it went.

savithru wrote:...red planet which exists only inside people's heads...

?

Evolving wrote:

savithru wrote:...red planet which exists only inside people's heads...

?

savithru thinks the planets and stars and the like are all in peoples heads. The reality of being able to see them and send things to them seems to not matter to his magic religion.

Keep It Real wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:I agree with Emmeline. The alternate argument is equivalent to saying manufacturing gold plated lamas is effective in alleviating poverty to the same degree as purchasing clean water facilities.

No, this is not remotely equivalent.

No one is arguing that the spacecraft is meant to alleviate poverty. It may have some knock on effect to that end, but it is not it's objective, so your analogy is incorrect.

I was writing about results, not goals. Read what I wrote again and have a think. Plenty of people in this thread have argued along the line that India's space program is a good thing because it will alleviate poverty.

I think what people have actually been saying is it is a good investment in the future of India, which if used properly can alleviate poverty more than short sighted wasteful spending.
They've also been saying that India is capable of both, focusing on issues they face today as well as investing in the future.

So for your 'equivalent' argument, how would gold llama manufacturing be a good investment? I mean I could understand just buying gold... but actually manufacturing gold llama's... that would probably be a poor investment. Unless some billionaire exists out there who loves gold llama.

I think what people have actually been saying is it is a good investment in the future of India, which if used properly can alleviate poverty more than short sighted wasteful spending.

Don't necessarily think spending money from the space programme on the poor instead is necessary wasteful its just not a very good idea long term. If a country doesn't try to progress technologically until it has no poor people it will never progress

mrjonno wrote:

I think what people have actually been saying is it is a good investment in the future of India, which if used properly can alleviate poverty more than short sighted wasteful spending.

Don't necessarily think spending money from the space programme on the poor instead is necessary wasteful its just not a very good idea long term. If a country doesn't try to progress technologically until it has no poor people it will never progress

Spending 75 million extra on sanitation rather than just investing it would be pretty wasteful... India already spends a couple BILLION dollars on these issues, and that's without taking into account how much the state's spend. 75 million doesn't even make the significant figures on the value.... it would be pretty wasted.

IDK why people are acting as if it's a matter of India is spending no money on these issues all the while sending metal to space. Even so if that were the case the 75 million investment would likely produce better results because let's face it... what the fuck can 75 million do in terms of alleviating impoverished conditions? (Especially when we already know billions are poured into it each year and progress is slow).

Evolving wrote:

savithru wrote:...red planet which exists only inside people's heads...

?

!

DarthHelmet86 wrote:

Evolving wrote:

savithru wrote:...red planet which exists only inside people's heads...

?

savithru thinks the planets and stars and the like are all in peoples heads. The reality of being able to see them and send things to them seems to not matter to his magic religion.

Thanks. I hadn't encountered Savithru before.

So all the astrophysics I studied is just an elaborate hoax? Damn!