| Subject: SETI vs. ... (was Re: What is SETI?) |
| From: Joseph Lazio |
| Date: 07/05/2004, 21:29 |
| Newsgroups: sci.astro.seti,alt.sci.seti,sci.space.policy |
[This is a more general criticism that I thought I'd single out.]
"R" == Rich <someone@somewhere.com> writes:
R> In infinite wisdom Joseph Lazio answered:
Perhaps more important, given that we all agree that we do not know
how many radio transmitting ET civilizations there are in the
Galaxy, why do you object to trying to find out?
R> There are some pressing problems right here right now on earth. I
R> think we need to prioritize how we use the resources we have.
I certainly won't argue with the need to set priorities, but I don't
think you've made a very coherent argument against SETI on these
grounds.
It's not clear if you object to just to SETI or to all of astronomy.
Let me answer both briefly. First, every 10 years, astronomers in the
US produce what is known as the "decadal report." This report
establishes (broad) priorities for (US) astronomy for the next decade.
These priorities include money. (The decadal report doesn't provide
any money, but its support is crucial if one wants to obtain
significant monetary support.) In both 1980 and 1990, SETI programs
were recognized as being worthy of "modest" support. I can't remember
what the recommendation was in 2000, because the major SETI effort has
shifted to become largely privately-financed. However, I think more
general astrobiological themes (is there life, complex or pond-scum,
elsewhere in the Universe) were still present.
More generally, I think that astronomy enjoys broad public support
(witness the recent furor over the Hubble Space Telescope), it doesn't
cost all that much, and it returns a lot for the money spent on it.
It's been a few years, but I once tried to do a rough guess of how
much money is spent by the US Government on astronomy. Using a fairly
expansive definition of "astronomy," I estimated something like $2
billion or about 0.2% of the total budget. You don't say what other
priorities are more worthwhile, but is that enough to eliminate
poverty, pollution, disease, ...? Moreover, some of that money goes
into training students, some of whom then go off and do other things.
I have colleagues from grad. school who are now or until recently
working in the defense, financial, computer, and telecommunications
industries. Is the US worse off for having paid for their graduate
educations? (I should point out that, in speaking to my international
colleagues, in many nations astronomy is seen as a vehicle to improve
technology and train students.)
Finally, I'll ask the more philosophical question, if a nation as
wealthy as the US cannot afford to spend a small amount of money
addressing and answering(!) fundamental questions that humans have
asked for millennia, doesn't it seem like an awfully poor place?