If some action is a waste of resources, then who provides the resources doesn't change whether it's a waste or not.

In this case, if sending a signal into space takes a lot of energy and if energy is scarce, then it's a waste of energy regardless of if the government provides it or a private donor.

EDIT: I'm not saying this is true in this particular case (I'm also not saying that its not true), I'm merely stating that whether something is a waste doesn't matter on who is doing the wasting. I would gladly listen to a counter argument and maybe a discussion can be had, but I guess its easier to click a down arrow. Oh well. (Yes, yes, I know it'll happen even more due to my mentioning it)

The Arecibo message had a broadcast power about a 1 megawatt and lasted 3 minutes [1] - in other words 0.05MWh. 1MWh can power 330 homes for one hour [2], so the broadcast "wasted" enough power to supply those homes for three minutes. Given that interstellar broadcasts aren't exactly frequent events, and assuming similar broadcast power/length today, then on a global scale it doesn't seem like a significant waste of power to me.

[1] http://io9.gizmodo.com/5784658/so-you-want-to-send-a-message...

[2] http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-energy-resources/w...

I never claimed that this particular thing wasteful. I was only pointing out that "And anyway it's being paid for by private donors, not the US government." isn't a good counter argument.

I wasn't taking any sides on this issue, so its not really relevant how much energy it took. I said "if" it is and it was a hypothetical to give a concrete example, not a statement that I thought it was wasteful.

I'll paraphrase:

If <something> is hypothetically wasteful, then <something> is still wasteful regardless of who did it.