Explicitly ordering our priorities is probably a good conversation to have; better to have it in the open than hidden in a pork bill somewhere.

We should also talk about fossil fuel subsidies ~5T/yr (!), infra $1.2T (one time), defense at $768B/yr, etc etc.

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trill...

Yeah, the world should never ever invest in future technology or science unless all problems in the world are solved. With that attitude we would still live in the stone age.

Those problems are political and most them already get much money spent on them. World Hunger is already being fought with lots and lots of money. And it turns out its not actually really a money problem.

11 billion is less than a single aircraft carrier, of which US has already built several. There are better things to cut funding to than a one of a kind telescope.

That would be me. If it is annoying to care about the suffering of those less fortunate so be it.

https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homeless...

In January 2020, there were 580,466 people experiencing homelessness in America. Most were individuals (70 percent), and the rest were people living in families with children. They lived in every state and territory, and they reflected the diversity of our country.

That $11B would give about $18000 to all of those people. At $1000 a monthly rent that would house them for nearly two years and would most likely help them to stabilize their lives. Plus it would pump more money into the economy.

You will never find the end of the universe, or know why it began. And if you do find out, what is the purpose? Will it help you love another human being more? No, you will invent something else you need to discover.

> That $11B would give about $18000 to all of those people. At $1000 a monthly rent that would house them for nearly two years […].

Let's not change algebra to fit our conclusions, shall we?

I really don't understand how people are getting angry at $11B in space exploration funding. Consider the following:

a. Go through some of the cutting-edge technologies humankind has at its disposal nowadays (yes, yes, the kids starving in Africa do not, but that's an entire new tangent) and have a look at how they were invented. Chances are a lot of them originate in space exploration or space experiments. Modern navigation systems that power basically any systems you can think off that you use everyday. The high-tech tracking systems making sure the laser scalpel during LASIK eye surgery doesn't destroy your sight but rather restores it? Yea that was developed from a program that developed automated docking and rendezvous laser tracking systems for space dockings.

b. Can't you think of many more money sinks that would deserve to get defunded before thinking of space exploration? How about you start with the US Military? Last year the US spent over $750B on defense costs, that's over 68x the $11B figure quoted for James Webb. Surely we can deduct a billion or two here and there? You know what? that'd be double positive since you wouldn't create a whole portion of hungry humans at the same time since you're not going to war with half the world anymore. Stop the stupid fucking military complex first, then you can talk about defunding space exploration.

We're not yeeting $11B USD into a Lagrange halo orbit. It's funding STEM jobs.

Yes we should have UBI but like, that doesn't meant we can't do science at the same time. Maybe look to the MIC to cut first.

Who gets STEM jobs? The already wealthy kids of wealthy parents.

Yes, cut the MIC budget, but this is part of that budget, kind of, since "Northrop Grumman Fully Assembles NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope"

https://militarycouncil.ca.gov/2019/09/19/northrop-grumman-f...

>"Who gets STEM jobs? The already wealthy kids of wealthy parents."

I believe this is cynically reductive. I worked with plenty of first-generation college students when we studied engineering. All were on scholarships. I think we should be weary of associating STEM with privilege.

it is hard for me to respond to this sentiment, it’s so dismissive of an entire industry

even giving credence to this hypothesis that STEM is a rich kids’ sport, should we let the talent go to waste and give rich kids nothing to work on?

I suppose you would say we should apply everyone’s intelligence to solving the bureaucratic problem of how california spends its welfare budget, but it may surprise you that that does not inspire passion in many young people. Space exploration does, and if we have an economy where certain kids get private tutors their whole lives so they someday build telescopes that literally take photographs of the edge of the universe, I think that’s something we can celebrate even if it doesn’t solve literally every problem.

I get the point, but STEM has been my route (so far, hopefully not ending any time soon) my ticket to leapfrogging those rich kids you mention, so don't judge too quickly.

Is the US government known for being generous with STEM pay? I was of the impression that most people take a pay cut working for the gov.

Now defense contractors, that's where the big bucks are.

If you give one person $1000 per month, you can improve that person's life with next to zero external consequences. If an organization gives half a million people $1000 per month, the external macro economic impacts must be considered. Societal quality of life improvement is not as simple as in the single-person example. You can't scale one up one to the other and expect the individual result to similarly scale.

If you doubt this true, consider the fact that the US Government currently spends upwards of $1 Trillion /year on welfare programs per year. That is money specifically dedicated to poverty elimination and/or management. An amount that makes the James Web 0.44 billion /year over 25 years look like a rounding error. By your numbers, that $1 Trillion could be used to give each of the ~0.5 million homeless around $1.7 million per year. If it's this simple, why hasn't it been done? Is your assumption about how poverty elimination is as simple as throwing money perhaps incorrect? What do you know that the US Federal government doesn't?

FYI emotional appeals about how a telescope can't help us love each other will do you no favours here. Likewise with implications that you are the only one who cares about homelessness, or that one cannot care about both homelessness and space exploration at the same time.

>If you doubt this true, consider the fact that the US Government currently spends upwards of $1 Trillion /year on welfare programs per year.

This is NOT true. This is a made up figure by Jeff Session ins 2013.

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2013/04/01/about_that_1...

>FYI emotional appeals about how a telescope can't help us love each other will do you no favours here.

I am not looking for favors for myself. And if I cannot appeal to your emotions then WTF is wrong with you? Are you a sociopath?

We already spend over a trillion dollars a year on various welfare programs[1]. Throwing more money at social issues will not help.

> Plus it would pump more money into the economy.

It would "pump" money straight into the pockets of landlords. Its not like the money spent on JWT was shredded...

[1] https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS%20Report%20-...

Pulling welfare funding numbers from "The Desk of Jeff Sessions" might not be a good place to start.

https://www.cbpp.org/blog/the-deeply-flawed-sessions-report-...

So no, we do not spend $1T on "welfare" a year. But let's focus on the money spent specifically for helping house the homeless. It is only $2.5B.

https://www.hud.gov/press/press_releases_media_advisories/HU...

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) today awarded $2.5 billion to renew support to thousands of local homeless assistance programs across the nation. HUD's Continuum of Care (CoC) grants will provide critically needed support to 6,597 local programs on the front lines of serving individuals and families experiencing homelessness. See local impact of funding below.

How many homeless people could be housed if we spent "only" 500 billion on the millitary each year? Or made billionaires pay a paltry 10% tax rate? Or stopped subsidizing oil and gas companies?

Any one of those changes would directly provide orders of magnitude more funds than scrapping this telescope. Getting worked up over such a relatively tiny expense with such longtail upside seems like a crazy place to focus on cutting costs.

This project IS a MIC project. Who do you think this benefits besides astronomers?

https://www.northropgrumman.com/space/james-webb-space-teles...

But yeah, cut spending anywhere, but just can't help not getting excited over this while people are suffering. And I am saying this as a kid who wanted to be an astronomer when he was 13 and worked at a gas station to buy a celestron C80 telescope.

So then you can never get exited about anything for literally the rest of your live no matter if its the largest scientific or technical improvement ever.

Hahah ha hahahahaa...wow. I hope you can hear yourself, and look inward before it is too late for you.

Yes, I would rather save my selfish excitement until after we take care of the suffering of others. I WOULD get excited if we housed every person that needed a house, maybe someone could focus on that "technical improvement" for once.

Yeah I am horrible person for enjoying something while there are people in the world who suffer. I really need to look inward.

All support science, technology, art, culture form all government in the world should be stopped as long as there is a single person without housing in the world? How about education, that a luxury too right? Do we really need new trains or subways as long as there people without housing? Why try to solve climate change, people are suffering now, right?

Are you pure nationalist or are you applying this logic globally? Would you literally support the US stopping all spending on all those things? And invest all of that in helping people in places like South Sudan or Indonesia?

I just hope these donations make it to the people, I donate to things like this (now including this one) and hope it makes a difference.

> That $11B would give about $18000 to all of those people.

Unfortunately you can't just live inside a pile of cash. The problems surrounding homelessness are slightly more complicated than you are letting on, and "we spent the money to buy a telescope instead" is not one of them.

I am homeless. The problem is not complicated. I need money and I do not get enough on disability to live in an apartment near my doctors. So I live in a minivan for now.

People who say "it's complicated" to these issues really just do not want to spend the money on caring for the worst off.

But it is complicated. Are there half a million vacant apartments whose landlords are willing to rent to homeless people for a government check? What does injecting $5.5B/yr to take vacant apartments off the market do to the already skyrocketing cost of housing? What we really need to do to solve the problem, without just making housing more expensive for everyone else, is massively increase the supply of cheap housing. But that's where all the resistance is. Because making housing affordable is in conflict with boosting the value of most voters' single largest investment.

Also, how do you qualify people for this $11B/2year program? Is it just you get free housing if you make under a certain amount of money (or no money at all)? Because I think you'd find you have a lot more applicants than the current homeless population.