Science is a human endeavor, and like all human endeavors, it is subject to human limitations and resource constraints. Humanity surviving is a prerequisite for doing SETI, and that means preferentially allocating resources to projects that work on mitigating existential threats, everything else being equal.

Now, I'm not asking that carpenters be reassigned to work on AI extinction scenarios. That wouldn't make sense, because it's not their area of expertise. But if you are already going to spend resources on hypothetical non-human intelligences, surely the kind of intelligence we are by far most likely to actually encounter deserves the most attention. And in the absence of unlimited resources (i.e., in reality), that goes at the expense of lower priority intelligence scenarios.

Note that these people are asking for a telescope to be built on the moon. That's an absolutely enormous expense, that, needless to say, wouldn't be funded by those scientists but by society as a whole. Resources are limited, so every decision to fund something means not funding something else. Priorities are a thing, and "it's science" doesn't change that.

I find it fascinating that people in 2023 argue with „resource constraints“ when talking about scientific projects. Those guys working on that are experts, they wouldnt do much else, the money spent on this is comparatively a joke in comparison to other spendings with much more questionable reasoning, and starting to question the gain of a project in the scientific space is never really an argument; it lies within the basic idea of science to question and reach out of our comfort zone

> starting to question the gain of a project in the scientific space is never really an argument

It most certainly is, at least in the real world. The ISS has cost more than $150 billion so far. That's not "a joke", it's the GDP of a mid-size country. I very much do hope that everyone involved is asking themselves hard questions about whether this expense is justified by whatever has been gained in return. Science is not a magical la-la-land where people have the right to piss away truckloads of public money on projects they feel are important, simply by virtue of invoking vague platitudes about the "need for humanity to know".

There are an endless number of scientific projects all looking for resources to fund them. If (potential) gain isn't the right criterion for prioritization, then I don't know what is.

It's also about curiosity and fun. The public can fund something they find interesting for the sake of it.

> The ISS has cost more than $150 billion so far.

Wow, a whole three "midlife crisis ceo twitter buyouts".

It'd be cathartic if our kids referred to a gigantic financial blunder in the billions of dollars as pulling an "Elon".

> The ISS has cost more than $150 billion so far.

The UK's "High Speed 2" project is currently budgeted to cost about $125 billion for its ~300mi extent. I very much do hope that everyone involved is asking themselves hard questions about whether this expense is justified by whatever has been gained in return. The UK is not a magical la-la-land where people have the right to piss away truckloads of public money on projects they feel are important, simply by virtue of invoking vague platitudes about the "need to reduce journey time from 71 to 52 minutes".

The ISS seems like a bargain.

And people only looking at the ISS as a "science experiment" are seriously misunderstanding the social impacts as well, especially when it comes to operations that span multiple countries and the relations between them. It's a public spot of cooperation that helps us not only when it comes to science, but when it comes to agree with each other.

Science spending is small in comparison to the the subsidies that get handed out every year to just the banking industry

It's never really an argument for you and yet we are still arguing. SETI is a waste of money. I guess those experts will have to just sit and twiddle their fingers because "they wouldnt do much else". Money wasted is money wasted, doesn't matter how much it is. Sure, for people like you, it's easy to waste other people's money.

> Note that these people are asking for a telescope to be built on the moon. That's an absolutely enormous expense

Less than it cost to send a roadster to Mars. The cost of two superbowl’s worth of adds. The revenue from a moderately successful movie.

By that logic we should only work on what eradicates threat to humanity’s survival. Ok, let’s axe half of the sciences.

Then we could argue that as a species, well before thinking about cutting the budget for space related studies we should cut the military budget. From the perspective of survival of the human species, it is quite stupid to spend money to find more effective ways of killing each other, while any scientific endeavor would be more valuable as long as the primary goal isn't "how to better kill the enemy".

> That's an absolutely enormous expense, that, needless to say, wouldn't be funded by those scientists but by society as a whole.

Looks like you forgot to read the article before commenting.

What enormous expense? They're talking about a cost of $200 million. That is chump change for the _individual billionaire philanthropist_ funding it out of his own pocket, not "society as a whole". This is his play money. Some billionaires own super yachts and other toys that cost multiple times that amount. The Eclipse superyacht cost $1.5 billion, owned by a Russian oligarch. That's 7.5 times the cost of this moon telescope, for one stupid yacht, that itself is a drop in the ocean of expensive toys in the world.