Scientist and engineers also need to justify their desire for other people's money.

Generally the justification for that is "I'll make you more money, either in the short run or in the long run."

Somehow, this is the only justification we can get anyone to agree on in the modern world. Should we educate kids? "Sure, as long as its STEM so they can be good taxpayers."

Come to think of it, this is also often the justification for art. Should I buy this piece? "Of course, it will gain in value"

"and why do you want more money?"

"because it'll make me happy"

"why not just buy this lovely [painting/poem/record] instead, it'll directly give you joy"

fr nothing pisses me off more than people saying that only STEM education is valuable

I would actually argue that STEM education is generally harmful in that it acts like it's the only thing important. Honestly, engineering and technology is mainly made difficult by engineers themselves, who have little influence from other fields.

No one said otherwise. But let's be honest. Do they really currently have to justify things to such a degree that artists do?

The National Endowment for the Arts' budget is less than $200 million. Here's the approximate budgets for scientists and engineers:

* NASA: $23 billion

* NSF: $10 billion

* DARPA: $4.3 billion

* DoD: $780 billion (a lot of which goes to defense contractors and laboratories)

* The self-driving car industry has spent around $50 billion. And what have we got out of that industry that justifies that spending?

* Cryptocurrency startups are expected to get around $12 billion in funding in 2024. What have we got out of it that justifies that budget?

* Scientists got $5 billion dollars to smash around particles and play with statistics.

When it comes to funding, scientists, engineers, and tech-related endeavors have it extremely easy, and no one places the demands on the tech industry that they do on other industries.