Those of us in Europe spend two ten thousandths of our wages each year on space exploration and related research. That £5 is nothing if you ask me. Consider, for example, that each taxpayer in England pays £281 each year to Scotland in subsidies.
So when you hear that the Earth really cannot cope with everyone being as rich as people are in the UK, it makes you stop and think. What are our priorities? Should we be worrying about third-world poverty when the very act of bringing them up to our standard will result in the destruction of Earth?
We must not ignore the third world, but if we’re to continue to survive as a species, living elsewhere is our only hope. We must explore space.
The article goes on to make some ridiculous claims though. It says:
* In 2004, the UK exported 1,500 tonnes of fresh potatoes to Germany, and imported 1,500 tonnes of the same product from the same country
* Imported 465 tonnes of gingerbread, but exported 460 tonnes of the same produce
* Sent 10,200 tonnes of milk and cream to France, yet imported 9,900 tonnes of the dairy goods from France
I am sure there are German potato species that are the same and which, if things were organised a la Swiss, we could avoid duplicating the export and import of; but isn’t it far more likely that the potatoes are different varieties and that they’ve grown at different times of year?
We import 9,900 tonnes of “dairy goods” from France, but would we really be happy to see the copious amounts of French brie replaced with English stilton? They’re not comparable! (I had to work really hard to avoid the old chalk and cheese similie). Yes, yes, I know Somerset makes lovely Brie, but can they make it in the proportions necessary to replace all French imports?
Finally, when it all comes down to it, isn’t this really a question of socialists using environmentalism to further their once-dead cause?
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
#1 by Dave on April 15th, 2006 - 7:24 pm
Yes, Marxists using environmentalism to reassert their sillyness.
I am not sure about the Space programme, I think a lot of people would be happy to spend more than that. but on the other hand would you not prefer to support private ventures?
Sometimes I think I would love to see a much bigger EU space programme, but then since I’m against EU superstate I would be concerned about it being used to promote closer a union.
#2 by Gav on April 15th, 2006 - 7:43 pm
That’s one of the great things (at the moment) about ESA — it’s not an EU organisation and has no political aspirations. NASA has recently been stymied by Bush’s redirection of funds and policy and, while I support Bush’s new direction, it must be very frustrating and is very wasteful to change on a whim like this.
When we look at what is spent on other good causes I cannot see any arguments against slightly more funding. Personally, if I could, I’d pay more in by donation.
But the private ventures thing is the future. The X Prize had me so excited I couldn’t sleep. What has kept everything tame is the enormous start-up costs and the lack of a real short-term economic goal.
That short-term economic goal should be created. ESA, NASA and Russia, China and Japan (if they’re interested) should collaborate to target the mining of precious metals from asteroids. Once that has been achieved the technology used to achieve it should be made freely available so that companies can start mining asteroids themselves with fewer development costs.
The myriad other economic ventures that branch off of that would surprise us, I am sure.
#3 by AJD on April 17th, 2006 - 7:39 am
Here is the original report:
http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/uploads/f2abwpumbr1wp055y2l10s5514042006174517.pdf
It’s statistics on milk and cream export/imports that were presented, not brie/cheddar! So actually, with regards to milk, it is rather crazy that we import and export the same ammount of produce, because milk is just milk! (It’s just the BBC doing some dodgy editing again.) We also have a similar relationship with the export and import of sugar – which is also madness. Boneless chicken is the same.
That said, the article also compares things like potatoes and apples (as you point out – what variety?) and fish (what species?).
I think the article presents the facts fairly well, although I have just skim read it, so might have missed lots of bias
They don’t always compare like-with-like, but they have got a point.