There have been a series of arguments on whether to fund money more on space exploration to explore what is out there or, to find a solution to world hunger and poverty. Indeed space exploration does have it’s own indirect benefits, it's still filled with uncertainty. As world famine has become a growing complication (along with several other factors), riot and uncivilization is inevitable. Therefore, if the government had to make the choice in funding only one of the projects, the most logical project to finance and support would be the termination of famine in our society.
When the Australian lab discovered proof of advanced alien life on a planet similar to Earth, a large portion of this remains unrevealed. Similarly, nobody is certain as to the events that occur in space; it is contingent that the alien life would be disrupted, or the planet was nothing as assumed, etc. Hence making the entire mission would be a high risk, an immense confusion and a colossal waste of money. Why invest in something X million years away
…show more content…
Clearly then, with this burden, the number of people who struggle to live every day (the thought of space travel not even imagined) is and abounding amount; this needs to be established. For example, people can’t “reach for the starts” if the Earth below their feet is rotting, right before their eyes. In other words, Earth has all the perfect conditions for supporting human life- and when it has its problems, people chose to ignore them and set out to venture out other areas (maybe even dirtying that area as well). In addition to this, NASA has invested $11 billion on space exploration, and not much at all with their own planet and an abnormal amount of that money has gone down the drain. Accordingly, people have lost their sense of hope in the government-this can be brought up again if the government provides a resolution that more people agree with (fixing world