Space Exploration: Facing the Consequences

Throughout the history of the world, Space Exploration has been known to be a form of success for various nations. The United States in particular has been always been a part of this worldwide “space race,” competing with other countries for simply knowing more about the possible worlds beyond our own. This raises some concerns about the ethical purposes behind this competition, and the financial necessity to keep it up and running. Although exploring the universe beyond Earth definitely has its perks, the toll it has on the citizens at home is too great a cost.

Space exploration has always been at great expense to the United States. The only practical way to fund it is through government spending, which ultimately comes from taxpayers. Expanding this program to eventually put Americans in space as a means of living seems a bit out of reach, but large programs like NASA are convinced that with an increase in their budget they will able to fulfill these wishes. Russell Roberts from Morning Edition notes that while he enjoys space, and the things we have been able to learn as a society from it, he gets “no thrill from the Bush plan to put Americans on Mars.” Is it really necessary to put Americans on other planets? Especially when all the revenue for this project would be generated from citizens of the U.S. These financial concerns extend beyond the simple increase in taxes. When it comes to dividing up the federal budget, the United States looks as though it has it’s priorities in check. Looking at the graph in Source C, it looks as though there is less than 6 cents per every tax dollar earned that is spent on programs such that provide space exploration. This is merely a small piece of the complete budget. The majority of the money generated goes to things such as Social Security, National defense, Medicare and other various forms of health aide. The money is being well spent, as results directly show from research by the National Institutes of Health (Source D). Since the 1970s, the overall standard of living and the health of Americans has improved a great deal. Death from heart disease has decreased by over 50%, survival rate for childhood cancer patients has risen 20%, more and more vaccines are preventing infectious disease outbreaks -- the list goes on. None of this would have been possible without funding by the government. To spend more money on Space Exploration would take away from what these essential health programs do for our nation as a whole, and should be taken into account when deciding what should be done with our nation’s money.

Making sure America’s money is spent on the right programs might be one of the toughest set of decisions made by the government. Everyone has a multitude of opinions contributing to where they think the money would be most needed. That being said, McLean discusses the ethics of giving more money to space exploration, noting that the United States “does not have a very good track record in protecting our planet at home.” Expanding our influence further than any nation has ever done before is something that is only natural to be desired. But is it really necessary? Focusing on what is going on at home, and fixing issues here -- because there are quite a few -- should be the main priority.

McLean also mentions the idea of “stewardship,” saying that we as humans are not “owners of the solar system but [are] responsible managers of its wonder and beauty.” As we expand our influence in space, it is important to keep in mind that “space preservation”, “space conservation”, and “space sustainability” are all principles that must be considered (Source E). There is also the contamination issue, brought forth by Richard Greenberg (Source F). Basically there is worry, with just cause, of bringing back contaminants from space, or bringing contaminants to space. Either way, the results of this happening could be detrimental because there is so much we don’t know about what is beyond our planet’s atmosphere. While exploring space would bring us answers to these questions, it is not without great risk.

This international “space race” has been quite a benefit to society. Without it, the drive to make technological advances that better our everyday lives would not have come about. But this race to the worlds beyond ours has caused some clouding of judgement by some nations and their desire to be powerful. There are many issues on Earth, the planet we call home, that need to be dealt with before we travel to a new one. While studying space and exploring its every corner are very important, additional funding by the government -- basically coming from taxpayers -- is not necessary. America can keep its powerful status as a country by widely distributing it’s resources to remain a well-rounded nation.

Synthesis - The Dumbest Generation

In our ever-changing world today, things are a lot different than they were a few decades ago. Technology has become a necessity in the majority of American lives. Knowing how to use it is essential, and being considered “tech-savvy” is practically a compliment. Mark Bauerlein, writer of the novel “The Dumbest Generation” refers to the population of people 30 years or younger to be the dumbest. This belief is illogical, for the people themselves are not losing their intelligence -- it is society’s expectations that have changed. What is considered important to know and what is thought to be irrelevant is always changing. The world today is moving at a much faster pace than it used to with the help of technology. This younger generation is not any dumber than previous generations; it is just growing up in a different fashion.

The word ‘dumb’ has such a negative connotation. When someone is referred to as dumb, it means they are incompetent of completing simple tasks or knowing simple answers to simple questions. Bauerlein states that according to research, people of this younger generation have declining “intellectual habits” (Source 1). This is a very large generalization, and it holds little truth. The population today is simply adapting to the constant advances made in technology, learning how to take advantage of them, and use devices to their full purpose. Why waste time looking through a dictionary to find what a word means when you can look it up online in a matter of seconds? There is nothing wrong with making things a little easier, and if that is considered to be dumb then there must be multiple definitions of the word. In the real world, memorizing facts isn’t going to help you be successful, and that should not be a measure of intelligence.

Sharon Begley writes that people continue to possess traits that allow them to “learn and remember, to see analogies, distinguish fact from opinion,” all of which are some of the most important and useful traits one can have (Source 2). To be able to think critically and logically through certain issues is what will ultimately lead to a successful and well-rounded life.

Technology has done more good than bad when referring to its effects on society and our modern world. Take Google for example. Nicholas Carr, writer for the Atlantic magazine notes the search engine’s efficiency. “Once I was a scuba diver in a sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski,” Carr says, simply noting the fact that compared to the old way of finding information, Google is a much different experience (Source 4). It is one of the most popular companies, most known for it’s superb search engine. With the click of a button you can find the answer to millions of questions that would’ve taken hours to find in a book or on other print sources. The World Wide Web is a powerful source, allowing us to spend less time searching for what we want to know. If a student were assigned to write a research paper on pandas, using an encyclopedia would be much harder in terms of finding the specific information needed. Some might even assume that a student who is part of “the dumbest generation” has no idea how to use an encyclopedia. But with the new technology it is no longer necessary to flip through the pages of a big book when all the same facts can be found on your computer screen. In the graphic from The New Yorker cover, there is a boy on his computer with headphones on in the middle of a library, surrounded by a multitude of books (Source 8). The message this immediately conveys is a negative one toward the overuse of technology. But who’s to say he isn’t currently researching pandas for his upcoming assignment? Technology is an educational resource, much like an encyclopedia, that when used to it’s full potential, does not make a person dumber.

There is no doubt that society has been greatly changed by this digital revolution. Different ways of thinking should not be seen as inferior to the old ways. New gadgets and gizmos that make finding ideas and communicating your ideas globally are not dumbing down the population, but are making it stronger and more intelligent.

Argument - 2008 A

Education in the US is in need of more funding than ever, and it is hard for a lot of schools to receive the needed funds. Government spending and taxes paid by the people doesn't cover 100 percent of schooling costs in some areas. This has resulted in schools using advertising as a means for making money. While others may argue against this revenue generating tactic, it is very beneficial to the schools. It allows for an overall better education.

In a school environment, students are expected to work diligently and learn what they can. Advertising can be seen as a distraction from the purpose of schooling in general. A student may see a sign in the hallway promoting a certain type of food, distracting the student from their upcoming class or test. Also, this certain food may promote an unhealthy lifestyle. When a school signs with a corporate sponsor, a student attending that school is forced to be exposed to that type of advertising. In the real world, advertisements can be easily avoided if desired by the person.

On the other hand, schools need a lot of money to function. In areas where less of that is available, advertising is a good source of revenue to allow for a better educational experience. Advertising is everywhere all around the world. So students are going to be exposed to advertising anyways, so whether that is in school or outside of school, it is bound to happen. The amount of distractions that advertisements would cause do not outweigh the cost benefits it would provide for schools in underprivileged areas.Students will be able to have more materials and technology they would’ve had to go without had it not been for the corporate partner’s funds.

Without support from these corporations, a lot of schools would suffer, which in turn would reflect on the educational success of the students. Increasing taxes and government spending in these areas would be detrimental to the citizens in the area. Despite the distractions and the “forced” exposure to the companies, the benefits a school can receive from this extra funding are definitely worth it.