Bentham, Dirksen, And The Mars Rover

Listen up, everyone. The Imperious Loudmouth is about to speak. And, of course, he's right. But you know that. I've already told you. Many times.

We send too much money into outer space. We should send the people who vote for it.

A few days ago the Rover delivered the “Curiosity” to the surface of Mars. It was a striking scientific achievement and may yield information about the origin of our own planet billions of years ago, as well advance our knowledge of whether there has ever been life on Mars. And it only cost $2,600,000,000. What a bargain. For the low, low price of 2.6 billion dollars we'll be able to satisfy the curiosity of many scientists, as well as provide jobs for a passel of NASA employees, most of whom would quickly find jobs in other scientific settings.

But, as Everett Dirksen is alleged to have said,ⁱ "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money." 2.6 billion dollars may not be much in terms of our national budget,ⁱⁱ but added to other similar endeavors, it adds significantly to our tax bill.ⁱⁱⁱ

The meaning of that cost, however, takes us back further than Dirksen – to Jeremy Bentham and the Utilitarians.^iv Bentham's philosophy, and that of the Utilitarian movement, was simple: it was the goal to maximize “happiness,” or, indeed, to obtain the “greatest happiness for the greatest number.” The value (utility) of the results of an endeavor was the only guide to judging it.

I would never minimize the results of our space program. It certainly cannot be denied that space exploration has merits in providing answers to scientific questions, some, in fact, with the potential to improve our own situation. The exploration of Mars, however, and even moreso the exploration of more distant space, seem to fail Bentham's test of utility – at least for the greatest number.

Not so some alternative use of the funds. For example, according to the World Hunger Education Service, “Children [around the world] are the most visible victims of undernutrition. Children who are poorly nourished suffer up to 160 days of illness each year. Poor nutrition plays a role in at least half of the 10.9 million child deaths each year--five million deaths. Undernutrition magnifies the effect of every disease, including measles and malaria. The estimated proportions of deaths in which undernutrition is an underlying cause are roughly similar for diarrhea (61%), malaria (57%), pneumonia (52%), and measles (45%) (Black 2003, Bryce 2005). Malnutrition can also be caused by diseases, such as the diseases that cause diarrhea, by reducing the body's ability to convert food into usable nutrients.”^v

Various charitable organizations state that it would cost about a dollar a day to feed the hungry,^vi and doing that would prevent numerous hunger deaths^vii – adults as well as children. So 2.6 billion dollars could feed over 7 million starving people for a year. (Dispensing with other unnecessary programs, and projects designed to help campaign contributors, might allow us to help other nations to improve their agricultural programs and to create better conditions for their citizens so they would not be as prone to look for violent solutions.)

It's nice to know that, should life on earth no longer be optimal, we might live on Mars, but when that time arrives we may find that we're simply moving our problems to another place – transferring international conflicts and doomsday machines to a place which we haven't evolved to live in – rather than correcting them in our natural habitat. But that's the stuff of Star Trek. If the earth is no longer inhabitable, it's unclear how we would move about 7 billion people^viii through space to Mars or some other place^ix we identify at high cost. How important is it to know about places that even our descendants will never see, but will have to pay for? Perhaps we should spend billions or trillions investigating that problem. That will probably be politically preferable and more eye-catching than feeding the hungry and wiping out disease in countries away from our view. And it will feed the curiosity of hundreds – perhaps thousands – of scientists. Can you think of something more worth votes?

Next episode: “Politics, Leadership, Polls, And Language" -- It ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it.

i     He may have said something like that, but he denied the specific quotation. Since he liked it, however, he never really corrected the misimpression.

ii       $3.796 trillion in Fiscal 2012.

iii    As do numerous weapons systems, entitlement programs, tax breaks, and boondoggles.

iv    It only sounds like a singing group. It's actually a philosophic movement.

v     http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm

vi    Perhaps that's an overestimate based on their own overhead costs, but even if it it would cost more, it would probably be a lot less costly than if it became a governmental program with all the accompanying bureaucracy and regulations.

vii    And improve the lives of many others who were fed.

viii  That's what it is now (2012). Who knows what it might be when the time arrived.

ix    To which the transportation would be far longer, many lifetimes, if it is at all possible.