AS IMPORTANT as the discovery of alien life forms may appear to be, this should not be a priority of the United States government.
The House space science subcommittee heard testimony from experts on the possibility of extraterrestrial life on such gaseous planets of Jupiter and Uranus and in distant galaxies. In 1994, federal funding for the Search for Extraterrestrial Life, SETI, was cut off as lawmakers derided it as a "search for little green men."
(http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/07/13/congress.alienlife.ap/index.html) The subcommittee is reopening the door and talk now abounds about resuming funding for the SETI project. But even if science suggests the possibility of extraterrestrial life, investment in this project would still be an unwise decision.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) says "the discovery of life in the universe would be one of the most astounding discoveries in human history." Sure, and the world's rarest diamond would be a cool thing to find too, but this doesn't mean that because it sparks our curiosity that it is a worthwhile government pursuit and expenditure. But that's not what Smith thinks. He goes on to say: "Funding should match public interest and I don't believe it does." Here are a few other things Smith should add to his list: pornography, "Survivor," boy bands and fast food. These are all things for which public interest is incommensurate with public funding for them. If Smith really believes what he says, he better start to suggest funding a lot of other things that pique the average American's curiosity.
But sparking interest does not in any way equate to having a good reason to spend government money.
While this proposal may see us spending millions of dollars in the hopes of finding some water on a gaseous planet which may spell hope for possibly finding ant-like life, such a pursuit is useless. This translates into millions of dollars foregone on serious scientific research, such as cancer research (or forgive me for mentioning this, but embryonic cell research). It shouldn't take much more emphasis to show that even if finding extraterrestrial ants and water on other planets is good and disciplined science, it's useless science when problems that require serious attention lose out as a result.
One objection is that the public pays taxes, so it should get to see its money used on some of what it wants. This is flawed for a few reasons. That the government taxes citizens at all is a statement that, in some matters, it knows better than citizens how best to care for themselves. If not, what's the purpose in extracting money anyway? If citizens know best in all matters, tax money could be left in their pockets and they would know to organize and contract among themselves to build roads, lampposts and many other common goods. But citizens simply don't do this, which is why we rely on government to know better in some instances.
But the government can't throw away the charge of responsibility and waste money on dumb projects that tickle Americans' curiosity. If it does, it is just as foolish as the people it is supposedly knowing better than and protecting. If government acts foolishly, it would have no justification to tax at all!
If people really want to see research done on this, they'll donate their money privately. But even if the tax money that could be spent on this research is returned to the people, I highly doubt that it would leave anyone's pocket. This suggests that the lawmakers on this committee are mistaken, in any case, about the "public interest" in this research. Thus, to spend money on this, citing the "public interest" is disingenuous.
It seems that this subcommittee has conflated something that may be called good science with a good government pursuit. This is a serious confusion. A hefty investment in something that is so inconsequential should be avoided. Granted seven years ago, lawmakers dismissing SETI as a search for little green men were coy, quick to judge, maybe even rude, but let's not try to rectify an act of incivility with a policy of crass stupidity.
This is not to dismiss completely exploration of the unknown. But the evidence suggests that we won't find intelligent life in our galaxy and the evidence further suggests that, at present, we don't have the means to find extraterrestrial life in other galaxies. At best, we'll find very small creatures. So let's channel our energy into the areas of the unknown that have a greater promise in yielding results, such as in the area of cell research, where a lot of good can come of a discovery.
Even though this subcommittee has a special interest in its particular corner of policy, it should at least have some sense of priority before it starts to champion the non-sensical.
(Jeffrey Eisenberg is the Cavalier Daily opinion editor. He can be reached at jeisenberg@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 22 hours agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
