“Sending 6 people through space is a whole lot different then starting a World War.”
Not in terms of the context of what I was talking about. Both are ventures that people can attempt to justify by pointing at the technological innovations produced as a mere side effect. I specifically chose the example of a world war because when you apply that kind of argument to that example, it is immediately clear to everyone what a bad justification that is.
It’s exactly the same for space travel. If you have to point at an unpredictable and unreliable side effect as the main benefit to justify it, then you have already gone off the rails. These things need to be justified based on their own merits, the merits of the main goal of the mission, and the feasibility of obtaining that goal. Once you can do that, THEN you can factor in the side effects as additional benefits.
Mere side effect? Some things happen from “side-effects”, but most space travel is researched hard before attempts are made.
But I see your point. I’m not talking about side effects. I’m talking about results and what they mean for manufacturing, research, theology, etc.
Space exploration does not need to be justified , it needs to be done. You can’t justify space exploration because that’s what it is, exploration. Inherently it’s going to be unpredictable because you’re blazing the path. The only justification is that we need to do it because there is more out there that we cannot even fathom. It’s important to humanity, as individuals and mankind as a whole to seek answers and bring a higher quality of life to humanity. That’s all the justification needed, and it is the “big picture” goal of any singular mission. It is productive, worthwhile, and justifiable in the simplest terms. War isn’t.
Your argument falls apart when you compare war to space exploration, the first sentence even.