Astronomy isn't limited to the US and the NSF is not the only funding agency in the US. Sure, the annual cost isn't $50B/year, but that's a shitty metric to use, it is textbook tragedy of the commons.
It properly captures what populations, acting through their governments, think of the importance and value of astronomy.
It doesn't capture the value of individuals looking up and seeing stars. But I suspect the continued migration to highly illuminated cities shows that value isn't very high either.
Comments
The importance society places on something can be judged by how much money it's willing to spend on it.
The NSF budget for astronomy is $250M/year.
Revenue projections for Starlink reach as high as $50B/year.
Astronomy isn't limited to the US and the NSF is not the only funding agency in the US. Sure, the annual cost isn't $50B/year, but that's a shitty metric to use, it is textbook tragedy of the commons.
It properly captures what populations, acting through their governments, think of the importance and value of astronomy.
It doesn't capture the value of individuals looking up and seeing stars. But I suspect the continued migration to highly illuminated cities shows that value isn't very high either.
The global market for ice cream is already $60B/year.
Your point? If the world had to choose between astronomy and ice cream, it would choose the latter.