Yes, I meant we as human beings, but in some places, the pronouns really points to us on HN who appreciate the value of science and technologies.
About coming to an agreement on the global stage, I admit this is almost impossible. However, the 2015 "Paris Agreement" was signed by a very large numbers of countries ; Trump decided to get the USA out. In all cases, only a handful of small countries have kept to their word. Not one country of the EU respected it, not even France, the organizer of that conference. Appalling.
My point was more ethical than practical. My opinion is that spending money to put humans in space is henceforth a waste of money. The ISS, the international space station, has cost 140 billions with very little scientific yield. Except one: how the humans do in space. And the result is crystal clear: they don't do well. My father was a space engineer with a Phd in orbital control and a close friend of the family has been and still is today one the MDs in charge of European astronauts' health.
Many space programs result from international cooperation, sometimes quite large like the ISS. Those countries could decide that climate dereliction and massive loss of biodiversity are more urgent matters than a base on the Moon to replace the ISS (on the verge of being retired).
So the countries concurring to these space programs could as well work together to enlarge our knowledge of the oceans. As mentioned, I wonder if that is such a good idea.
Comments
Who is "we", in this case? Humanity as a whole does not really have any means of coming to agreement or making collective decisions...
Yes, I meant we as human beings, but in some places, the pronouns really points to us on HN who appreciate the value of science and technologies.
About coming to an agreement on the global stage, I admit this is almost impossible. However, the 2015 "Paris Agreement" was signed by a very large numbers of countries ; Trump decided to get the USA out. In all cases, only a handful of small countries have kept to their word. Not one country of the EU respected it, not even France, the organizer of that conference. Appalling.
My point was more ethical than practical. My opinion is that spending money to put humans in space is henceforth a waste of money. The ISS, the international space station, has cost 140 billions with very little scientific yield. Except one: how the humans do in space. And the result is crystal clear: they don't do well. My father was a space engineer with a Phd in orbital control and a close friend of the family has been and still is today one the MDs in charge of European astronauts' health.
Many space programs result from international cooperation, sometimes quite large like the ISS. Those countries could decide that climate dereliction and massive loss of biodiversity are more urgent matters than a base on the Moon to replace the ISS (on the verge of being retired).
So the countries concurring to these space programs could as well work together to enlarge our knowledge of the oceans. As mentioned, I wonder if that is such a good idea.