NASA alone spend untold billions on looking at stars and potential planets that may or may not contain life. For the most part, they look at parts of the universe where humanity will sooner die out than actually come close to researching.

It's all noble and good to want to explore, and we do have some appliances and other inventions that have actual pragmatic uses as a byproduct of all this research.



However I can't help but feel that all this money and resource might have better been served researching something more accessible. Like stem cell research, genetic engineering, human cloning, DNA manipulation, undersea exploration, etc.

Just imagine, if scientists can find a way to manipulate an unborn child's genes in order to shape the child before he/she is born. Wouldn't that be a great thing? Take China and it's one-child policy for instance. Imagine if parents had the option to CHOOSE their child's sex, that would be great at dealing with all the orphaned girls. If you can eliminate undesirable physical traits that are due to genetics, people can live a life without being mocked.



That and, there are still plenty of places on Earth that we have yet to thoroughly explore due to accessibility.

The Nazi party held many of the ideas you've expressed concerning genetics.


But, why with your reference to NASA, are you singling out the U.S.?

Yes we spend too much time on space and not earth... example by getting drunk & high

ohhh yeah, i can see how this is appealing.

child by monsanto has a good ring to it!

or not...

You invoked Godwin's Law right from the getgo...just because one or two groups who held these views were a little on the extreme side. Just because Nazi's and Monsanto (two completely different entities) were less than ethical doesn't mean this field they were associated with is inherently wrong.


Also I'm not singling out the US. I said NASA alone spent all that money. Implying just how much more money we're spending if we take all space programs from all around the world into account. When all that money could have went into something more feasible.

I partially agree with you.
Yes human know up to thousands of km in space but not 100 km down the surface.

The best benefits could be-
In the form of new elements probably existing in the core of earth.
Or better, more accurate earth quake warnings and quenching of volcanoes.

However, I feel that present humen (we) are the best because we are naturally selected by the most powerful mother nature.

Also, I some how dont want to know future -for me or for my childern.
Let it be uncertain.

Please think keenly how it would be catastrophic for human if they come to know their future.

I invoked nothing. You did.


We may share a belief...
99.999% of all governments expenditures, are a waste of money through bureaucracy.

Just remember guys....... Without space exploration and Nasa, you wouldn't be typing on your PC right now.

Good point.

Hitler had some very disturbing experiments done in the not very distant past. Less than a century ago my grandfather fought in a World War, in part because one twisted man wanted to genetically modify people and build a "perfect" race. This will inevitably happen again. As it is, many abortions are because the baby is going to be a girl, but the parents want a boy.

Should we devote more resources here on Earth? Probably. But that doesn't mean that we should devote less to space. It doesn't have to be a zero sum game. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. That said, however, I'm not sure that governments should be involved in this. Let the interested pay for their interests. In the name of "science" here on the big blue ball, taxpayers have been made to pay to find out if lesbians are more prone to obesity, the mating habits of frogs, shrimps on treadmills, and other absurd "studies" that most people don't care at all about.

If you are ok with bringing back some of those "experiments" that Adolf Hitler had done, quite frankly, you frighten me. You are either ignorant of history, or worse, you know history and want to repeat it.

You're the one who first brought up the Nazi's. Godwin's Law.




Well, I was aiming for something more along the lines of the fact that our own genes, and the depths of our planet are theoretically much more realistic a goal to tap, yet we hardly spend nearly enough funds on these areas compared to space exploration.

But yeah those things you mentioned would be a likely boon if we decide to learn more about the depths of our planets. Plus, the discovery of more wildlife we could never possibly conceive.


I agree with you that we pretty much reached the extent that the course of nature can possibly bring us. I mean, we'd still evolve, to some small capacity, but it's safe to say we plateau'd.

But in my pov, this is exactly why we should pursue genetics and DNA manipulation. This could potentially bring us as a species to a state that is naturally impossible. More importantly, to further teach ourselves how our bodies work and develop. There are a number of horrible human conditions that are genetic in nature. This may be the best route to tackling them.


Not 100% sure what you mean in your final sentence though.



To be able to manipulate one's sex before birth would help reduce a lot of those specific kinds of abortions. That was the entire point I brought up abortions.

Also, ask yourself this. Are those pointlessly cruel experiments done during Hitler's reign a natural result of the subject matter...or was it because it was headed by someone like Mengele who amputated limbs of twins just because he feels like it? Nazi's have done many MANY things both good and horrible. But you can't let the things they've done forever be linked to them. Or else people would use "Nazi's did it!" as arguments against anti-tobacco and animal rights laws.

The real question is this. If we want to trust governments with these experiments 70 years after destroying an evil regime who conducted them, and knowing the propensity of governments to abuse power, why should we trust that such evil won't happen again? We have politicians the world over who are advocating in favor of other policies implemented by Hitler and using his same arguments. And I'm including American and European politicians among them. So it is only reasonable to believe that they could and eventually will use this "technology" to genetically engineer the "ideal" human being. You look like someone Hitler would have had killed because you don't fit into his master race. What if it's not your race, but another "defect" that makes you "unworthy" to the powers that be. Are you willing to subject yourself to such experimentation? Unless you answer yes, you are a hypocrite.

The OP is making assumptions based on far too limited education on the topic. The advancements beneficial to mankind from the space program are huge (not "some"), and include many related to the medical field. The hard science advancements in astrophysics and material science alone are probably worth the price.

Ironically, some the NASA funded advances are in the fields of micro electronics, software engineering, and radiation sensing which have caused some of the biggest boons to medical technology.

NASA, like many federal agencies, has become full of useless bureaucrats, but every other government involved endeavor is pretty much the same.

Human cloning? .... really?

If humans had the ability to select their child's genes, the natural biodiversity would change and we would learn what we have already learned, .... that genes play different roles and it is the combination of genes that control many body processes. That smart, good looking child at birth suddenly develops a new form of cancer at 50 years of age.

Green, you're the one who brought genetic modification to create a better human race into the conversation, in the original post of this thread.

That you share philosophy with the nazis, is your problem. Not mine.

Hot Diggity,wouldn't Margaret Sanger be proud!

Manipulate an unborn child, that is putting us on a very slippery slope indeed. Let nature take it's course. We already f--k about with nature too much as it is.

and,of course have Government decide who would profit from the "Research",and who would do the "Research" and on whom!

The comment about how the Nazis also did "some good" is also troublesome. Any good they may have done is nullified by the murder of 6 million people. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Maybe, but the baby has already been gassed to death anyway.

would you please enumerate the "Good" the National Socialists have done for Humanity?

I already mentioned them. They were among the pioneers of animal welfare and anti-tobacco tobaccos.

Many of you appear to assume that just because one assumes they did some good, that they also use it to absolve all of their much greater wrongs. People just lose their minds the moment "Nazi" is mentioned.




If you're referring to Tuskegee, the past is in the past. It was an era before the National Research Act was developed. We have hiccups, but to limit scientific endeavors just because of some potential fall-out that may happen would be small-minded.

If you're so worried that the research will only benefit certain people, it'll benefit everyone eventually. There was a time when owning a car was a luxury. Now almost everyone can get one if they want to.




No you see. You brought up the term "Nazi". All I did was bring up an idea that the Nazis also happened to have some dealings with.

You can bring up any idea. But the moment you bring "Hitler" or "Nazi" into the equation, you invoke Godwin's Law. The Nazi's have done an awful lot of things, bad, normal, good, etc.

Hitler ate sugar at some point in his life. So should we ban sugar?




You're right, we don't know nearly as much as we should about nature.

And this is exactly why we should pursue such endeavors. The more of these research and experiments that we do, the more we learn. Let's put it another way. Giving birth used to be a rather dangerous thing, complications were not uncommon and the rate of death was comparatively high. It is only because we devote so much time and effort into learning more about the process, and after much repeated operations that we are where we are today.

We can't halt scientitific advancement just because we're afraid of what may or may not happen. Especially when it's something so harmless.