CPs to Solve Competitiveness/Economy/stem advanced Manufacturing Networks cp

Fund NASA CP

Notes

• 
  The net benefit is politics or any education DA (Two for One, etc.)
  
• 
  Solves economy / competitiveness
  
• 
  Also solves the STEM aff’s science advantage
  

1NC — Fund NASA CP

Text: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Solves economy – accesses the internal link quicker than the aff

Barth 12 (Steve; a staff writer for Forbes, writing about investing, personal finance, markets, news, tech and whatever else falls through the cracks, he manages Intelligent Investing, and have the privilege of interviewing some of the greatest minds in investing, business and politics through Steve Forbes' Intelligent Investing interview series; “Neil deGrasse Tyson: Invest In NASA, Invest In U.S. Economy”; https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisbarth/2012/03/13/neil-degrasse-tyson-invest-in-nasa-invest-in-u-s-economy/#6af3fae115dc; published 3/13/2012; accessed 7/11/17) [TG]

Neil deGrasse Tyson is an accomplished astrophysicist and popular author whose latest book, Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier, lays out the case for continuing to advance the space frontier. Tyson is the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space, as well as an astrophysics research associate at the American Museum of Natural History. He served on the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry in 2001 and the President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy in 2004, and is known for his passionate advocacy for space exploration. Last week I had the chance to talk with Tyson about why he thinks space exploration is a necessary economic driver, and why funding NASA is an investment the U.S. government can't ignore. Chris Barth: You’ve noted that NASA’s budget isn’t as much an expenditure as an investment. Neil deGrasse Tyson: I think many people don’t think of it that way, but that’s certainly how I see it. And how the history of that money has revealed itself in our economy. And the return on the investment comes in the form of innovation and technological advancement? That’s correct. Not only innovations that come directly from solving the challenges of advancing a space frontier, but also the culture and society that arises from being a participant in that frontier. In other words, yes, of course you have to innovate to discover something tomorrow that you didn’t know today – some new idea has to arise, some new solution to a problem. Some new material has to be invented. Of course. That would go on, with direct reference to space achievements. In fact, NASA puts out a book called Spin Offs, which is a complete discussion of all the fundamental patents and discoveries that became commercial products in the year preceding. But I would argue that that’s not even the greatest value of NASA. It’s the shift in attitude that it brings upon our culture, where people then see and feel the role that innovations in science and technology play in their lives. They embrace that as a part of the identity of our culture itself. You get people innovating even if they’re not directly related to the space program, because we have an innovation culture. I assert that that was the culture that prevailed in the 1960s and into the early 1970s. Once you have an innovation culture, even those who are not scientists or engineers – poets, actors, journalists – they, as communities, embrace the meaning of what it is to be scientifically literate. They embrace the concept of an innovation culture. They vote in ways that promote it. They don’t fight science and they don’t fight technology. They recognize how fundamental those activities are to the identity of the nation, but more importantly to the economic health of the nation. Because these are the engines of the economy. You can look at the 1960s, the peak of space exploration, and I think many people would characterize that period as the peak of the attitude that you’re talking about. So why is there this disconnect now? Why do people think of space exploration as an academic pursuit? Because they don’t think of it the same way. They just don’t. I think I understand why – I didn’t do the tests on this, but it’s plausibly correct that we live in an era where we think of the solutions to problems by applying money directly to that problem. For example, we need more scientists; let’s improve our science teachers. OK, we’re done there. We need more jobs; let’s create more factories so we have more jobs. We want more innovation; there are companies that do innovation, let’s fund those more. The idea is that somehow these are all separate problems and we go over and just fix them one by one. But in fact, by my read of history, by my read of human behavior, by my read of government funding streams, these efforts amount to no more than Band-Aids on sores that have opened up in our society caused by a much deeper absence – the absence of an innovation culture. So when you say “NASA creates jobs,” people think it’s because tax money buys the jobs that NASA pays directly for. The direct A-to-B thinking again. It takes more than a few steps of reasoning to see how NASA influences a culture and how that culture innovates, creates the economies of tomorrow, stabilizes and then grows your economy. That’s a multi-step exercise that certainly economists understand easily. To writers for Forbes, it’s self-evident. But everybody else, apparently not. When you put money directly to a problem, it makes a good headline. It makes a good campaign slogan. You get to claim that you’ve engaged in these activities within an election cycle. But certain investments take longer than an election cycle. Those that take longer than an election cycle tend to be susceptible to people wanting to redirect them to immediate problems that they see sitting right in front of them.

Directory: file -> view
view -> Western Europe after wwii
view -> Author study: paul fleischman
view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide
view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg
view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh
view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce
view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy
view -> Table of Contents Lesson #
view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad

Download 0.72 Mb.

Share with your friends: