Should more money be spent on space exploration rather than to solve humanitarian problems on Earth?

On July 20th, 1969, a scientific breakthrough was made.  Neil Armstrong became the first human to ever set foot on Earth’s only Moon.  Ever since this remarkable day, his famous words “that’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” have been memorialised.  According to the Guardian, in that year alone, the total US federation spending was 178,134 million dollars. In 2015, this number was estimated to be 4,385,531 million dollars.[1]  Evidently, an enormous amount of money is spent on space exploration each year, yet simultaneously there are vital humanitarian problems occurring on our planet.  Should such a vast amount of money be spent on space exploration as opposed to helping the millions of people in need?
20th century astronomer Edwin Hubble uncovered extremely important evidence that the universe is expanding.  In 1924,Hubble used the 100-inch Hooker Telescope on Mount Wilson near California, and observed

billions of galaxies besides the Milky Way (prior to this it was believed that the Milky Way was the only galaxy in the Universe), the galaxies all moving away from each other.  In 1929, he published his findings, concluding that the universe is expanding.[2]  Almost four decades after his death in 1953, NASA named the Hubble Space Telescope in honour of one of the most important astronomers of all time.  This telescope has provided a great deal of scientific data and extremely detailed images of faraway galaxies.  We now know that there are at least 10 trillion planetary systems in the known universe; Earth is just one of them.[3]
Though space exploration may seem needless and unnecessary given the humanitarian problems Earth is facing in this current moment, we must simply put our place in the universe into perspective.  There is so much that is unknown about the world we live in, and space exploration is the key to finding out more about our existence. With at least 200 billion galaxies in the universe, many scientists believe that there must be intelligent life elsewhere in our universe.  In fact, the odds that there is only intelligent life on Earth are about one in 10 billion trillion.[4]
Utilitarianism is a philosophy which states that morality is about maximising utility for the majority of the society.  18th century English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, argued that, “the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation”.[5]  Nearly half of the world’s population are living on less than $2.50 a day, and concurrently, millions of pounds are being spent on further space exploration.[6]  If anything, shouldn’t we be cutting this amount?  People who believe in utilitarianism will argue that everyone should have the equal opportunity to live a happy and healthy life.  Therefore, because such a large number of people are suffering, we must make it our number one priority to save them. Arguably, space exploration will not benefit the millions and millions of people living in corrupt areas, unable to read and write, let alone understand this information.  Space exploration is not necessarily something that we need right now. However, poverty is a contemporary issue.  In fact, according to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty.  Another disturbing statistic is that malaria, an easily curable disease, kills one child every 30 seconds.[7]  This means that 4 children have died since the beginning of this article.  Artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) are an extremely effective treatment, formed by combining artemisinin-based compounds with other antimalarials; an adult dose costs less than a dollar.[8]  Shouldn’t wealthier countries be sending aid to low income countries, rather than spending millions on space exploration, when such a large number of people are dying from such curable diseases?

Overpopulation has been a concern for several years due to the rapid population increase that Earth has experienced.  It is predicted that by 2050, the world’s population will be 9 billion; many scientists believe, however, that Earth can carry a maximum of 9 billion to 10 billion people, based on limited availability of freshwater and constrained food supplies.[9]  Despite this, it is not certain exactly how many people Earth can sustain as figures are constantly changing.  The human race is expanding and eventually, planet Earth will simply not be big enough. To overcome this problem, one solution is to colonise another planet, which would involve spending even more money on space exploration.  NASA is currently planning the colonisation of Mars, aiming to send humans to the planet in the 2030s. If the mission is successful, this could change the world as we know it. During a public lecture at the London Science Museum, Stephen Hawking argued that space colonisation will act as a ‘life insurance’ for the human species.  With human conflict and weapons such as nuclear bombs threatening the future of the human race, Hawking claimed we must colonise planets.[10]  There are estimated to be 20,500 nuclear warheads in the world today, enough to destroy the entire earth.[11]  This is a huge concern to the human race and therefore, arguably, we must colonise planets in order to gain greater world security.
Despite the modern form of humans evolving about 200,000 years ago, there is still so much that is unknown about Earth and it has not fully been explored yet.  According to National Geographic, around 1.2 million species are known to science and a new study predicts that there are 8.7 million species living on our planet.[12]  This means that we have a record of just fourteen percent of the species currently living on Earth.  Billions of pounds have been spent on space exploration, whereas it could be far more valuable to spend more money on the exploration of our own planet.  For example, approximately 71 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by water, yet scientists know very little about the oceans. In fact, to this date man has only explored 5% of the oceans.[13]  Oceans are incredibly important to our planet.  They provide jobs and seafood, regulate Earth’s temperature and produce more than half of the Earth’s oxygen whilst absorbing carbon from the atmosphere.  Shouldn’t we be spending more money on exploring the remaining 95% of ocean that is right here on our own blue planet?

For 160 million years, the Earth was ruled by dinosaurs.  The most common theory for the mass extinction is that a large asteroid struck the Earth.  It is then believed that the atmospheric matter blocked out the sun creating a nuclear winter which wiped out the plants, then the plant-eaters and eventually the meat-eaters.  Because of this, there is a fear that this could happen again and wipe out the entire human species. It is therefore important that scientists monitor asteroids which pose a threat to Earth.  Asteroids are essentially the remains of the material which formed the solar system, around 4.5 billion years ago. They vary hugely in size, the largest being about 583 miles in diameter, compared to the smallest having roughly a 2 meter diameter.[14]  Radar is a vital tool which detects and monitors potential asteroid hazards.  It works by reflecting transmitted signals off of objects, allowing scientists to learn a great deal about an asteroid’s orbit, size and rotation.
Several missions have flown to asteroids, allowing scientists to gain a greater insight into how the solar system

formed.  For example, in September 2007, NASA launched a mission, Dawn, to study the two largest objects in the asteroid belt, Vesta and Ceres.  The mission provided data on the role of size and water in the evolution of the planets and as a result hugely helps in NASA’s goal of understanding the origins of our solar system.  Ultimately, exploring asteroids can be hugely beneficial, mitigating the risk of a large asteroid hitting Earth and also helping us to understand more about the origins of the solar system.
To summarise, the arguments in support of more money being spent on space exploration are persuasive.  It is certainly true that further space exploration would bring many advantages; for example providing answers to the many questions we have surrounding our existence.  Are we alone in this universe? How did life begin? Why exactly did the dinosaurs become extinct? Is time travel possible? All part of the endless list of questions that comes with human curiosity.  Furthermore, it allows us to challenge the boundaries of what is known about the world we live in. Nevertheless, with such significant humanitarian issues occurring on our planet, more attention must be paid to these issues.  It is time to put an end to world problems like poverty. Even a fraction of the money spent annually on space exploration could save millions of people in poverty-stricken countries, and improve living conditions for future generations.  The foundations of the world we live in are largely based on science and it is indeed vital to extend our knowledge of the universe.  However, space exploration is not something we need in this very moment. We must prioritise the needs of our human race and only wholly concentrate on space exploration once there is a large improvement in the humanitarian issues Earth is currently facing.

  1. “NASA Budgets: US Spending on Space Travel since 1958”, The Guardian, February 1, 2010,
  2. “The Expanding Universe”, Sloan Digital Sky Survey, accessed November 17, 2018
  3. David Salt. “Study Predicts Trillions of Planets”, ABC Science, September 24, 2003,
  4. Mike Wall. “The Universe has Probably Hosted many Alien Civilizations: Study”,, May 5, 2016,
  5. Julia Driver. “The History of Utilitarianism”, last modified September 22, 2014,
  6. United Nations, Human Development Report 2014- Sustaining Human Progress:Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience (United Nations Development Programme, 2015), 19,
  7. UNICEF, “Fact Sheet: Malaria, a Global Crisis”, last modified August 27, 2004
  8. Kathryn A. O’Connell et al., “Got ACTs? Availability, price, market share and provider knowledge of anti-malarial medicines in public and private sector outlets in six malaria-endemic countries”, Malaria Journal, October 31, 2011,
  9. Natalie Wolchover. “How many People can the Earth Support?”, Science Live, October 11, 2011,
  10. Andrew Griffin. “Stephen Hawking: Space Travel will save Mankind and we Should Colonise other Planets”, Independent, February 20, 2015,
  11. Sam Biddle. “How Many Nukes Would it Take to Blow up the Planet?”, Gizmodo, May 4, 2012,
  12. Traci Watson. “86 Percent of Earth’s Species Still Unknown?”, National Geographic, August 25, 2011,
  13. Oishimaya Sen Nag. “How Much of the Ocean is Still Unexplored?”, World Atlas, last modified August 27, 2018,
  14. Charles Q. Choi.  “Asteroids: Fun Facts and Information about Asteroids”,, September 20, 2017,

Figure References

  1.  “STS-125 Shuttle Mission Imagery”, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, last modified November 13, 2010,
  2.  “Malaria treatment in Angola”, USAID Africa Bureau, April 12, 2007,
  3.  “Diver and Turtle in Mexico Scuba Diving”, jackmac34 via, July 22, 2014,
  4.  “Asteroid”, Bibbi228 via, Accessed November 22, 2018,

About the Author
Alina Schumacher, 16, United Kingdom
Alina is a 16 year old student in London. Her favourite subjects include biology, chemistry and maths. She participates in school sports such as netball, hockey and tennis, and is playing tennis at county level.

17 thoughts on “Should more money be spent on space exploration rather than to solve humanitarian problems on Earth?”

    1. Space exploration is more important then the fickle whim of humanitarianism in the fleeting moment of ‘now’. We live by the grace of so many variables on this delicate home we call earth to which our existence here is finite and extremely short in astrological terms. The universe has about 110 trillion years before the last star goes black yet our own sun will fry the earth within a mere couple of billion years. Even if we invest fully in humanity and on our planet, our existence will be but a blink of the eye in a universal frame of reference. For all our potential benevolence we will have just wasted our time if we do not master space as quickly as possible and before it is too late.
      Keep in mind too that the environmental movement grew out of those first apollo astronauts looking back at the delicate earth rising over the barren moonscape and providing us the first glimpse at how vulnerable and insignificant we are as a species living on this speck of sand we call earth on the beach of the milky way. It is by embracing space that we will finally fine tune our humanitarianism. The thought that to terraform a planet or a moon would be done as a collective of all who settle there as ‘one’ could teach us to dissolve the imaginary borders on earth so we can live here as one and tackle our problems collectively rather then as squabbling tribal states carving up our finite resources. Or, to think of a city living in an o’neil cylinder there would be no room for waste and every individual would be valued for what they can provide to that finite environment. It would shine a magnifying glass on the fact that the earth is truly finite as well and prepare us to deal with that reality before we are forced to do so come hell or high water on earth.
      Space is a lesson on how to deal with our own problems on earth and the same way every dollar spent on space has returned a bounty in technological development and social reform, the same will hold true and will benefit humanity far, far greater then the short sighted yet noble perspective that we should continue to patch holes on lifeboat earth rather then learn how to harness a space lifestyle and become a space fairing civilization.
      Embrace a long term vision rather then just the blink of the eye of ‘now’.
      Bryan Fockler,
      Citizen of the planet Earth

      1. I hate to tell you but we are not in control. God is, and he will determine when His World that He created comes to an end. This does not mean we should not take better care of it.

  1. Hey Christopher Coloumbus!! What do you think you’re doing, crossing an ocean to find a passage to India with the money of Spain’s kingdom when we have so many problems here on land!

  2. Tristan Reid

    You are making a good argument, and I think it is well written, especially for your age, but I hope you will reconsider you position on this issue.
    I believe this is a ‘false equivalence’, it makes it sounds like the only thing holding us back from spending money on helping poor people is that the money has gone to the space program. That’s not at all true.
    Using the United States as an example: around 60% of the US budget is spent on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Of the 40% left, about 1/2 goes to the military (sadly), and the other half goes to health and human services, education, housing and urban development, foreign aid, etc. The amount spent on NASA makes up about 0.5% of the budget. Taking that money from NASA would make almost no difference to those social programs. The National Endowment of the Arts was over $160 billion (8x the amount of NASA’s budget), why do people keep attacking spend on NASA and give the NEA a pass? I am not in favor of losing investment in the arts, but by the arguments above, we should not spend on art until nobody is needy.
    Another way to look at it: Americans spent $82.5 billion on jewelry in 2018. That was about 4 times the budget of NASA. The amount spent on tobacco globally last year was over $900 billion, the amount spent on alcohol was $1,500 billion. Together those are 125x the amount we spent on NASA. Those things will have no benefit to mankind, in particular those in need, so why are we discussing scrapping space exploration when our priorities are already skewed so much toward pleasurable pursuits?
    Here’s a link that breaks down the details of some of the numbers I described above:

    1. but I think we should sometimes spend money on space because the vacuum of space only has nothing but bad intentions, but rather than fighting it, work with it, and it’ll give you way much more in return if we travel in space it will help mankind in many different ways. space exploration allows America to generate a great amount of money. if America continues space exploration new discoveries can be made.
      and what I’m saying is that it’s important because if space didn’t allow America to generate and make new discoveries in space then barely anyone whould know what space was or look like. part of what your saying is true though.

  3. I agree with Tristan Reid (as well as with Bryan).
    “False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called ‘comparing apples and oranges.’” (Wikipedia)
    Also, someone else mentioned Christopher Columbus. Right! — should all the world explorers of past centuries have waited until their countries’ social and economic problems were completely and perfectly solved? (Will the world’s problems ever be totally solved?)
    Something that hasn’t been mentioned yet: asteroid mining. The resources on Earth are limited, in short supply, finite — whereas resources like water and minerals are virtually infinite in the universe, such as in asteroids. Just think how much that might improve our lot on this tiny blue dot.
    Unlimited Resources From Space – Asteroid Mining
    Also, here’s an excellent video worth watching:
    Carl Sagan’s 1994 “Lost” Lecture: The Age of Exploration

  4. Thanks for giving your ideas on this blog. Also, a fantasy regarding the banking companies intentions any time talking about home foreclosure is that the lender will not getreceive my repayments. There is a certain quantity of time which the bank is going to take payments occasionally. If you are very deep inside hole, they’re going to commonly require that you pay the actual payment in whole. However, that doesn’t mean that they will have any sort of installments at all. In the event you and the financial institution can seem to work a little something out, this foreclosure approach may end. However, when you continue to skip payments underneath the new plan, the foreclosure process can pick up from where it left off.

  5. I agree that we need to put our place in the universe in perspective. Too many people try to focus on the now. But we should look to the future and the universe.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *