A half hour of “The Current” on CBC Radio this morning was devoted to the present furor to land all manner of stuff on the moon. It seems that countries like the U.S., China, and India, are devoting great sums of money and scientific expertise in a race to place people, laboratories, outposts, etc. on the moon. Several corporations (Elon Musk take heed) are also keen to get in on the act. It is acknowledged that there really isn’t much there that would be of value to life on earth, with the possible exception of setting up radio communications and a “space station” on the dark side. One commentator compared it to scientific outposts on Antarctica. Though the costs of these lunar endeavours were not mentioned, I assume they are astronomical(!).
This interesting information was followed in the next half-hour by a woman talking about the impossibility of providing shelter for the homeless in Vancouver. “We simply don’t have enough spaces,” she said. With temperatures predicted to descend to minus 20C, I guess a bunch of the homeless are shit-out-of-luck, left on the streets or in tent cities to freeze. Oh well, maybe they could somehow be shipped to the moon. At least they could freeze to death there knowing that they are part of the glorious achievements of the scientific, corporate, and political world.
Rants and Raves of Tom Durrie 
Hello Tom:
This is an entertaining post with some Swift-style satire. As you cut to the heart of an apparent contradiction with precision and concision. Indeed, I see your point: our priorities seem to have gone wild. Yet I supposed I have two questions, which don’t necessarily disagree with you, but which for me make the situation more complicated:
(1) Your thesis seems to be that we should spend our money on feeding and sheltering people BEFORE wild space dreams. And, on the surface (of the moon), that seems fair. But, given your heirarchy, is there EVER a point where we can go beyond the lowest rungs of Maslow’s Hierarchy? So should we never invest in the arts if there are homeless people? Should we have no community festivals or other non-essential publicly-funded events?
(2) No matter how much we spend on homelessness, the problem seems to persist, so is it something that can be solved just by funding? I don’t know the answer to that, but, as I recall, former Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson claimed he did. Indeed, he promised to END homelessness in BC’s largest city. Yet, despite what seemed to be his best funding efforts, the problem has persisted (in fact, I think it’s grown).
I do not have answers to my questions, but I wonder if they might suggest that defunding seemingly frivolous space programs won’t necessarily fix the problem.
Very good comments, sir. I don’t think it’s an either/or problem. It’s not as though the wealthy countries of the world don’t have enough of everything to go around. Don’t we have enough to meet the necessities of the people AND to engage in expensive projects. I would say yes, though we may have to make some tough decisions about priorities. After all, we do have the extremely wealthy 10% (or is it 1%?) living in mansions, driving pricey cars, indulging in the best of everything, while thousands are homeless, not knowing where the next meal will come from, and having only rags to wear. Doesn’t that seem ironic?
I believe that this extreme inequality is the result of the neo-liberal market-driven economy that has reigned since the 1970s. With the (likely) impending rise of populist, extreme right-wing, governments, it will only get worse. As someone said, If the horse gets all the oats he can possibly eat, there my be a little bit coming out the other end to feed the pigeons. It’s an accurate definition of Reagan and Thatcher’s ideas of “trickle-down” economics inspired by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School.
Yes, sir: I agree that economic inequality does feel ironic, but I’m not convinced that the proves that it’s wrong. Or, at least, my economically uneducated sense is that the poorest of the poor are worse off in socialist societies than capitalist ones, and so I don’t mind economic inequality so much if it means fewer people are suffering. But I understand that’s a big IF that you may not believe has been activated.
I wonder where you got the idea that “the poorest of poor are worse off in socialist countries than in capitalist ones.” Please have a look at Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, socialist countries where there is no such thing as homelessness, poverty, or neglected old people. Or you might want to learn about social democracy (or democratic socialism).
Fair point, perhaps socialism is too weak a word. I suppose I was meaning extreme socialist (i.e. communist) countries, where economic inequality is against the rules, have lesser outcomes for the poor.