I do have a problem with not funding art, I guess, and it's for the same reason that I have a problem with not funding NASA
Posted by
Beryllium (aka grayman)
Jan 29 '09, 14:15
|
... and that is, I don't want the industry to become beholden to corporate interests. In the case of art, that leads to pointless sensationalism, like the mainstream media chooses to indulge society in. I can't see that as being a good thing.
In the case of NASA, the result is harder to predict - on the one hand, cost-cutting could result in corner-cutting and safety issues, but on the other hand, it can result in innovation on an unprecedented scale as was proven by the "Cheap" rover/explorer missions of the 90s, as people scramble to get more done with less. It could also result in corporate ownership of space - itself a double-edged sword. Space tourism would be a great motivator for Trek-like exploration, I think, so Rutan and Branson are helping in that respect, but then we run into issues like the GATTACA Corporation holding a monopoly on spaceflight, or companies like Massive Dynamic that use the resulting technology for pervasive control of society.
|