[dguest]

I want a lunapark too.

Until then I'm just another stupid scientist. But I'm aware that other people have different interests. I think the people who are calling for areas to be preserved are aware too, which is why they are trying to start a dialogue.

[Aerroon]

But the dialogue is really this:

>I want to study X and to do that I need Y. And you're going to give it to me because it might help our scientific understanding. Probably. Maybe.

Science overall is useful, but whether any individual part of it is useful is a lot more questionable. What gets studied is about what a (willful) scientist wants to study.

I suspect that people setting up something economically useful on the moon would actually end up being more valuable for science. It would mean that there will be economical access to the moon. If it's government-funded and science-led, then the whole thing might end on some political whim.

[dguest]

Yeah I don't like entitled scientists either.

It's especially disheartening to see my own community come off this way.

That said, I think most of us are aware of the reality: from a funding point of view science is somewhere between a luxury and a trick to teach young idealistic people skills. Those skills can then be repurposed for industry or military applications. We aren't at all shy about pointing this out in grant proposals, so it's sad that people come off as though the scientific community is somehow entitled to anything.

Don't get me wrong, I fully believe that science is important, but in a world ruled by markets science funding is always going to be a charity.

[odyssey7]

This dialogue from Smithsonian Magazine seems somewhat confused. Protecting the moon from development is a valid position to take; and somehow, to the contrary, the article promotes various scientific development projects. It's disingenuous to advocate for position A while calling it position ¬A.