After some hemming and hawing, I removed Gabriel's panda post, not because I didn't like it, but because it used a couple of terms that may have been (mildly) inappropriate for a school site (please remember, folks, your classmates and their parents may have different ideas about what's OK!).
Anyway, his comments were very valid - the gist of it being, "What's the big deal? Why are we spending money on this (the pandas) when we haven't even cleaned up the mess from Katrina or developed alternative fuel sources?"
Good question.
I did a quick glance at the Zoo Atlanta site and a quick google search to see if I could find out how much government money went to the zoo, but I was not successful. I did see, however, that much of its money comes from corporate and private sponsorships, and not the government (although as a likely non-profit, it would benefit from tax breaks). The pandas are at the zoo as a public relations tool as well as an educational one. I think people feel a responsibility to help animals that are endangered as a result of human activity. We also have a very tenous relationship with China, and the loan is a very positive endeavor.
Philanthropy is a personal thing. Causes I feel worthy of supporting may seem worthless to you. Both of my in-laws dies of cancer, therefore I tend to support cancer-related causes. It doesn't mean I think heart disease is any less important; it's just not as meaningful to ME. I work in education - I support education, naturally. I am more likely to donate to an education cause than another cause.
So discussion question - what science-related cause do you feel are worthy of government support? Should we be paying millions to launch a space shuttle or explore a planet when we are still so dependent on foreign oil? Should we be spending money to study endangered animals habitats when we still haven't found a cure for cancer?
What do you think?
24 comments:
I made bad?
Oops...
Frankly, I just find it hard to say it is a good cause to spend so much money on Pandas when they aren't even ours! They are eventually going to go back to China, and they will probably be like.
"Ha ha, stupid Americans! They spend all their money for us!"
So, that is my opinion.
In terms of priority, I think our money should go towards stopping the deficiet first, and then towards:
1.Stem Cell Research
2.Alternate Fuel Development
3.Hurricane Katrina
4.A cure for stupidity (just kidding)
I think that we should be worried about other things that are going on in the world. For example, the United States really don't have good relationships with other countries and it was on the news that someone was planning another September 11th attack.
I am not saying that this is right, but human beings know about lots of other animals that are extinct and it really doesn't matter to us we just go on every day with our lives.I think that the U.S. should get their priorities straight before they spend money on animals that don't belong to us.
I think that spending that much money on pant is stupid. You've got hurricane Katrina, which we still haven't cleaned up after, and like Mr. Q said, people dying of cancer. I mean, ok, yeah, save pandas. But save people. You've got kids dying of poverty in Africa while we spend so much money on a panda. Frankly, hummans should come first.
well, im not sure that i think we should spend more money on some things than the others. i mean, everything you listed was equally important for the most part. just because we want to save our own specices, doesnt mean we should deny those of the endangered ones. but, i do think we need to focus more on helping the environment right now then exploring new sciences, or our world might come to an end faster than we think!
Gabriel - it wasn't "bad" - I just need to be careful! It actually made me laugh and I did think your point was a very valid one.
I'm pretty sure that most of the money supporting the Panda exhibit is from private funds - the pandas are a draw - they make people want to visit the zoo, so most people would feel that was worthwhile.
i think that everything is a good place to donate to. maybe we could split up all the money into equal portions and distribute it evenly.that way every one and thing gets a little bit of money for their organization.
To Allison...
If we gave equal money to every orginization, then we would have about $1 for each. And, for all we know, they are contridictory.
(Like donating to the NAACP and then donating to the KKK)
That is why we need to prioritize.
People (not you people) but other random people. WAKE UP! I mean come on , we cant explore what is out there if dont survive long enough to do so. Lets figure out how to live before we spend all of our precious time worrying about little cute pandas when we should be worrying about US. We cant help other things if we dont help ourselves first. (we wont save pandas if we dont find a way to live)
not trying to be rude or dramatic but seriously...
^gaby sutton
i agree completely with hilda. she said what i was trying to say. Thanks hilda :)
^gaby sutton
yaaa i think honestly that humans should come first. Pandas are cool and all but like others have said, if we cant stay alive long enough to help them then what is the point? I think we should focus more on things like disease or things that will very quickly run out. Pandas ARE endangered, so they should definatley have some money just not as much as , for example, cancer resarch
I think some stuff like going and exploring planets is good. but some things they should cut back on. Like animals for zoos. Also they should spend more money on reaserch for things like cures for cancer and the solution to our fuel problem.
i dont think you should put all that money in bears that arent even ours
ebone byse
Well, Ebone, I think the pandas bring in more money than they are costing us - especially now with the baby.
The comments are very good - it's hard to figure out where to spend our money. It's true; it would be nice to help everyone, but we would spread the money so thin that no one would be truly helped.
We forget, too, that in the pursuit of something (like space travel) we gain new knowledge and technology that can be used in other areas of life.
Also the money that is used in a program, like the space program, to build things also employs people. Those people pay income taxes and spend their money on goods and services that employ more people...
And so on and so on and so on...
So, extension question, who gets to decide?
well..lets say this...a lot of america's tax money is totally blown off on ROADS...i mean they havent done anything to us yet and i think we can avoid tiny potholes...not like we dont have eyes. Now America can supply its own oil but they just are too lazy to do it. Also a lot of money goes to construction...why do we need more buildings polluting the air in america? thats why we have stem cells, aids, and other things that i dont want to type...this president has lost it and comes 2008, i cant wait till we get a new president. cause bush did a terrible job
1. Start a war
2. Puts OUR tax money into construction
3. Hes just dumb
4. John kerry woulda done better
5. Lets a hurrican come through and he barely did anything about it...notice how bush hardly contributed to the katrina foundation...most of the money is from small businesses or groups...NOT BUSH...yes i agree with gabriel...bush THEY ARENT GIVING YOU OIL...so make your own...he is so lazy and cant hire scientists to make an alternate fuel...maybe that should be a lab in science. Wed make so much money and u can quit ms quenan with all the money ull get. but we wouldnt want that now would we?
hehehe nice comment jeff...
*points ar gabriel* haha u made bad
i think $ shuld go to school laptops :D
¥Ü¥ <---MY SIGN
to matt davis's comment, no offense, but who cares about planets...we are in a big war and you want to talk about planets. i know the U.S is trying to hide their misery, besides, planets are just big basketballs in space.
to allison levys comment, i agree with gabriel. say your the president... now your going to give 2,000 dollars to every organization? so your gonna donate to MLB, movie theatres, malls, but then what? you gonna donate to cigarette companies and PETA? and then to construction?
why would you give money to a friggen panda (no offense) then to the marine corps?
And to Sarah (god im mean) yeah what does the zoo contribute its money to? they barely contribute because they are so commited to study animals, they walk, they make noise, and they poop everywhere..whats the big deal about it, they havent saved our lives. the only animals that should be studied are house pets
and to ebone...agreed...they are bears that arent even ours...china needs to make hunting laws because china OBVIOUSLY doesnt care about their enviroment...god my hands are tired.
To william's comment...youve got a point. We dont have good relationships with countries..Take Europe for example...they arent liking us too much right now and no one is noticing!! One of the greatest catastrophies can happen because of europeans!! Theyve already tried to bomb a plane but thankfully they failed. They are coming out with some intresting bombs which are very dangerous and can be triggered with liquids or gas.
hmmm...who's comment didnt i attack yet? ah hah!
to hilda...EXACTLY!!!! humans are dying and all we are doing is looking at giant basket balls in space and a birth of ONLY ONE panda! its not even ours.
to sarah levy's comment...ok whoa whoa whoa!
1. we shouldnt be studying our animals and eenviroment BECAUSE we have a war going on thats costing the U.S billions of dollars.
2. Without science, theres no world so science comes before cuddly animals and trees.
3. We have enough oxygen for several billion more years..the only bad part is that the sun runs out of fuel. no one knows when that will happen.but we cant just fly over there without us catching fire.
4. The United States has one of the most few endangered species in the whole world. We saved the white tailed deer...i mean cmon, there animals no one cares about and we saved em.
ugh...
to blondinka...
dont know who you are but there are more important things than what you listed....Global Warming, War on Terrorist, the hole in the ozone...
to gabby
another EXACTLY...who cares about bears!! they bite, they eat fish, and they smell. Also we can worry about other things after this war when we have time to recollect but then another big thing will happen...do you know how much money will go into monuments and memorials...tons...who wants to build stuff made out of stone.
to allison b. well i guess you have a point. BUT why study on something else endangered? thats just even more of a waste of money...look if they didnt help us humans, i dont care about them.
FINALLY DONE!!!
now time to make my opinion
yeah ok bears, the world is flipping out over BEARS!!!(no not the chicago bears) but its just dumb. people lately have been ignoring whats going on in the middle east and now everyone is reflecting on big basketballs in space and little bears. i say poo on Bush!
ok thats all i have to say...that was so much typing too!
oh my gosh!!!
ms q. cussed...heheh
That dude Jeff types 2 much. Ms.Q, u need to give a limit to how much people type. all that writting gives me a headache.
loren evans
you know what..your not nice...haha..also my mouse sometimes click twice when i click once..so it posts twice... and yeah i do type to much but its because i am probly the fastest student typer in East Cobb =P
oh look another comment to insult...heheheh....
anyways yeah i say that theres a first amendment that grants me the freedom of speech!! HAHA..the constitution rules...but yeah i have a right to say what i want without getting in trouble because if not, that censorship. And thats against the law loren..=P
Alternative fuel development is not the government's responsibility. It is a free economy, so if someone wants alternative fuel, they develop it. Also, we should put cleaning up after Katrina first. We should not rebuild it, though, because that is a huge mistake. It would be stupid to build a new city in that hugely vulnerable area. Also, we are not responsible for Africa. Yes, it is good when private foundations and the red cross help starving people in Africa, but the government is not responsible for taking care of people halfway across the world. And jeff, roads? Without repairing them they would erode and be unusable. Alos, if you are talking about personally bush (in the thing about donating to the katrina foundation) he earns less than most airline pilots. Also, the government does not pay for skyscrapers.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Let's NOT get into global warming!
Okay, um, with alternative fuels, ethanol won't work because we simply don't have enough fields to grow corn, unless we stop using high fructose corn syrup! The only feasible ideas would be hydrogen and electric cars. Hydrogen will take forever to develop, but electric will work if we get more electricity. That would happen with nuclear reactors, which we have developed to be very safe and efficient. We can just shoot the nuclear waste into open space and, viola, tons of electricity! Did you know we haven't built a nuclear reactor since the 70s, and our current ones will be gone soon.
also, let's stop arguing over Bush.
Yes, he makes mistakes. But, he did not cause Lebanon to annoy Israel into a war.
OK nick....lets see...now Georgia did put up a recent road project worth 100 million dollars. And the roads arent that bad...a lot of the car accidents in Georgia are due to unsafe driving or cute little animals in the road that people are trying to avoid. then they skid out control and all that'
Wow - while the teacher's away, the kids will play...
I'm not even sure where to start!
First - I appreciate everyone's comments - even if they disagree - but, no personal attacks please - even in the "blogosphere" that is frowned upon.
Next - we talked a lot about money, but what's not clear is whose money. Some of the items mentioned are paid for by Federal taxes; some state, some local - many aren't paid for by public tax dollars at all, but rather private funds (foundations, donations, coporate sponsorshiops, etc) - now, that does get sticky, because a lot of private donation result in lower taxes for the donor...and round and round we go...
Nick is right - some of the items mentioned are not the government's responsiblity - which of course, brings us back to politics.
There's a saying, "If you're not a Democrat when you're 20, then you have no heart; if you're not a Republican when you're 40, then you have no brain."
Tradionally, the Democrats have based their policies on the ideas of bigger government (especially a strong federal gov't), and a government that takes care of its people, particularly in social areas.
Republicans, on the other hand, have traditionally been for smaller government and more personal freedom and responsiblity.
The lines between the two parties have blurred more in recent years, and other parties like the Libertarians (who believe in as small a government as possible), are getting more widely accepted.
So - who do you think should pay for this stuff? All private? Some government, some private? All government?
And no matter who pays - who decides? Even among the few who posted, we had wildly different ideas about what was most worth while.
Post a Comment