With the development of society, some people believe that spending most of the money on fundamental services like schools and hospitals is better than using it for exploring space. I hold the same opinion and completely agree with this view.
There are several reasons why I strongly oppose allocating large amounts of money to space exploration. First and foremost, such projects are extremely costly and risky, and a failed mission could result in a total waste of resources. Moreover, without access to basic public services like healthcare and education, investing in space becomes meaningless for ordinary people. For example, during the Cold War, both the Soviet Union and the United States spent heavily on space and military development, while neglecting essential infrastructure, which contributed to the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1992. In short, overspending on space programmes at the expense of fundamental services can harm long-term national development.
In addition, allocating more resources to essential public services can bring greater and more immediate benefits to society. To begin with, as regional gaps in basic services widen and environmental issues worsen in many countries, governments should therefore prioritize urgent needs over costly and remote space exploration. More importantly, the benefits of public services are tangible and immediate, as they respond directly to people’s most urgent needs. A case in point is China: between 1949 and 1960, when most citizens lacked access to food and education, the government focused on essential sectors like agriculture and healthcare before engaging in space programmes. This sequence not only stabilized the country but also provided a solid foundation for long-term development, showing that prioritizing public services benefits society directly.
In conclusion, unless people’s basic needs are met, investing heavily in space exploration brings little real benefit compared to the immediate and lasting value of improving public services.