Steve Abra vs. Andrew ChanX: Four Years Later

Its been five years since 9/11, so naturally, the next civilizational milestone is the four-year anniversary of Steve Abra and Andrew ChanX's epic 2003 common-room argument about the best use of scientific funding:

This writer wasn't fortunate enough to be present at the initial argument, alas, like Plato re-telling the stories of Socrates, I hereby commit myself to a public record of this great event as it was best communicated by present parties.

CHANX vs. ABRA:
FOUR YEARS LATER

Time: February 2nd, 2003, a day after the explosion of NASA's Columbia space shuttle.

Scene: Margaret Addison Hall, fifth floor common-room, the University of Toronto.

The Argument:

Point (Steve Abra): Money for the poor and suffering, not the astronauts.

With the second massive space flight disaster in a decade-and-a-half of American space travel, which has produced little more than a water-run to Mars, isn't it time to give up on space travel and invest in more productive initiatives -- namely, aid and infrastructure investments for the massive amounts of world citizens still living in poverty?

Counter-Point (Andrew ChanX): Duhhhhh! We need to invest in scientific achievement, ie. the future, you dumbass.

What's the point of investing in poor people when we're all dead from an asteroid hitting the planet. Seriously, what if we don't invest in space and instead provide more bread and AIDS-medicine to the impoverished of Africa and India and God knows where else.

If we invest in scientific exploration and experimentation, human civilization is a hell of a lot more likely be around for a longer period of time.

As for the poor people, you know, I'm all down with helping them out, but let's be serious here, we can't give up on science (which gave us all this wealth in the first place!) to cry about the people left behind. And let's be serious again -- they're all going to catch up eventually, right? I voted for Ronald Reagan, and he said that all the wealth trickles down, you know, somehow, eventually.

The Context:

Andrew ChanX was/is an engineer while Steve Abra was/is a musician.

Translation: Andrew ChanX was a child of Albert Einstein (reason and science) while Steve Abra was a child of Naomi Klein (you know, hating the rich people and stuff).

They weren't the best of friends, and each was a self-righteous mule when it came to arguments of this sort, but still, the argument was powerful (and poignant) enough to reverberate for days in Margaret Addison Hall, and thus worth a tribute/renewal.

At least to me...

Personal Opinion:

While Jennifer Gurbin, the floor's wise elder, declared immediate victory for Andrew ChanX, despite her own sympathies with the Steve Abra/Naomi Klein-line of reasoning, it never seemed clear to me that there was a clear winner.

When I'm bored and lonely and looking for something to argue with myself about, ChanX vs. Abra is often the question I end up with.

In my earlier years, when I was actually more sympathetic to the pop-socialism of Steve Abra, I usually stuck up for scientific exploration. I honestly believed our civilization would conquer space, and therefore, it was ridiculous to give up in order to feed a few skinny people.

After the argument, when I actually became more of a Naomi Klein-hating libertarian jerk, my sympathies lay more and more with Steve Abra. Maybe it's futile to try and conquer the heavens, so while we're here on earth, let's take care of the most people possible, no?

AND THE DEBATE CONTINUES....