I feel like a lot of the stuff I do is that sort of basic work, and that's just industry (old plant stuff). But there's value to taking advantage of some of the new tools. Occasionally they're massive force multipliers or reframe a problem in a more solvable way. For example, this year I plan to play with Beysian analysis - I want to be able to trace the story of process shifts, not merely detect them. I could - and will - hit the problem with the standard fare of tools, but it's an overwhelming amount of ground to trudge through. Just trying to make the imperfect, inhomogenous data analyzable to automate it is hard, and yet still worth the effort even in the short run compared to manually.
Back to space. There are some long shot wins with research like this, things that are pure research prerequisites for big changes. As in, once we've looked at and followed a comet, we'll have the experience doing remote landings on small rocks in space. Why not do that to asteroids? Perhaps we can find an asteroid with an unusually high concentration of rare earth metals. That could bootstrap fuel cell research by dropping the price of rare, useful materials like platinum. Or gold. Such tech would help alleviate many problems at once. It might break economies, but it may also put us post-scarcity for manufacturing tech.
I don't mean to make it sound like I don't think it's not worth doing just for its own sake. I really do. But I also think that the potential wins we're setting up for the next generation or three down the road make starting now worth it. Being slow and thorough is a risk of lost opportunity, potentially huge loss. I also think there's plenty of brilliance available to work on the other problems, too, and I am often confused that we feel a scarcity in that respect (like how there are food shortages despite incredible productive ability - I just can't properly wrap my head around the subtle complexities that cause such strange things).
So I think you have a point, but I think it's a bit harsh to call it nihilistic. That's certainly there, but there's more good to be had, too. Can we do better? Sure, but I'm cynical enough that I'll accept the occasional wins for what they are, while secretly hoping it changes to world for the better.
Back to space. There are some long shot wins with research like this, things that are pure research prerequisites for big changes. As in, once we've looked at and followed a comet, we'll have the experience doing remote landings on small rocks in space. Why not do that to asteroids? Perhaps we can find an asteroid with an unusually high concentration of rare earth metals. That could bootstrap fuel cell research by dropping the price of rare, useful materials like platinum. Or gold. Such tech would help alleviate many problems at once. It might break economies, but it may also put us post-scarcity for manufacturing tech.
I don't mean to make it sound like I don't think it's not worth doing just for its own sake. I really do. But I also think that the potential wins we're setting up for the next generation or three down the road make starting now worth it. Being slow and thorough is a risk of lost opportunity, potentially huge loss. I also think there's plenty of brilliance available to work on the other problems, too, and I am often confused that we feel a scarcity in that respect (like how there are food shortages despite incredible productive ability - I just can't properly wrap my head around the subtle complexities that cause such strange things).
So I think you have a point, but I think it's a bit harsh to call it nihilistic. That's certainly there, but there's more good to be had, too. Can we do better? Sure, but I'm cynical enough that I'll accept the occasional wins for what they are, while secretly hoping it changes to world for the better.