What you're ignoring is the reasoning and the process behind that decision. Of course it matters what it is that needs funding and how effectively the people requesting the funds are making their case.
If it was a competition between english literature and greek philosophy you can be absolutely certain that the fixed amount would be a tiny fraction of what it is now.
Curing cancer, infinite amounts of cheap energy, staying competitive, winning against China both economically and militarily, you really think the size of the pie would be the same without these things?
Interesting point. So, hopefully the science of environmental stewardship gets a name like “Environmental Engineering” or “Resilience Engineering” from the NSF and grows the pie.
Because the costs of not adapting to climate-related environmental change will be astronomical. I mean, would you say climate adaptation is on par with the importance and urgency of curing cancer? The arguments would be interesting.
If it was a competition between english literature and greek philosophy you can be absolutely certain that the fixed amount would be a tiny fraction of what it is now.
Curing cancer, infinite amounts of cheap energy, staying competitive, winning against China both economically and militarily, you really think the size of the pie would be the same without these things?