So would you have cancelled the moon landing program? In 2020 dollars that program cost over $257B (over $400B if you count related programs and costs)[1], and that goal--landing humans on the moon--has demonstrated very little utility.
You don't need to put men on the surface of the moon to gain any of these benefits. The US government could've spent far less to achieve those same outcomes.
And that's ignoring the fact that, particularly regarding those "major dividends", much of those justifications can only be made in hindsight. At the time I think it would've been difficult to justify the moonshot on that kind of utilitarian basis.
https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/historic-speeches...
Keep it civil, please.
> The point of going to the moon was never to dimly increase utility to the public.
I think maybe you've lost the thread of the conversation?
The original claim was that scientific research/projects should be funded based on evident utility.
My point is that if you fund such projects purely based on immediately evident utility, then projects like Apollo (among many others) don't happen.
My unspoken corollary is that that would represent a loss to humanity, and that pure utilitarianism is too narrow a frame to use when assessing the value of a given project.
Honestly, I think we're in agreement, here, and I'm not sure I understand your aggressive response.