Future sciences

The question seems to imply that current justifications for supporting universities are insufficient. Science (math, physics, chemistry) is the basis of technological innovation. As long as we value technological innovation, we ought to support science education.

I'm a bit unclear as to what you mean by "future science." Physics has never become obsolete, and I have seen no reason to think that it will. There is no "current science" and "future science." There is only science.

So, why do we need new avenues to justify science education? As long as technological progress is possible, and as long as we value technological progress, then science education is justified, isn't it?

I'm sorry, my head is filled with poetical cobwebs, so I'm not thinking rationally momentarily. You are right, it's math, physics, chemistry. Most of the rest, if not soundly based on these 3, is largely hogwash.

Yes, technology is surely valuable, as it will enable us to make things easy for ourselves eventually.

But extremes like superstring theory and spending billions to find shady particles every other decade while half the world is dying...... I don't know.

ecological thinking, contextual thinking, antropocentric thinking seems lacking in almost every conceivable dimension.
We need to take care of each other, before we try to build starship enterprise, if you know what I mean.

I have some pages of text about the latter, with which I might spam you, but it's more the general idea. I don't question the intelligence of proper scientists, they are also often thwarted by the stupidities of our so called "culture", "civilisation" and "system".
System? Any proper engineer pisses his or her pants when looking at that frankensteinian horror we've "constructed".