The Economic Damage Of State Funded Science

I discuss the incalculable economic damage caused by State control of the theoretical sciences.

More like ekonomik, am I right?!?!?!1?!?one!?!?

Brilliant analysis! You, sir, are a brilliant mind, so that means, DO NOT go into theoretical sciences.


Seriously, I agree with what you said, but I do think there is a place for theoretical sciences, just not on the scale it is today with things like billion dollar particle colliders.

The thing is, Einsteins theories did yeild results, so that sort of goes against your argument. And these could be scene as extremely long term applications, and the development has to start at some point.

I do agree that there should be less involvement in theoretical sciences and more into realistic applications.

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
Brilliant analysis! You, sir, are a brilliant mind, so that means, DO NOT go into theoretical sciences.

Seriously, I agree with what you said, but I do think there is a place for theoretical sciences, just not on the scale it is today with things like billion dollar particle colliders.

The thing is, Einsteins theories did yeild results, so that sort of goes against your argument. And these could be scene as extremely long term applications, and the development has to start at some point.

I do agree that there should be less involvement in theoretical sciences and more into realistic applications.

Actually, Einstein's theories didn't provide us with anything useful.

It is a myth that nuclear power and bombs were a product of Einsteinian relativity - they are not.

They are the product of nuclear chemists and engineers. Nuclear power and GPS satellites would have come about even if Einstein had never created his theories.

Had to stop, I think your missing the point

A corporation demands product and invention from their scientist. There are not alot of companies out there that will bring on board scientists to work in theoretical physics, cosmology, etc..just for giggles. There has to be a point, and the point requires profit.

The problem with that is, without it, we wouldn't even have quantum physics (and your cool computers and fancy televisions) without initial investments in theoretical science just to uncover new stuff with no real point beyond a academic understanding.

now, I will agree partially with the fact that alot of discoveries are held back through beauracratic bull!@#, but until there is a different option, state research is needed for the truely groundbreaking discoveries.

I personally believe we need to invest heavily in science..this is far more important than creating new interesting gadgets of war as far as country survivability. but more importantly, that the scientific discoveries are unfettered and shared with Americans the moment our tax dollars fuels any new discoverys.

btw, make more videos and less text rants..you speak better than you type

reply to post by SaturnFX


The vast majority of productive innovations in society have come from the private sector.

State funded science did not provide us with the iPhone.

Engineers working to create innovative solutions to problems are what actually produce new ideas that enrich society.

Apple, Microsoft, Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Merck, Pfizer, etc.. etc. etc.. all have a large amount of engineers and scientists on their payrolls who are responsible for the development of new products and research. State funding of the sciences is not only NOT necessary, it is economically destructive.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

The vast majority of productive innovations in society have come from the private sector.

State funded science did not provide us with the iPhone.

No, but state funded science laid the groundwork to allow the iPhone to exist...your talking about invention, which relies on science
most core infrustructure and major scientific breakthroughs are done by government, the public sector then uses this to create mini advancements in gadgets and upgrades

Engineers working to create innovative solutions to problems are what actually produce new ideas that enrich society.

No, engineers create innovative technologies based on a scientific field of discovery that for the most part came from public scientists (consider: Einstein broke the partical physics equasion, then engineers used his work to create gadgetry.
The internet, the telephone, actually all the cool gadgets we use comes from scientific understandings most often uncovered by large public funding to theoretical researchers.

Apple, Microsoft, Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Merck, Pfizer, etc.. etc. etc.. all have a large amount of engineers and scientists on their payrolls who are responsible for the development of new products and research. State funding of the sciences is not only NOT necessary, it is economically destructive.

gadgetmaker, gadgetmaker, gadgetmaker..etc

The companies you mention have little to do with scientific discoveries or breaking open new fields. just building onto the fields already in existance.

You need to look at organizations like NSF and their fueling work into nanotechnology and new synthetic materials...and even that is arguably just gadgetry..however, those inventions will transform the world far more profoundly than plastics (see buckyballs).

Also, consider the human genome project...massive breakthrough sponsored by government that is already starting to be used by private industry for some good.

The thing is overall..no single company actually wants to advance discovery...there is not alot of money in laying the road. Once the road is laid out and a new field comes...sure, every company from here to timbuctu jumps on it, fueling all sort of new gadgets and inventions..but the actual initial start is expensive and rarely undertaken.

Do you honestly think that, if there was no governmental science, we would have been out in space by now? its costly and had no immediate benefit. just a vision. Once we were out in space, scientific experimentation was allowed to happen, and from that, we have gotten a number of discoveries and inventions which has been passed down to the private sector.

Stopping federal funding of science is a surefire way to completely destroy our forward movement in civilization...
You need no more proof than to simply see how funding has been cut back drastically in recient history, and so has our edge on innovation in the world.
Say hello to the East and the new technological superpower...as they dump tons of money into scientific infrustructure and discovery.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Do you know why the NSF and other State science foundations were created?

They were created by major industries that wanted to pass the cost of research and development on to the tax payer. It was also agitated for by academia because the colleges stood to benefit handsomely from the research grants.

The institutes themselves are totally unnecessary since industry would pick up the tab again in the wake of their absence.

There are limited resources in the economy, and the markets always direct those resources to where they are needed the most. When the government takes money through violent theft from the working classes and then hands that money to research scientists, they could very well be taking away the funding of the next wright brothers from a backyard inventor.

The market process ensures that research dollars are allocated most efficiently to the most pressing problems.

When government allocates the resources, it picks winners and losers of funding based on a political decision making processes.

Well...I'm a bit torn on this one. Even the Founders saw the wisdom in tax payer funded scientific endeavor...Not that your points are lost on me mnemeth.

Article 1 section 8 US Constitution:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Note "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," This clause grants congress the authority to divert funds to these endeavors. And to be honest I don't really have a problem with it. It's the only form of government spending I find useful and necessary.

It's true that innovation, by and large, comes right out of the private sector. Everything possible should be done(or in the case of today, not done) to promote private scientific enterprise. But scientific research and development should be a power of the government as well...Albeit, with reforms and controls in place. As I said, the economic arguments are not lost on me.

Originally posted by projectvxn
Well...I'm a bit torn on this one. Even the Founders saw the wisdom in tax payer funded scientific endeavor...Not that your points are lost on me mnemeth.

Article 1 section 8 US Constitution:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Note "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," This clause grants congress the authority to divert funds to these endeavors. And to be honest I don't really have a problem with it. It's the only form of government spending I find useful and necessary.

It's true that innovation, by and large, comes right out of the private sector. Everything possible should be done(or in the case of today, not done) to promote private scientific enterprise. But scientific research and development should be a power of the government as well...Albeit, with reforms and controls in place. As I said, the economic arguments are not lost on me.

edit on 13-12-2010 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

What would you have the government do to me if I refused to hand them a portion of my labor so they could give it to scientists.

What should my punishment be for this crime?

reply to post by mnemeth1


Well mnemeth, it is interesting that you put this little argument into your box in such a fashion. You believe in no government at all, no taxation at all, I see it a bit differently. Does that mean I want to put you in jail for it? No. Of course not.

You even believe that private institutions can be trusted to police American streets..I don't. Private institutions don't have to follow the Constitution. You want abolishment, I want reform.

I won't be boxed into your game though. If you don't wanna contribute to society at all because you believe all taxes are violence that's your issue. But please don't project that on me. I didn't write the Constitution.

You know my father is a professor in computer science. What he tells me is that everytime there is an economic crisis companies stop expending and stop research. They cancel projects and everything. While universities continue to do research they allow projects to continue.

If all research was focused on profit then we would move from a fairly smooth development of technology into a stop start movement which would ultimately drastically slow down technological research.

Also the iphone is not a invention, Apple takes various parts from various manufactures which designed their parts based on research done at universities.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Well mnemeth, it is interesting that you put this little argument into your box in such a fashion. You believe in no government at all, no taxation at all, I see it a bit differently. Does that mean I want to put you in jail for it? No. Of course not.

You even believe that private institutions can be trusted to police American streets..I don't. Private institutions don't have to follow the Constitution. You want abolishment, I want reform.

I won't be boxed into your game though. If you don't wanna contribute to society at all because you believe all taxes are violence that's your issue. But please don't project that on me. I didn't write the Constitution.

edit on 13-12-2010 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

Limited government is not possible.

I am not the one projecting violence on to others.

If you wish to have taxes, then you wish to have violence done to those who do not pay them.

If this is not the case, then please do tell me how you will get the people to pay into such a system that is not a market based system.