Government Funding of Science and Technology

[AlwaysBurning]

How do people feel about government funding of science and technology? I feel that given the computer I am writing on and the internet itself was born out of government funded programs - the government's role in the advancement of science and technology, as well as infrastructure - is essential. Currently reading Thinking Big (Thinking Big) and came across this fact: "Today, infrastructure spending as a percentage of GDP has decreased nearly 50 percent since its peak. Education spending as a percentage of GDP has remained stagnant since 1969, while research and development funding has declined by half in the same time period." I think that government funding of science and technology should include education - and all with the aim to solve the problems of climate that we face.

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by AlwaysBurning

"Today, infrastructure spending as a percentage of GDP has decreased nearly 50 percent since its peak. Education spending as a percentage of GDP has remained stagnant since 1969, while research and development funding has declined by half in the same time period."

Sadly, that's not because of a decrease in any of those things, but simply because other spending has outpaced it.

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by AlwaysBurning

I think that government funding of science and technology should include education - and all with the aim to solve the problems of climate that we face.

I think government funding of science and technology should go the way of the dodo. Government has proven over and over again they are extremely poor at forecasting anything, so why are we letting them decide which technology to pursue?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by stolz25

I think government funding of science and technology should go the way of the dodo. Government has proven over and over again they are extremely poor at forecasting anything, so why are we letting them decide which technology to pursue?

They probably shouldn't pick the specifics, but instead fund education and general research.

[Kytro]

Any funding which increases the sum total of human knowledge is a good thing in most cases.

[HughRuss]

The internet was developed and propagated completely contra-military/government wishes.

And I think computers, and current technology, could have been developed without funding from the government.

But I'd much rather fund science and technological advancement than, say, war.

[Dispatcher]

Well, one thing I think is a big waste of money is NASA. We've been to the moon, we've sent rovers to Mars, but we don't even know how to live on this planet yet without affecting climate change or killing each other.
If anything, I would like to the the government spend money on medical research rather than know whether there is water vapor on Saturn.

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

They probably shouldn't pick the specifics, but instead fund education and general research.

How do they not pick the specifics? Anyone doing research is going to be very specialized, and if they get money then that means the government funded something specific.

As far as funding education, we've been doing that forever, and I'd prefer our colleges didn't turn out like our public schools.

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Any funding which increases the sum total of human knowledge is a good thing in most cases.

"Funding" has to come from somewhere. So instead of going to develop a faster hard drive (or buy food, or anything else) you end up with a politically motivated study on how cow farts add to global warming.

[Photon1001]

Originally Posted by stolz25

How do they not pick the specifics? Anyone doing research is going to be very specialized, and if they get money then that means the government funded something specific.

As far as funding education, we've been doing that forever, and I'd prefer our colleges didn't turn out like our public schools.

Well, relativly speaking, the funding of Fermilab could be considered general research. The Military's GPS System would be more of a specific. Neither are actually "good" or "bad", its merely an imbalance between schools of thought the two that should be avoided.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by stolz25

"Funding" has to come from somewhere. So instead of going to develop a faster hard drive (or buy food, or anything else) you end up with a politically motivated study on how cow farts add to global warming.

My preference is for knowledge that increases technology. How this is achieved is not relevant in most cases. Understanding the climate properly could be useful to human survival, but the politics in the way just frustrate me.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

Well, one thing I think is a big waste of money is NASA. We've been to the moon, we've sent rovers to Mars, but we don't even know how to live on this planet yet without affecting climate change or killing each other.
If anything, I would like to the the government spend money on medical research rather than know whether there is water vapor on Saturn.

I certainly think medical research is important, but I do think we should be trying to increase out knowledge of space. One day for the sake of the species we may need to live there - probably not as the humans we are though.

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by Kytro

My preference is for knowledge that increases technology. How this is achieved is not relevant in most cases. Understanding the climate properly could be useful to human survival, but the politics in the way just frustrate me.

If you have politicians handing out other people's money you are going to have politics involved no matter what the subject is.

[AlwaysBurning]

Originally Posted by Dispatcher

Well, one thing I think is a big waste of money is NASA. We've been to the moon, we've sent rovers to Mars, but we don't even know how to live on this planet yet without affecting climate change or killing each other.
If anything, I would like to the the government spend money on medical research rather than know whether there is water vapor on Saturn.

You know - a lot of good climate change research has come out of what NASA has discovered along the way. As far as info about planetary systems - NASA is what gives us that. Just because their aim is info about the solar system and other planets doesn't mean that the science they use and the info they find isn't applicable here on earth.

Like I said above (which I got from Thinking Big, don't want to plagiarize) I think that the market forces are too slow and uncoordinated to give us a solution to climate change in time for us to do something - and that targeted government spending on research and infrastructure is the only way we'll get out of this mess.

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by AlwaysBurning

Like I said above (which I got from Thinking Big, don't want to plagiarize) I think that the market forces are too slow and uncoordinated to give us a solution to climate change in time for us to do something - and that targeted government spending on research and infrastructure is the only way we'll get out of this mess.

Thinking Big isn't new ideas, it's propoganda, I imagine they'd be fine with you plagarizing it all you want.

You can believe what you want about market forces, and there is absolutely no way to prove or disprove it at all. You can't conduct a test between government and a market in solving a problem, and even if you could it would be statistically invalid.

The comment about the "only way we'll get out of this mess" is alarmist at best. Throughout history, solutions to problems have come from areas no one expected at the time, such as crude replacing the whale oil shortage.

[khari]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I certainly think medical research is important, but I do think we should be trying to increase out knowledge of space. One day for the sake of the species we may need to live there - probably not as the humans we are though.

You think we're going to live there as non-humans? Oh my, no.

[Photon1001]

Originally Posted by khari

You think we're going to live there as non-humans? Oh my, no.

So I take it your not really a big fan of the whole simulated reality-billions of trans-human, non-corporeal, quasi-invincible, immortal, consciousness living within virtual reality framework pseudo-universes existing within a network of robotic Dyson sphere building machines-future-world, then?

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by khari

You think we're going to live there as non-humans? Oh my, no.

I'd be thinking most likely AI - or transposed human intelligence.

[AlwaysBurning]

Originally Posted by stolz25

Thinking Big isn't new ideas, it's propoganda, I imagine they'd be fine with you plagarizing it all you want.

You can believe what you want about market forces, and there is absolutely no way to prove or disprove it at all. You can't conduct a test between government and a market in solving a problem, and even if you could it would be statistically invalid.

The comment about the "only way we'll get out of this mess" is alarmist at best. Throughout history, solutions to problems have come from areas no one expected at the time, such as crude replacing the whale oil shortage.

I wouldn't classify Thinking Big as propaganda at all, propaganda is not based on fact, in my definition. It seems like anything opposing one's point of view *could* be called propaganda - but I don't think the shoe fits in this case.

As for the rest of your statement, sucks to be losing ground in your worldview, doesn't it? The idea that nothing can be proved is preposterous. I said that I don't think unchecked market forces alone are enough to make a difference, and I don't - I think that the government can be an intelligent partner to the market.

I don't think that things come out of nowhere, they come out of hard-fought planning. Have you looked at Obama's energy and environment plans? They definitely stress government involvement: Energy & Environment

[stolz25]

Originally Posted by AlwaysBurning

The idea that nothing can be proved is preposterous. I said that I don't think unchecked market forces alone are enough to make a difference, and I don't - I think that the government can be an intelligent partner to the market.

I never said that nothing can be proved.