6 ms·

From simply reading the headline the first question that came to mind is who should be building the future? I personally don't see the government as a key playe

From simply reading the headline the first question that came to mind is who should be building the future? I personally don't see the government as a key player in building the future, I see it as a supporting body for whatever direction the future goes. However, now I am questioning that perspective and wondering should the government be shaping our future and if so in what ways?

skybrian 9y ago
Maybe not build it, but how about funding it? Consider DARPA, NIH, or Space X for that matter, largely funded by government contracts. (On the other hand, Space X versus the usual defense contractors is quite a contrast.)
cmurf 9y ago
Rather than being the wagon or the puller of the wagon, the government should be the handle. It's just a tool to provide a means for leaders to lead a society. The role of government, when it comes to minority rights, can act like a big fat rock under the wagon wheel though. As well it should.
candu 9y ago
You may be interested in Mariana Mazzucato's TED talk, where she calls into question tropes about the "sluggishness" or "innovation deficit" of government and highlights its central role in making high-risk technological investments. After all, when it's not seized by a spasm of science denialism, the government is a chief backer of basic research, which is then often licensed on extremely generous terms to make a wide range of industries and products viable. One could argue that the government is, in fact, uniquely positioned to fund truly basic research, for which risk is often too high - and payoff too uncertain or delayed - to be fundable in a corporate environment. Put another way: the government is often, contrary to belief, much less risk-averse than private enterprise when it comes to research of this sort. For instance, take this Internet thing we're all communicating over. Without R&D efforts by ARPA in conjunction with several prominent universities, or the willingness of CERN to place key Web protocols in the public domain, we might very well have had non-interoperable AOL-style fiefdoms. But what company would, in the 70s, have funded an unproven telecommunications network just to connect a handful of universities?
- lomnakkus 9y ago
  Indeed and I find it an absurd false dichotomy to suppose that it's either/or. Why can't both government and private enterprise both be discovering the future at the same time? Granted, some enterprises/initiatives will fail, but that's kind of par for the course since nobody can predict the future.
  - inopinatus 9y ago
    The long view is surely that Government provides an excellent vehicle for planning/regulation of infrastructure and allocation of large-scale funding, and independent institutions and private companies the best vehicles to receive that funding for R&D & build. When a government tries to build infrastructure directly, you often get disastrous outcomes. Australia's so-called National Broadband Network is a recent and woeful example. The sole counterexample is probably roads, and even then there's an argument that the public administration of roads has many systematic issues that could be blamed on governmental factors.
    - michaelchisari 9y ago
      Roads, dams, railroads, energy transport, the postal service. I would argue that the large scale successes outnumber the failures.
      - inopinatus 9y ago
        Curious which country you're living in where that list of stuff doesn't translate to either "built privately" or "built & run by government, has notoriously horrendous service levels".
        michaelchisari 9y ago
        The United States. There can always be improvements, but our postal service for instance is quite good, especially when you're talking about last mile delivery, something the private companies outsource to them.
losteric 9y ago
To use a metaphor: the federal government should grease the wheels and kickstart the engine on large-scale projects, but state/city/corporations are responsible for building car and steering it. For example, it's great that publicly funded prior research and experts bootstrapped SpaceX's R&D, and then NASA's contracts for low-priority launches helped them iron out the kinks. It was a nice transition from publicly funded risky R&D to a market-driven private industry. On the other hand, NASA's "full-stack" SLS product is an inexcusable clusterfuck. Corporations are way better at diving deep to create practical, economical products... very very lean. The government is good at running lots of small risky/low-ROI projects, unprofitable but foundational to future private sectors. Tax the past to subsidize the future.
funkyy 9y ago
The government should do that, but not in the current state. Governments around the globe became so broken and corrupt, they cannot do the tasks given to them. But pro-society government (centrist), with regular people having direct tools to remove officials, with politicians being responsible for their election promises and with no lobbying allowed, with tight anti-corruption laws and yearly referendum in place.
abandonliberty 9y ago
The government is very important in creating the environment for the future to be built. Safety, stability, intellectual/skill capital, laws & rewards that support innovation (e.g. 'good' patents). The future must remember the great debt it owes to governments and their citizens, for it would not exist without them. Unfortunately the future tends to hide its money in offshore bank accounts. Government also has a greater role to play in extremely long-term initiatives that don't make sense in a shareholder funded vehicle. Much of our current society is founded on government funded R&D as Candu mentions.

skybrian 9y ago

Maybe not build it, but how about funding it? Consider DARPA, NIH, or Space X for that matter, largely funded by government contracts. (On the other hand, Space X versus the usual defense contractors is quite a contrast.)

cmurf 9y ago

Rather than being the wagon or the puller of the wagon, the government should be the handle. It's just a tool to provide a means for leaders to lead a society. The role of government, when it comes to minority rights, can act like a big fat rock under the wagon wheel though. As well it should.

candu 9y ago

You may be interested in Mariana Mazzucato's TED talk, where she calls into question tropes about the "sluggishness" or "innovation deficit" of government and highlights its central role in making high-risk technological investments. After all, when it's not seized by a spasm of science denialism, the government is a chief backer of basic research, which is then often licensed on extremely generous terms to make a wide range of industries and products viable. One could argue that the government is, in fact, uniquely positioned to fund truly basic research, for which risk is often too high - and payoff too uncertain or delayed - to be fundable in a corporate environment. Put another way: the government is often, contrary to belief, much less risk-averse than private enterprise when it comes to research of this sort. For instance, take this Internet thing we're all communicating over. Without R&D efforts by ARPA in conjunction with several prominent universities, or the willingness of CERN to place key Web protocols in the public domain, we might very well have had non-interoperable AOL-style fiefdoms. But what company would, in the 70s, have funded an unproven telecommunications network just to connect a handful of universities?

lomnakkus 9y ago
Indeed and I find it an absurd false dichotomy to suppose that it's either/or. Why can't both government and private enterprise both be discovering the future at the same time? Granted, some enterprises/initiatives will fail, but that's kind of par for the course since nobody can predict the future.
- inopinatus 9y ago
  The long view is surely that Government provides an excellent vehicle for planning/regulation of infrastructure and allocation of large-scale funding, and independent institutions and private companies the best vehicles to receive that funding for R&D & build. When a government tries to build infrastructure directly, you often get disastrous outcomes. Australia's so-called National Broadband Network is a recent and woeful example. The sole counterexample is probably roads, and even then there's an argument that the public administration of roads has many systematic issues that could be blamed on governmental factors.
  - michaelchisari 9y ago
    Roads, dams, railroads, energy transport, the postal service. I would argue that the large scale successes outnumber the failures.
    - inopinatus 9y ago
      Curious which country you're living in where that list of stuff doesn't translate to either "built privately" or "built & run by government, has notoriously horrendous service levels".
      - michaelchisari 9y ago
        The United States. There can always be improvements, but our postal service for instance is quite good, especially when you're talking about last mile delivery, something the private companies outsource to them.

losteric 9y ago

To use a metaphor: the federal government should grease the wheels and kickstart the engine on large-scale projects, but state/city/corporations are responsible for building car and steering it. For example, it's great that publicly funded prior research and experts bootstrapped SpaceX's R&D, and then NASA's contracts for low-priority launches helped them iron out the kinks. It was a nice transition from publicly funded risky R&D to a market-driven private industry. On the other hand, NASA's "full-stack" SLS product is an inexcusable clusterfuck. Corporations are way better at diving deep to create practical, economical products... very very lean. The government is good at running lots of small risky/low-ROI projects, unprofitable but foundational to future private sectors. Tax the past to subsidize the future.

funkyy 9y ago

The government should do that, but not in the current state. Governments around the globe became so broken and corrupt, they cannot do the tasks given to them. But pro-society government (centrist), with regular people having direct tools to remove officials, with politicians being responsible for their election promises and with no lobbying allowed, with tight anti-corruption laws and yearly referendum in place.

abandonliberty 9y ago

The government is very important in creating the environment for the future to be built. Safety, stability, intellectual/skill capital, laws & rewards that support innovation (e.g. 'good' patents). The future must remember the great debt it owes to governments and their citizens, for it would not exist without them. Unfortunately the future tends to hide its money in offshore bank accounts. Government also has a greater role to play in extremely long-term initiatives that don't make sense in a shareholder funded vehicle. Much of our current society is founded on government funded R&D as Candu mentions.