2 ms·

Sorry but - however inspiring this story may be - I as a citizen don’t want to abdicate my role in society in the decision process and suffice myself to consume

by eecc 9y ago

Sorry but - however inspiring this story may be - I as a citizen don’t want to abdicate my role in society in the decision process and suffice myself to consume. Google may be top “freedom of research” today but it’s a private property I have no influence or stake whatsoever; one day they take a u-turn and “spring clean” all. I can’t trust a couple guys just because “they’re nerds”, that’s not a long enough guarantee. You actually used Bell Labs as an example... is it still as prominent today as it was? Why not?

replicatorblog 9y ago
That's fine. But any argument against Google as a private property applies equally to Harvard (and the entire Ivy League), Stanford, MIT, etc. State universities are great, but they're not where the lion's share of Nobel-caliber research is done. In the US, Private schools lead 10:1 in the Nobel race: (https://www.bestmastersprograms.org/50-universities-with-the-most-nobel-prize-winners/ https://www.bestmastersprograms.org/50-universities-with-the...).
- Cyph0n 9y ago
  There is still a difference between Google and Stanford: one is not a for-profit institution, and therefore has access to public research funding such as from the NSF.
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago
  >That's fine. But any argument against Google as a private property applies equally to Harvard (and the entire Ivy League), Stanford, MIT, etc. Exactly! That's why we need to nationalize the Ivy League.
dnautics 9y ago
> I as a citizen don’t want to abdicate my role in society in the decision process and suffice myself to consume. Let me break to you the hard news: As a citizen you have basically zero influence over the research direction that the government TLAs engage in. Those decisions are made through elections which are determined by things like "who can we scare into thinking they'll cause abortions to happen across the land". If a candidate who had a proven track record of funding science wrote the Patriot act, you wouldn't vote for him, would you? (True story). It's even worse in the EU, since the commissioners are not elected. Oh and the kicker is that in the past three decades, those people who hate abortions and deny global warming have a better track record of funding science than the other tribe. If you really want to have agency, you would be donating to a nonprofit science research organization.
- eecc 9y ago
  Well, I agree that in practice the public system has been sabotaged down to the very core, I’m thinking of the ridiculous demand that it should be managed like a company to perform better. But giving up and handling the keys over to Corporate is a step too far. I don’t think there’s a solution that doesn’t include reevaluating the idea of public commons, in a world without there’s absolutely no reason to spend a dime outside of corporate subsidy
  - dnautics 9y ago
    False dichotomy: there's a very large and historically relevant gap between government funded and corporate. For example, how we cured polio.
    - eecc 9y ago
      ? Where is the dichotomy?

by eecc 9y ago

replicatorblog 9y ago

That's fine. But any argument against Google as a private property applies equally to Harvard (and the entire Ivy League), Stanford, MIT, etc. State universities are great, but they're not where the lion's share of Nobel-caliber research is done. In the US, Private schools lead 10:1 in the Nobel race: (https://www.bestmastersprograms.org/50-universities-with-the-most-nobel-prize-winners/ https://www.bestmastersprograms.org/50-universities-with-the...).

Cyph0n 9y ago
There is still a difference between Google and Stanford: one is not a for-profit institution, and therefore has access to public research funding such as from the NSF.
eli_gottlieb 9y ago
>That's fine. But any argument against Google as a private property applies equally to Harvard (and the entire Ivy League), Stanford, MIT, etc. Exactly! That's why we need to nationalize the Ivy League.

dnautics 9y ago

> I as a citizen don’t want to abdicate my role in society in the decision process and suffice myself to consume. Let me break to you the hard news: As a citizen you have basically zero influence over the research direction that the government TLAs engage in. Those decisions are made through elections which are determined by things like "who can we scare into thinking they'll cause abortions to happen across the land". If a candidate who had a proven track record of funding science wrote the Patriot act, you wouldn't vote for him, would you? (True story). It's even worse in the EU, since the commissioners are not elected. Oh and the kicker is that in the past three decades, those people who hate abortions and deny global warming have a better track record of funding science than the other tribe. If you really want to have agency, you would be donating to a nonprofit science research organization.

eecc 9y ago
Well, I agree that in practice the public system has been sabotaged down to the very core, I’m thinking of the ridiculous demand that it should be managed like a company to perform better. But giving up and handling the keys over to Corporate is a step too far. I don’t think there’s a solution that doesn’t include reevaluating the idea of public commons, in a world without there’s absolutely no reason to spend a dime outside of corporate subsidy
- dnautics 9y ago
  False dichotomy: there's a very large and historically relevant gap between government funded and corporate. For example, how we cured polio.
  - eecc 9y ago
    ? Where is the dichotomy?