3 ms·
what if scientists actually considered being economically competent? There is no law of nature that holds that scientists must be aloof savants.
by mjfl 8y ago
what if scientists actually considered being economically competent? There is no law of nature that holds that scientists must be aloof savants.
- mcgarnagle 8y agoI think setting up machinery and waiting for discoveries like this one can be compared to being patient at the slot machines; it is essentially economically equivalent to gambling. Eventually, as a person living in society you may run out of quarters before you hit the "jackpot." Yes, you can use your quarters today on other things in society that are more guaranteed to bring you more quarters, but, we don't know what kind of "jackpot" is waiting for humanity until we hit it. This makes a sad, difficult decision in the life of a scientist, which is why we should have more rich people funding (since a lot of them have gambling problems any way, ie: stock market, brothels, etc) edit: to sum up, this would be an efficient economy at scale. Some one with money already puts someone with expertise to good use :)
- jjoonathan 8y agoValue capture in science is a known hard problem. Snide comments suggesting that it is tractable do not make it so.
- mattkrause 8y agoThis drives me nuts. If a quaint, ivory tower environment ever existed at all, it’s long, long gone. Science these days is incredibly fast-paced and competitive (for better or worse) and running a successful lab takes a similar level of managerial chops, hustle, and luck to running small business. If you have actual suggestions, please do share them, but taking the mickey out of people trying to figure out the universe on $45k/yr is just mean.