4 ms·
It will be impossible to get an extra 10 billion dollars invested into science without a project like this. In other words probably 10% or less of that money wo
by Gatsky 6y ago
It will be impossible to get an extra 10 billion dollars invested into science without a project like this. In other words probably 10% or less of that money would end up going into other fields of research. Considering all the other things governments spend money on, that is a good enough reason to do it in my book.
- erikpukinskis 6y agoIt’s interesting to see capitalism’s influence here. Like in many other areas of the economy, capitalism requires a concentration of control in science too, as a prerequisite for allocation of capital. Trapping us in a local minimum of narrow hierarchies.
- UweSchmidt 6y agoWhat do you mean with "the other things governments spend money on"? That's infrastructure, education, welfare. The 10 billion is not free money but taken from taxes, so please make a good case for spending it! Surely any intent of not being honest about the cost/benefit will backfire and discredit future scientific projects.
- Gatsky 6y agoMilitary spending (eg USA, Russia, China), politically motivated public works (eg Japan), propping up failing industries for political reasons (eg car industry in Australia or USA), not to mention all the money that gets wasted on consultants, starting projects and not finishing them, poorly thought out stimulus packages... There is a huge double standard where some things undergo a stringent cost/benefit analysis and other things are not scrutinised at all. Also the upside or benefit of scientific investment can be astronomically and unpredictably high. How can you compare building more public housing to inventing the semiconductor industry?