5 ms·

we all know. we just can’t figure out how the fuck to get it funded. That sort of blue-sky culture needs a whole lot of disinterested money, and that’s hard to

we all know. we just can’t figure out how the fuck to get it funded. That sort of blue-sky culture needs a whole lot of disinterested money, and that’s hard to come by. In previous generations, we’ve used monopolists, the gentry, and other ways…always a challenge.

auggierose 4y ago
If you know, you'll find a way to do the research you want anyway. So, no problem here. But I guess the problem is finding out which research you really want to do. You might find other aspects of life more rewarding / interesting / important.
pdimitar 4y ago
Sadly there's plenty of money being spent in the world every second and even 1% of them would be enough to fund most of the science on the planet for years in the future... :( You wouldn't believe how much money do top Twitch / YouTube streamers get in an hour. I understand that they provide entertainment / influence and many people need that and pay them -- it's fair business and I don't look down on it. On the other hand... aren't there like sooooo many other and much more pressing concerns in the world to fix with surplusmoney? Yes, there are. So yeah I sympathize with the "we can't figure out how to fund proper free research". It's really a shame on humanity.
- cs137 4y ago
  Part of the problem is that the way we conceptualize money leads us to treat it as if it's a real thing, as opposed to an accounting system the state creates for various purposes, some of which are desirable and some of which are not. If it can be done, it can be afforded. Only if it is physically impossible can it not be "afforded". That is where we ought to start as a society. Where will we get the money for a universal basic income? There are an infinitude of options--the state literally made the stuff up. The question isn't why there is so little money for so many important things, and so much money wasted--the question is why, despite being ostensibly democratic, we are so bad at statecraft (and have been since the Boomers took charge).
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    Problem is, not everything that can be done can be afforded (at least, not all at once). Or, to put it in Thomas Sowell's terms, economics is about the allocation of limited resources that have alternate uses. You want the government to print a bunch of money? Great. Now we have a bunch of money. We don't have any more actual stuff to buy with the money, though. Are we any better off? No. Is science any better off? Maybe - depends on what we do with the new money. Are the poor and disadvantaged any better off? Maybe - it depends on how much money is created, and how that money is distributed. Sounds like what you really want is to smooth out who has access to how much stuff, and also support science better. Printing a bunch of money (and distributing it) might do it, but it depends a great deal on the details.
    - cs137 4y ago
      What you're saying isn't wrong, but there are obvious solutions in front of us. We implement a universal basic income (indexed to inflation, so it absorbs any inflation it causes) to keep the minimal living standard high, we increase basic research funding by an order of magnitude or more, and we tax the hell out of the rich. The only reason this isn't happening is because so much of the putative "leadership", in every organ of society, is corrupted by the hyperconsumptive billionaire vampires that these institutions are supposed to regulate (or, better yet, prevent from existing in the first place). We face, in 2022, a number of problems that are actually pretty easy to solve, but the people in charge won't let us. Well, history tells us exactly what to do when we face that particular problem...
      - robocat 4y ago
        > and we tax the hell out of the rich If you are a developer in the US, you are the rich. Whenever people say “tax the rich” what they invariably mean is tax those that are richer than they are. If you are arguing from a moral standard, then shouldn’t most Americans be taxed and the actually poor ($2 per day) around the world receive those taxes? > hyperconsumptive billionaire vampires Which to the average sample of some outside the USA, the vampire is mostly regarded as the USA, using its economic might to equivalently tax most other countries through many means. Disclaimer: I’m not against the US, but definitely against some of the effects one of the richest country in the world has on other poorer countries (per capita). Edit: just noticed this quote: “In 1963, 20 percent of Americans lived in poverty. Today it’s 2.3 percent.” If you are not part of that 2.3%, then you are likely the rich of the world that should be taxed?
- Gigachad 4y ago
  Do we really want to speed up the rate of research much more than what it's already at? Society can hardly keep up with the speed of change we have now. At least the twitch streamers are a mostly neutral force on the world. Can't say the same about those researching facial recognition or new missile guidance systems.
  - pdimitar 4y ago
    Quantity is not the same as quality. I obviously don't have a detailed view on this but judging by HN and a few other aggregators, modern science is much more concerned with keeping the lights on and producing bullshit outcomes only serving to further one's career in the same area. Perverse incentives. Having free research funded will alleviate part of this problem. We need a lot of good innovation right now and that's still missing -- starting with better (small) batteries. The world doesn't really need to pay yet another batch of 20_000 students trying to invent better cat photos classification NNs. Yet a lot of money are poured in such endeavors.
cs137 4y ago
Something I've learned is that most people are only really good (that is, good enough to contribute notably and distinguish themselves) at one thing. A few of us are good at two things, but even there, those two things tend to be related more closely than it seems at first. This is part of why our society has such horrible leadership, especially in the private sector. People who are good at climbing bureaucratic hierarchies, most typically, are not good at anything else: not very smart, not very ethical, etc. Academia was supposed to protect people from having to do the things they're bad at--such as sell their ideas to people who lack the ability to deeply understand them--and, unfortunately, it went derelict in that duty a long time ago. Salesmen, in any field other than sales, are like an invasive species who outcompete the natives with their superior social polish, but who struggle to actually do anything, which leads to systemic underperformance and the erosion of trust, which only makes the competitive necessity of salesmanship even greater, setting in motion a death spiral from which a private entity (or, in the long term, an entire industry) almost never recovers.
- walleeee 4y ago
  > Salesmen, in any field other than sales, are like an invasive species who outcompete the natives with their superior social polish, but who struggle to actually do anything, which leads to systemic underperformance and the erosion of trust, which only makes the competitive necessity of salesmanship even greater As a graduate student it's hard not to internalize this framework even though it's soul destroying and leads all too predictably to poor science If you're very lucky your career success might be orthogonal to or even aligned with your sense of curiosity and intellectual honesty, more often they're antipathetic and you will have to sacrifice one for the other
xwdv 4y ago
Can’t we just invent some kind of kickstarter for research? Certified researchers pitch something to millions and people donate small amounts to fund them? Some guy just got $300k from the internet just for working at Burger King.
- tomrod 4y ago
  Unfortunately democracy doesn't do great in areas where technocrats are needed.
- EUV071STR48 4y ago
  You could do that on kickstarter. An audience exists there already. Although it's mostly small investors/ backers there. You have thought more of the bigger investors, haven't you? Research is expensive indeed...
- nephanth 4y ago
  Um, a lot of research is, in goal, substance, and subject, completely incomprehensible to non-specialists. So in practice I see a lot of obstructions to this method :/
- hprotagonist 4y ago
  to a first approximation, what you’re proposing is that citizens pay their taxes, and then the state funds research at accredited non-profit institutes of higher learning. it’s the best we have right now; it is not without drawbacks. You’re not going to escape wanting to reinvent the grant proposal system.

auggierose 4y ago

If you know, you'll find a way to do the research you want anyway. So, no problem here. But I guess the problem is finding out which research you really want to do. You might find other aspects of life more rewarding / interesting / important.

pdimitar 4y ago

Sadly there's plenty of money being spent in the world every second and even 1% of them would be enough to fund most of the science on the planet for years in the future... :( You wouldn't believe how much money do top Twitch / YouTube streamers get in an hour. I understand that they provide entertainment / influence and many people need that and pay them -- it's fair business and I don't look down on it. On the other hand... aren't there like sooooo many other and much more pressing concerns in the world to fix with surplusmoney? Yes, there are. So yeah I sympathize with the "we can't figure out how to fund proper free research". It's really a shame on humanity.

cs137 4y ago
Part of the problem is that the way we conceptualize money leads us to treat it as if it's a real thing, as opposed to an accounting system the state creates for various purposes, some of which are desirable and some of which are not. If it can be done, it can be afforded. Only if it is physically impossible can it not be "afforded". That is where we ought to start as a society. Where will we get the money for a universal basic income? There are an infinitude of options--the state literally made the stuff up. The question isn't why there is so little money for so many important things, and so much money wasted--the question is why, despite being ostensibly democratic, we are so bad at statecraft (and have been since the Boomers took charge).
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Problem is, not everything that can be done can be afforded (at least, not all at once). Or, to put it in Thomas Sowell's terms, economics is about the allocation of limited resources that have alternate uses. You want the government to print a bunch of money? Great. Now we have a bunch of money. We don't have any more actual stuff to buy with the money, though. Are we any better off? No. Is science any better off? Maybe - depends on what we do with the new money. Are the poor and disadvantaged any better off? Maybe - it depends on how much money is created, and how that money is distributed. Sounds like what you really want is to smooth out who has access to how much stuff, and also support science better. Printing a bunch of money (and distributing it) might do it, but it depends a great deal on the details.
  - cs137 4y ago
    What you're saying isn't wrong, but there are obvious solutions in front of us. We implement a universal basic income (indexed to inflation, so it absorbs any inflation it causes) to keep the minimal living standard high, we increase basic research funding by an order of magnitude or more, and we tax the hell out of the rich. The only reason this isn't happening is because so much of the putative "leadership", in every organ of society, is corrupted by the hyperconsumptive billionaire vampires that these institutions are supposed to regulate (or, better yet, prevent from existing in the first place). We face, in 2022, a number of problems that are actually pretty easy to solve, but the people in charge won't let us. Well, history tells us exactly what to do when we face that particular problem...
    - robocat 4y ago
      > and we tax the hell out of the rich If you are a developer in the US, you are the rich. Whenever people say “tax the rich” what they invariably mean is tax those that are richer than they are. If you are arguing from a moral standard, then shouldn’t most Americans be taxed and the actually poor ($2 per day) around the world receive those taxes? > hyperconsumptive billionaire vampires Which to the average sample of some outside the USA, the vampire is mostly regarded as the USA, using its economic might to equivalently tax most other countries through many means. Disclaimer: I’m not against the US, but definitely against some of the effects one of the richest country in the world has on other poorer countries (per capita). Edit: just noticed this quote: “In 1963, 20 percent of Americans lived in poverty. Today it’s 2.3 percent.” If you are not part of that 2.3%, then you are likely the rich of the world that should be taxed?
Gigachad 4y ago
Do we really want to speed up the rate of research much more than what it's already at? Society can hardly keep up with the speed of change we have now. At least the twitch streamers are a mostly neutral force on the world. Can't say the same about those researching facial recognition or new missile guidance systems.
- pdimitar 4y ago
  Quantity is not the same as quality. I obviously don't have a detailed view on this but judging by HN and a few other aggregators, modern science is much more concerned with keeping the lights on and producing bullshit outcomes only serving to further one's career in the same area. Perverse incentives. Having free research funded will alleviate part of this problem. We need a lot of good innovation right now and that's still missing -- starting with better (small) batteries. The world doesn't really need to pay yet another batch of 20_000 students trying to invent better cat photos classification NNs. Yet a lot of money are poured in such endeavors.

cs137 4y ago

Something I've learned is that most people are only really good (that is, good enough to contribute notably and distinguish themselves) at one thing. A few of us are good at two things, but even there, those two things tend to be related more closely than it seems at first. This is part of why our society has such horrible leadership, especially in the private sector. People who are good at climbing bureaucratic hierarchies, most typically, are not good at anything else: not very smart, not very ethical, etc. Academia was supposed to protect people from having to do the things they're bad at--such as sell their ideas to people who lack the ability to deeply understand them--and, unfortunately, it went derelict in that duty a long time ago. Salesmen, in any field other than sales, are like an invasive species who outcompete the natives with their superior social polish, but who struggle to actually do anything, which leads to systemic underperformance and the erosion of trust, which only makes the competitive necessity of salesmanship even greater, setting in motion a death spiral from which a private entity (or, in the long term, an entire industry) almost never recovers.

walleeee 4y ago
> Salesmen, in any field other than sales, are like an invasive species who outcompete the natives with their superior social polish, but who struggle to actually do anything, which leads to systemic underperformance and the erosion of trust, which only makes the competitive necessity of salesmanship even greater As a graduate student it's hard not to internalize this framework even though it's soul destroying and leads all too predictably to poor science If you're very lucky your career success might be orthogonal to or even aligned with your sense of curiosity and intellectual honesty, more often they're antipathetic and you will have to sacrifice one for the other

xwdv 4y ago

Can’t we just invent some kind of kickstarter for research? Certified researchers pitch something to millions and people donate small amounts to fund them? Some guy just got $300k from the internet just for working at Burger King.

tomrod 4y ago
Unfortunately democracy doesn't do great in areas where technocrats are needed.
EUV071STR48 4y ago
You could do that on kickstarter. An audience exists there already. Although it's mostly small investors/ backers there. You have thought more of the bigger investors, haven't you? Research is expensive indeed...
nephanth 4y ago
Um, a lot of research is, in goal, substance, and subject, completely incomprehensible to non-specialists. So in practice I see a lot of obstructions to this method :/
hprotagonist 4y ago
to a first approximation, what you’re proposing is that citizens pay their taxes, and then the state funds research at accredited non-profit institutes of higher learning. it’s the best we have right now; it is not without drawbacks. You’re not going to escape wanting to reinvent the grant proposal system.