3 ms·
Unfortunately, I don't think there's any point in history where this heuristic would have allowed for significant basic research. But looking at the modern worl
by wpietri 4y ago
Unfortunately, I don't think there's any point in history where this heuristic would have allowed for significant basic research. But looking at the modern world, there's no way we could support today's population without some of that basic research.
Regardless, poverty isn't mainly a problem of wealth scarcity, but instead of wealth distribution. So even if you stopped spending on any research that doesn't have a short-term justification, I don't think that money would end up alleviating poverty, but instead going to fund somebody's slightly bigger superyacht.
- quickthrower2 4y agoAnd the people who would have been employed by the research work for Google on a pre-canned project, or on a better weapon.
- midoridensha 4y agoThe sad thing is, better weapons are needed, because without them, we get people like Putin invading countries and stealing their resources (after murdering and raping their people) and then spending money on bigger superyachts. As for those "living breathing humans beings", reportedly 200,000 of them have died so far trying to help Putin achieve his goals and get another superyacht, so I really don't see why you'd want to spend money helping random humans when you could spend it on scientific research instead.