4 ms·

The post war scientific edifice is being shattered in a monumental act of vandalism. It’s not just defunding childhood cancer research, but also dismantling th

by denom 2y ago

The post war scientific edifice is being shattered in a monumental act of vandalism. It’s not just defunding childhood cancer research, but also dismantling the very idea of agency in the broader society. Science and basic research are worth pursuing. And the cost is a pittance.

brookst 2y ago
The oligarchs can’t stand to see a single dollar go to a legit purpose though.
- RRWagner 2y ago
  No, the oligarchs can't stand seeing a single dollar go to the poor, and when one is a billionaire, everyone else is poor.
  - iimblack 2y ago
    What blows my mind is how short sighted it is. Even the oligarchs benefit from scientific research. Even the oligarchs lose money when our industries move to other countries.
- linguae 2y ago
  This reminds me of something Alan Kay (of Xerox PARC and Apple fame) wrote when talked about how those who profited from the results of research have not “paid it forward” through funding future research: https://worrydream.com/2017-12-30-alan/ https://worrydream.com/2017-12-30-alan/ “As I pointed out in a previous email, Engelbart couldn't get funding from the very people who made fortunes from his inventions. “It strikes me that many of the tech billionaires have already gotten their "upside" many times over from people like Engelbart and other researchers who were supported by ARPA, Parc, ONR, etc. Why would they insist on more upside, and that their money should be an "investment"? That isn't how the great inventions and fundamental technologies were created that eventually gave rise to the wealth that they tapped into after the fact. “It would be really worth the while of people who do want to make money -- they think in terms of millions and billions -- to understand how the trillions -- those 3 and 4 extra zeros came about that they have tapped into. And to support that process.”
- throwaway657656 2y ago
  No, this isn't about oligarchs. This is about sadists some of whom happen to be oligarchs whose singular goal is to make the non-MAGA sad. It is working.
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    it is of course not about that, maga could give two shits who is happy or sad. the whole exercise is too do silly shit in public to make people “outraged” while privately commiting the greatest heist in the history of the universe :)
grandempire 2y ago
How do we know what projects are worth funding? Anything that labels itself science? Is sociology science and basic research? Do we fund people instead of projects? How do you get in the group?
- brookst 2y ago
  I can’t read between the lines you’re drawing. Are you trying to say that unless we can make perfectly efficient funding decisions, we should fund nothing?
  - grandempire 2y ago
    The concern is that we are defunding important things because science is getting cut. But every university group associates itself with science. Saying “we have to fund science” is a sentiment which is synonymous with saying “we have to fund good research projects that help society”. Which important efforts are we losing? Or which are essential to keep?
    - jltsiren 2y ago
      Wait a few decades and you'll know. If a research topic is obviously valuable, the industry is probably already working on it. Academic research mostly deals with topics where the benefits are too unpredictable or too far in the future to make sense for the industry. But many of those topics eventually become valuable – you just don't know in advance which ones.
      - grandempire 2y ago
        I think you wait a few decades and you have thousands of people using their full brain power and attention to continue to secure that funding. And not just money - but a continuing affirmation that their work is valuable. > you just don't know in advance which ones. at the limit, this sounds like “you can’t question what’s good science because it’s unknowable, but it’s also a moral imperative to fund” which leads back to my original question. If that’s true, which projects and fields get to forgoe scrutiny in hopes of paying off?

by denom 2y ago

brookst 2y ago

The oligarchs can’t stand to see a single dollar go to a legit purpose though.

RRWagner 2y ago
No, the oligarchs can't stand seeing a single dollar go to the poor, and when one is a billionaire, everyone else is poor.
- iimblack 2y ago
  What blows my mind is how short sighted it is. Even the oligarchs benefit from scientific research. Even the oligarchs lose money when our industries move to other countries.
linguae 2y ago
This reminds me of something Alan Kay (of Xerox PARC and Apple fame) wrote when talked about how those who profited from the results of research have not “paid it forward” through funding future research: https://worrydream.com/2017-12-30-alan/ https://worrydream.com/2017-12-30-alan/ “As I pointed out in a previous email, Engelbart couldn't get funding from the very people who made fortunes from his inventions. “It strikes me that many of the tech billionaires have already gotten their "upside" many times over from people like Engelbart and other researchers who were supported by ARPA, Parc, ONR, etc. Why would they insist on more upside, and that their money should be an "investment"? That isn't how the great inventions and fundamental technologies were created that eventually gave rise to the wealth that they tapped into after the fact. “It would be really worth the while of people who do want to make money -- they think in terms of millions and billions -- to understand how the trillions -- those 3 and 4 extra zeros came about that they have tapped into. And to support that process.”
throwaway657656 2y ago
No, this isn't about oligarchs. This is about sadists some of whom happen to be oligarchs whose singular goal is to make the non-MAGA sad. It is working.
- bdangubic 2y ago
  it is of course not about that, maga could give two shits who is happy or sad. the whole exercise is too do silly shit in public to make people “outraged” while privately commiting the greatest heist in the history of the universe :)

grandempire 2y ago

How do we know what projects are worth funding? Anything that labels itself science? Is sociology science and basic research? Do we fund people instead of projects? How do you get in the group?

brookst 2y ago
I can’t read between the lines you’re drawing. Are you trying to say that unless we can make perfectly efficient funding decisions, we should fund nothing?
- grandempire 2y ago
  The concern is that we are defunding important things because science is getting cut. But every university group associates itself with science. Saying “we have to fund science” is a sentiment which is synonymous with saying “we have to fund good research projects that help society”. Which important efforts are we losing? Or which are essential to keep?
  - jltsiren 2y ago
    Wait a few decades and you'll know. If a research topic is obviously valuable, the industry is probably already working on it. Academic research mostly deals with topics where the benefits are too unpredictable or too far in the future to make sense for the industry. But many of those topics eventually become valuable – you just don't know in advance which ones.
    - grandempire 2y ago
      I think you wait a few decades and you have thousands of people using their full brain power and attention to continue to secure that funding. And not just money - but a continuing affirmation that their work is valuable. > you just don't know in advance which ones. at the limit, this sounds like “you can’t question what’s good science because it’s unknowable, but it’s also a moral imperative to fund” which leads back to my original question. If that’s true, which projects and fields get to forgoe scrutiny in hopes of paying off?