3 ms·

Although the article is from the LA Times, California is not the only state with science research. Since research benefits everyone, it makes sense and is more

Although the article is from the LA Times, California is not the only state with science research. Since research benefits everyone, it makes sense and is more efficient to fund it under the largest possible umbrella.

roenxi 1y ago
Counterpoint: No it doesn't. I've included about as convincing an argument so hopefully that satisfies you. But I feel that is a bit light for a comment so I'll go further - producing food is a benefit to everyone and that isn't funded under the largest possible umbrella. It is funded under a highly decentralised system and works unbelievably efficiently. There is no reason to think science is different. Even the big projects that need a lot of money (eg, a big Fusion project like ITER) have shown to be fund-able by a disparate group of entities (ironically governments). There doesn't need to be a coordinating central government giving marching orders to make it happen. Interested parties can just fund science directly.
- hackyhacky 1y ago
  > Counterpoint: No it doesn't. I've included about as convincing an argument so hopefully that satisfies you. I don't seen any evidence. Would you say that government investment in space, the internet, or medicine does not benefit the general public? > producing food is a benefit to everyone and that isn't funded under the largest possible umbrella. It is funded under a highly decentralised system and works unbelievably efficiently. Among other mechanisms, the federal government provides extensive financial support and incentives to food growers. Are you saying that federal food subsidies should be eliminated under the same principle as eliminating research? > have shown to be fund-able by a disparate group of entities (ironically governments). I feel like you are undermining your own point here. > Interested parties can just fund science directly. They can, but historically, profit-motivated non-governmental entities are sufficiently risk-averse that they are unwilling or unable to invest in basic research, i.e. such research that may or may not have a monetizable application. The internet is the classic example of this class of research.
  - roenxi 1y ago
    I have some respect for arguments so I'll avoid the snark this time. However, I don't see how any of this is particularly relevant. It seems to be very pro-government but if you scroll up a bit you'll see my original post was arguing that in this instance the Californian government could fund this; if they care. So I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. > Are you saying that federal food subsidies should be eliminated under the same principle as eliminating research? That sounds like a good idea to me. Probably, yes.

roenxi 1y ago

Counterpoint: No it doesn't. I've included about as convincing an argument so hopefully that satisfies you. But I feel that is a bit light for a comment so I'll go further - producing food is a benefit to everyone and that isn't funded under the largest possible umbrella. It is funded under a highly decentralised system and works unbelievably efficiently. There is no reason to think science is different. Even the big projects that need a lot of money (eg, a big Fusion project like ITER) have shown to be fund-able by a disparate group of entities (ironically governments). There doesn't need to be a coordinating central government giving marching orders to make it happen. Interested parties can just fund science directly.

hackyhacky 1y ago
> Counterpoint: No it doesn't. I've included about as convincing an argument so hopefully that satisfies you. I don't seen any evidence. Would you say that government investment in space, the internet, or medicine does not benefit the general public? > producing food is a benefit to everyone and that isn't funded under the largest possible umbrella. It is funded under a highly decentralised system and works unbelievably efficiently. Among other mechanisms, the federal government provides extensive financial support and incentives to food growers. Are you saying that federal food subsidies should be eliminated under the same principle as eliminating research? > have shown to be fund-able by a disparate group of entities (ironically governments). I feel like you are undermining your own point here. > Interested parties can just fund science directly. They can, but historically, profit-motivated non-governmental entities are sufficiently risk-averse that they are unwilling or unable to invest in basic research, i.e. such research that may or may not have a monetizable application. The internet is the classic example of this class of research.
- roenxi 1y ago
  I have some respect for arguments so I'll avoid the snark this time. However, I don't see how any of this is particularly relevant. It seems to be very pro-government but if you scroll up a bit you'll see my original post was arguing that in this instance the Californian government could fund this; if they care. So I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. > Are you saying that federal food subsidies should be eliminated under the same principle as eliminating research? That sounds like a good idea to me. Probably, yes.