4 ms·

>>>>> Before we go any further, let me be clear: this isn’t about sides or ideologies. Support for education and research should be as fundamental as clean air

>>>>> Before we go any further, let me be clear: this isn’t about sides or ideologies. Support for education and research should be as fundamental as clean air or safe roads. It is part of the shared infrastructure that holds society together. When that foundation cracks, the consequences ripple far beyond the lab. Let me be clear: This is precisely about sides and ideologies.

JadeNB 1y ago
> Let me be clear: This is precisely about sides and ideologies. How so? It is, I suppose, pushing an ideology that everyone should support education, research, clean air, and safe roads, but any belief in some sort of universal good must rely on an ideology, if only circularly on the ideology that there is such a thing as a universal good.
- esafak 1y ago
  In the broad sense of ideology as "a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy" (New Oxford American Dictionary)
- shankfalserinse 1y ago
  Because there are people who believe we don't need new things. What is research to them?
- jvanderbot 1y ago
  It can be taken to be about sides/ideology when the cause of cancellation of certain high profile university's funding is over ideological / political disputes. TFA seems to say "This is important and we shouldn't cut general funding", but also goes on to call on industry, in particular large tech company CEOs to push back against ideologically driven funding cuts. That toes the line of calling for political responses.
- cle 1y ago
  "Everyone should support education" is an empty platitude, it doesn't help answer questions like "how much funding?" and "who gets funding and who doesn't?". That's where the sides arise. The author (and Nature) pretends like those aren't real problems and that scientists should get unconditional support. That's never been the case.
- the_af 1y ago
  > How so? There are currently existing ideologies in power in some countries (e.g. in Argentina, not everything is about the US!) that stand for de-funding health, education and basic science and research, and anything that is not of immediate use for businesses. It's a self-defeating ideology (because business do benefit from basic research in the long term), but it does exist today.
- georgeecollins 1y ago
  I think there are credible arguments about investing less in education and research. At a really basic level, imagine if you are a retired couple in a small town. You pay a lot of taxes that goes to support a school you don't have any kids at and a university you didn't go to. That's something like the state of the world for a lot of voters in parts of the United States-- aging / dying rural towns and exurbs. When the greater good is the extreme wealth of coastal cities (and I think it is!) you can see there lots of places that really don't want to pay for it. Another good argument against our subsidy of education (although maybe not against research) is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_Against_Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_Against_Education I don't really agree, and I am surprised there are people here who would argue against funding research.
  - LarsDu88 1y ago
    If this is what many people perceive, it does not actually align with what is going on in the United States today. What's actually happening is that most of the wealth and tax revenue is generated by the coastal metropolitan areas of the US, which basically subsidize the rural inland regions of the country. Things like Medicare which those same rural folks vote against. This is because the amount of wealth generated by science and technology vastly outweighs what is being generated by rural areas of the country. Now we cut off the pipeline and investment into those wealth generating areas so that long term, the nation will head into decline...
    - ashoeafoot 1y ago
      The costal vampire empires rob those towns of youth and future
      - LarsDu88 1y ago
        The youth leave because there is no future in those rural and former manufacturing areas of the country. The solution by the current administration is to weaken the dollar, but this is basically robbing everyone... when the dollar goes down by 15%, its the same as torching 15% of everyone's money -- same as inflation. The correct solution is to tax the disproportionately wealthy oligarchs of those coastal vampire companies... the tech monopolies which implicitly levy taxes on all online transactions (Google's 30% cut on android apps, Google's 70% cut on all advertising, Steam's 30% cut on all PC games, Amazon's cut on all online shopping transactions), then reinvest that money into rural industries to make manufacturing competitive. Instead the solution has been to levy a tax on all consumers over all trade, which tends to make local manufacturing less competitive over the long run.
UltraSane 1y ago
No. It is about spiteful ignorance vs science and rationality.
tokai 1y ago
>as clean air or safe roads Its really on the nose when these two examples has been anything but fundamental. There are many people out there that don't believe these things are worth working towards. In lieu of a thorough argument I'll post this old clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xcQIoh3FQQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xcQIoh3FQQ
MisterBastahrd 1y ago
And I'm fine with it. We've got trillions of dollars worth of companies that do very little but leech off of the rest of us and utilize the vast wealth they've accumulated to degrade our society in order to perpetuate their own existence.
- bilbo0s 1y ago
  I'm not going to argue against the veracity of what you're saying, but I would caution against cutting off our nose to spite our face. I think what we're seeing is that there is obviously a need to rein in some of those corporate excesses you're alluding to, and try to protect the research core that we need to move the nation, and humanity in general, forward.
bee_rider 1y ago
It is basically true but also devastating to admit that “pro-education” is an ideology. “We should fulfill some basic requirements for a functional society,” and other hardcore extremist positions…
- bilbo0s 1y ago
  But pro-education is an ideology. It always was.
  - snapplebobapple 1y ago
    Its an ideology beyond a base level that is justified by reasonable cost benefit analysis. For example i am very much against the buzz sawing currently going on but i also see the mass overproduction of phds and replication crisis quality research going on in sections of academia and am very much for drastically cutting thise fields. I would want a bunch of analysis done and then very careful scaling back over several years not what is happening
    - bee_rider 1y ago
      I’m pretty sure everybody in academia is already aware of those problems (they are personally annoyed by them on a day-to-day basis). But the serious path to fixing them is not the buzz saw. Like nobody enjoys giving up more than half of their grants to the school admin. But cutting it down 15% max all of a sudden is not a change that is going to stick around.
      - dogleash 1y ago
        > everybody in academia is already aware of those problems (they are personally annoyed by them on a day-to-day basis). But the serious path to fixing them is not the buzz saw What is the serious path to fixing them? I don't think academics are moving the needle with their current strat of a bit of handwringing followed by conceding to the system anyway.
zzzeek 1y ago
nuclear destruction of civilization vs. not, it's all just sides and ideology. maybe humanity doesn't deserve to exist and we should be pushing for nuclear annihilation. There's two sides and both should be discussed and honored with equal value to society!
amiga386 1y ago
Let me be clear: it shouldn't be about sides or ideologies, but recently in some places it has been blatantly about ideologies, promoted by one side while they were in power, and this has enraged the base of the other side, who have brought their side into power, and they approve of their side applying maximum ideological fuckery, possibly dooming us all.
- bbor 1y ago
  > promoted by one side while they were in power Presumably this is in reference to the years 1993-1995, 2009-2011, and 2021-2023...? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divided_government_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divided_government_in_the_Unit... > recently in some places it has been blatantly about ideologies I agree if we use the word "ideology" in an absolute, philosophical sense, but I think this it's missing the authors point entirely. To illustrate with a more familiar term: basically every part of social life is technically political, but when people say 'this isn't about politics', they're trying to communicate that it doesn't relate to the actively-debated divisions of the day among elected officials. US prosperity is something that no side will own up to opposing, and yet here we are, dismantling our soft power in the academic sphere and beyond at a breakneck pace.

JadeNB 1y ago

> Let me be clear: This is precisely about sides and ideologies. How so? It is, I suppose, pushing an ideology that everyone should support education, research, clean air, and safe roads, but any belief in some sort of universal good must rely on an ideology, if only circularly on the ideology that there is such a thing as a universal good.

esafak 1y ago
In the broad sense of ideology as "a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy" (New Oxford American Dictionary)
shankfalserinse 1y ago
Because there are people who believe we don't need new things. What is research to them?
jvanderbot 1y ago
It can be taken to be about sides/ideology when the cause of cancellation of certain high profile university's funding is over ideological / political disputes. TFA seems to say "This is important and we shouldn't cut general funding", but also goes on to call on industry, in particular large tech company CEOs to push back against ideologically driven funding cuts. That toes the line of calling for political responses.
cle 1y ago
"Everyone should support education" is an empty platitude, it doesn't help answer questions like "how much funding?" and "who gets funding and who doesn't?". That's where the sides arise. The author (and Nature) pretends like those aren't real problems and that scientists should get unconditional support. That's never been the case.
the_af 1y ago
> How so? There are currently existing ideologies in power in some countries (e.g. in Argentina, not everything is about the US!) that stand for de-funding health, education and basic science and research, and anything that is not of immediate use for businesses. It's a self-defeating ideology (because business do benefit from basic research in the long term), but it does exist today.
georgeecollins 1y ago
I think there are credible arguments about investing less in education and research. At a really basic level, imagine if you are a retired couple in a small town. You pay a lot of taxes that goes to support a school you don't have any kids at and a university you didn't go to. That's something like the state of the world for a lot of voters in parts of the United States-- aging / dying rural towns and exurbs. When the greater good is the extreme wealth of coastal cities (and I think it is!) you can see there lots of places that really don't want to pay for it. Another good argument against our subsidy of education (although maybe not against research) is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_Against_Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_Against_Education I don't really agree, and I am surprised there are people here who would argue against funding research.
- LarsDu88 1y ago
  If this is what many people perceive, it does not actually align with what is going on in the United States today. What's actually happening is that most of the wealth and tax revenue is generated by the coastal metropolitan areas of the US, which basically subsidize the rural inland regions of the country. Things like Medicare which those same rural folks vote against. This is because the amount of wealth generated by science and technology vastly outweighs what is being generated by rural areas of the country. Now we cut off the pipeline and investment into those wealth generating areas so that long term, the nation will head into decline...
  - ashoeafoot 1y ago
    The costal vampire empires rob those towns of youth and future
    - LarsDu88 1y ago
      The youth leave because there is no future in those rural and former manufacturing areas of the country. The solution by the current administration is to weaken the dollar, but this is basically robbing everyone... when the dollar goes down by 15%, its the same as torching 15% of everyone's money -- same as inflation. The correct solution is to tax the disproportionately wealthy oligarchs of those coastal vampire companies... the tech monopolies which implicitly levy taxes on all online transactions (Google's 30% cut on android apps, Google's 70% cut on all advertising, Steam's 30% cut on all PC games, Amazon's cut on all online shopping transactions), then reinvest that money into rural industries to make manufacturing competitive. Instead the solution has been to levy a tax on all consumers over all trade, which tends to make local manufacturing less competitive over the long run.

UltraSane 1y ago

No. It is about spiteful ignorance vs science and rationality.

tokai 1y ago

>as clean air or safe roads Its really on the nose when these two examples has been anything but fundamental. There are many people out there that don't believe these things are worth working towards. In lieu of a thorough argument I'll post this old clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xcQIoh3FQQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xcQIoh3FQQ

MisterBastahrd 1y ago

And I'm fine with it. We've got trillions of dollars worth of companies that do very little but leech off of the rest of us and utilize the vast wealth they've accumulated to degrade our society in order to perpetuate their own existence.

bilbo0s 1y ago
I'm not going to argue against the veracity of what you're saying, but I would caution against cutting off our nose to spite our face. I think what we're seeing is that there is obviously a need to rein in some of those corporate excesses you're alluding to, and try to protect the research core that we need to move the nation, and humanity in general, forward.

bee_rider 1y ago

It is basically true but also devastating to admit that “pro-education” is an ideology. “We should fulfill some basic requirements for a functional society,” and other hardcore extremist positions…

bilbo0s 1y ago
But pro-education is an ideology. It always was.
- snapplebobapple 1y ago
  Its an ideology beyond a base level that is justified by reasonable cost benefit analysis. For example i am very much against the buzz sawing currently going on but i also see the mass overproduction of phds and replication crisis quality research going on in sections of academia and am very much for drastically cutting thise fields. I would want a bunch of analysis done and then very careful scaling back over several years not what is happening
  - bee_rider 1y ago
    I’m pretty sure everybody in academia is already aware of those problems (they are personally annoyed by them on a day-to-day basis). But the serious path to fixing them is not the buzz saw. Like nobody enjoys giving up more than half of their grants to the school admin. But cutting it down 15% max all of a sudden is not a change that is going to stick around.
    - dogleash 1y ago
      > everybody in academia is already aware of those problems (they are personally annoyed by them on a day-to-day basis). But the serious path to fixing them is not the buzz saw What is the serious path to fixing them? I don't think academics are moving the needle with their current strat of a bit of handwringing followed by conceding to the system anyway.

zzzeek 1y ago

nuclear destruction of civilization vs. not, it's all just sides and ideology. maybe humanity doesn't deserve to exist and we should be pushing for nuclear annihilation. There's two sides and both should be discussed and honored with equal value to society!

amiga386 1y ago

Let me be clear: it shouldn't be about sides or ideologies, but recently in some places it has been blatantly about ideologies, promoted by one side while they were in power, and this has enraged the base of the other side, who have brought their side into power, and they approve of their side applying maximum ideological fuckery, possibly dooming us all.

bbor 1y ago
> promoted by one side while they were in power Presumably this is in reference to the years 1993-1995, 2009-2011, and 2021-2023...? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divided_government_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divided_government_in_the_Unit... > recently in some places it has been blatantly about ideologies I agree if we use the word "ideology" in an absolute, philosophical sense, but I think this it's missing the authors point entirely. To illustrate with a more familiar term: basically every part of social life is technically political, but when people say 'this isn't about politics', they're trying to communicate that it doesn't relate to the actively-debated divisions of the day among elected officials. US prosperity is something that no side will own up to opposing, and yet here we are, dismantling our soft power in the academic sphere and beyond at a breakneck pace.