3 ms·
It was realized some time ago that having citizens decide to "donate to the research we care about" was not the most efficient way to get the most important res
by PaulDavisThe1st 5mo ago
It was realized some time ago that having citizens decide to "donate to the research we care about" was not the most efficient way to get the most important research done. So we switched to a system where we pool our resources (taxes), and then use a somewhat complex process (described in TFA) to decide how to allocate them to possible research.
- calvinmorrison 5mo agoand those taxes are distributed by our government... which is political. simple as.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5mo agoso it's political ... so what?
- calvinmorrison 5mo agoSo why should any function of government be free from politics? The point of our system is so we can give feedback and adjust the system
- PaulDavisThe1st 5mo agoI don't disagree. I'm not sure what point you're responding to.
- IAmBroom 5mo agoYou're missing the key distinction here: not only are the seeds selected by a political body, but the active weeding of previously planted seeds is now inherently political. Both are bad, but one allows some diversity; the other produces a monoculture. A political monoculture that can be completely upended before even any useful crop is grown, given the nature of a working democracy versus the length of research projects. And yes, I'm aware that those last two words are no longer guaranteed.