1. is debatable, but in any case that is not the argument that the GP post made -- the post specifically argued that it's worth developing knowledge with no imm

1. is debatable, but in any case that is not the argument that the GP post made -- the post specifically argued that it's worth developing knowledge with no immediate known application, because some application may be developed later. That's a different argument than "knowledge ought to be accumulated for its own sake." 2. is unclear; the economic funding model of the 18th century was very different. At that time, there were very few academics, and nearly all were independently wealthy and self-funding. That is, they chose to spend their own money on mathematical curiosities to amuse themselves. Now, in modern academia, we are discussing the case that public tax money ought to be appropriated and allocated to pure knowledge / curiosity discovery _at scale_, for work which -- by definition -- has no known application or use. This is a very different economic and ethical proposal. This is no longer the question of how one rich man chooses to spend his own money; we are discussing the social application of common resources -- compulsory tax payments for all. It's easy to imagine other ways to spend that tax money that have much less debatable social value -- how about free healthcare for all? Better roads, or high speed trains? No famines? Flood control? There are a million other ideas with immediate benefit. I appreciate the value of pure knowledge as much as anyone, but it's also hard to make the case that it should be pursued indefinitely, whereever possible, and without limit or boundary when so many competing priorities exist. It's a question of competition for very scarce resources, versus unlimited wants. How do we decide appropriate allocations?