6 ms·

That's the way it should be, IMO. Government research leads to things like WMDs.

by Tycho 12y ago

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
AlexandrB 12y ago
Also penicillin and the smallpox vaccine, the internet - but you know, whatever...
- Tycho 12y ago
  So? What's your argument?
  - factorizer 12y ago
    Don't know what his argument was. Mine is: You're probably a troll and nobody should feed you.
    - Tycho 12y ago
      I gave my opinion and labelled it as such.
      - melling 12y ago
        Could you provide some data to support your opinion?
        Tycho 12y ago
        Every WMD program in existence? The apparatus of our surveillance states? Private companies and wealthy individuals would not pusure these things because it would be illegal and also pointless. Only governments want and pursue stuff like this. Of course, plenty of government directed research and government funded research is positive, but the private sector is intertwined with all that (funding and execution) and it's not true to say just because the government funded something it wouldn't have happened otherwise. At the extreme you have states like USSR and North Korea that spend almost everything on ghastly projects.
        melling 12y ago
        "Government research leads to all things WMD" How does your post support this opinion?
        Tycho 12y ago
        I don't now what you mean. Do you deny that WMD programs exist?
        melling 12y ago
        No, and I never said or hinted that they don't exist. We are trying to establish how much of the research budget is spend on them.
        Tycho 12y ago
        It's not about the money that is wasted in developing them, it is about the consequences of their existence.
        melling 12y ago
        Again, that's not what we're discussing.
        Tycho 12y ago
        Did you think my argument was that when the government directs and funds research, they disproportionately waste it on WMDs? No, my argument was that big government research spending leads to monstrosities that would otherwise not even exist.
- oafitupa 12y ago
  Yeah, in the process of killing millions and all imaginable crimes against humanity, they did a few good things, no one denies that. But if you use those good things as your argument, that's known as the broken window fallacy.
  - thecage411 12y ago
    This has to be the most bizarre interpretation of the broken window fallacy I've read.
    - oafitupa 12y ago
      Actually it's very common. Try arguing with a soldier. Those guys are brainwashed into believing that the military helped humanity move forward technologically, as if spending that money directly in research (without the bombings, the deaths of millions, etc.) couldn't possibly have achieved the same, let alone much more (which is in fact more likely).
- spikels 12y ago
  Amazing how people simply make up facts to support their ideology. Both penicillin and smallpox vaccine were discovered with little if any government support. But you know, whatever...
  - AlexandrB 12y ago
    Not being a historian, I actually read Wikipedia before posting that. I guess I was confused on the smallpox vaccines creation which seems to involve a lot of actors. What's certain however, is that the vaccine's dissemination and the eventual eradication of smallpox was pushed by the World Health Organization (part of the UN) and so was a government initiative. [1] Penicillin was discovered by Alexander Fleming as part of research in a public institution (St. Mary's Hospital). [2] I guess my larger point (which you deftly avoided addressing) is that the government is not a boogeyman creating evil technologies nor does it have a monopoly on evil shit. I also have a hard time imagining a motive for a for-profit organization to eradicate a disease world-wide. Something that government organizations have achieved almost twice (polio is nearly wiped out). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox#Eradication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox#Eradication [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennicilin#Discovery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennicilin#Discovery
    - Tycho 12y ago
      St Mary's Hospital was not government controlled or funded when Fleming was working there. It was one of the 'voluntary hospitals' supported by philanthropy and private donors. Furthermore, if you read the history of penicillin [1] you can see a long history of tinkering (meaning the discovery was somewhat inevitable) and that Pfizer, Inc. worked out how to mass produce it. But you know, whatever... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_penicillin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_penicillin
dmix 12y ago
This does bring up a fair point, the military industrial complex is a massive funder of university grants. The creates a lot of ethical issue that are worth considering. The original comment listed some issues with free-market financing but gov backing is not suddenly more altruistic/fair because it's not coordinated by 'free-market' billionaires. There are many many billionaires (and billion-dollar companies) who influence what the gov invests in and a significant number of them come from the DoD side. It's even a problem among researchers in England: http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/david-mccoy/universities-must-resist-military-industrial-complex http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/david-mccoy/universi...
- hackuser 12y ago
  > The original comment listed some issues with free-market financing but gov backing is not suddenly more altruistic/fair because it's not coordinated by 'free-market' billionaires. I agree (though I don't think it's a 'free market' in sense of the economic term of art), however the issue is political power and control. Do we want a few citizens to have that much influence over our society, such as deciding which good works get funded, and who gets the funding? What happens when a donor threatens to reduce funding for the local hospital if the city council passes a law that impacts the donor's business? Also, I tend to think the NSF will do a better (if not perfect) job of evaluating grant proposals than the random philanthropist. You are right that the wealthy already have outsized influence; that's not a reason to give them more.
angersock 12y ago
The reason you're being downvoted is that your point (as read) seems to be "Well, .gov funds research that kills babies!" This is rubbish, because it also funds research that leads to medicine, better roads and health, the Internet, and all number of other things that are absolutely positive things. The balance is by far on the good, not the bad. Private research brought us things like the Maxim gun, the Gatling gun, most of the shitty food you can buy today, lots of unhealthy chemicals, and all sorts of other things. It's a comparison that, even if executed properly, is hard to make--and you failed to execute.
- Tycho 12y ago
  The point is that private companies have no incentive to pursue things like wMD programs or PRISM. Only governments have that.
  - mcguire 12y ago
    > or PRISM Google. Facebook.
    - nickff 12y ago
      Those companies were complying with legal obligations, not eagerly helping the NSA collect any and all data because they were gung-ho.
      - mcguire 12y ago
        No, they are collecting data because that is how they make money. And I rather suspect that if you compare what the NSA knows about you, personally, with what th' Goog' knows, the NSA will come up well behind. I'm not trying to minimize what the NSA has done; what they do is supposedly done in our name, which is offensive, and they have more power than any company to do harm with what they collect, which is frightening. And I'm not trying to attack the companies; they have every right to what I give them, most of which is not private even if I would wish it to be, and they do provide useful services with that information. But if you are upset about an organization collecting information to use in some way that may be other than your best interest, the two are pretty equal.

That's the way it should be, IMO. Government research leads to things like WMDs.

by Tycho 12y ago

That's the way it should be, IMO. Government research leads to things like WMDs.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

AlexandrB 12y ago

Also penicillin and the smallpox vaccine, the internet - but you know, whatever...

Tycho 12y ago
So? What's your argument?
- factorizer 12y ago
  Don't know what his argument was. Mine is: You're probably a troll and nobody should feed you.
  - Tycho 12y ago
    I gave my opinion and labelled it as such.
    - melling 12y ago
      Could you provide some data to support your opinion?
      - Tycho 12y ago
        Every WMD program in existence? The apparatus of our surveillance states? Private companies and wealthy individuals would not pusure these things because it would be illegal and also pointless. Only governments want and pursue stuff like this. Of course, plenty of government directed research and government funded research is positive, but the private sector is intertwined with all that (funding and execution) and it's not true to say just because the government funded something it wouldn't have happened otherwise. At the extreme you have states like USSR and North Korea that spend almost everything on ghastly projects.
        melling 12y ago
        "Government research leads to all things WMD" How does your post support this opinion?
        Tycho 12y ago
        I don't now what you mean. Do you deny that WMD programs exist?
        melling 12y ago
        No, and I never said or hinted that they don't exist. We are trying to establish how much of the research budget is spend on them.
        Tycho 12y ago
        It's not about the money that is wasted in developing them, it is about the consequences of their existence.
        melling 12y ago
        Again, that's not what we're discussing.
        Tycho 12y ago
        Did you think my argument was that when the government directs and funds research, they disproportionately waste it on WMDs? No, my argument was that big government research spending leads to monstrosities that would otherwise not even exist.
oafitupa 12y ago
Yeah, in the process of killing millions and all imaginable crimes against humanity, they did a few good things, no one denies that. But if you use those good things as your argument, that's known as the broken window fallacy.
- thecage411 12y ago
  This has to be the most bizarre interpretation of the broken window fallacy I've read.
  - oafitupa 12y ago
    Actually it's very common. Try arguing with a soldier. Those guys are brainwashed into believing that the military helped humanity move forward technologically, as if spending that money directly in research (without the bombings, the deaths of millions, etc.) couldn't possibly have achieved the same, let alone much more (which is in fact more likely).
spikels 12y ago
Amazing how people simply make up facts to support their ideology. Both penicillin and smallpox vaccine were discovered with little if any government support. But you know, whatever...
- AlexandrB 12y ago
  Not being a historian, I actually read Wikipedia before posting that. I guess I was confused on the smallpox vaccines creation which seems to involve a lot of actors. What's certain however, is that the vaccine's dissemination and the eventual eradication of smallpox was pushed by the World Health Organization (part of the UN) and so was a government initiative. [1] Penicillin was discovered by Alexander Fleming as part of research in a public institution (St. Mary's Hospital). [2] I guess my larger point (which you deftly avoided addressing) is that the government is not a boogeyman creating evil technologies nor does it have a monopoly on evil shit. I also have a hard time imagining a motive for a for-profit organization to eradicate a disease world-wide. Something that government organizations have achieved almost twice (polio is nearly wiped out). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox#Eradication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox#Eradication [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennicilin#Discovery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennicilin#Discovery
  - Tycho 12y ago
    St Mary's Hospital was not government controlled or funded when Fleming was working there. It was one of the 'voluntary hospitals' supported by philanthropy and private donors. Furthermore, if you read the history of penicillin [1] you can see a long history of tinkering (meaning the discovery was somewhat inevitable) and that Pfizer, Inc. worked out how to mass produce it. But you know, whatever... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_penicillin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_penicillin

dmix 12y ago

This does bring up a fair point, the military industrial complex is a massive funder of university grants. The creates a lot of ethical issue that are worth considering. The original comment listed some issues with free-market financing but gov backing is not suddenly more altruistic/fair because it's not coordinated by 'free-market' billionaires. There are many many billionaires (and billion-dollar companies) who influence what the gov invests in and a significant number of them come from the DoD side. It's even a problem among researchers in England: http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/david-mccoy/universities-must-resist-military-industrial-complex http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/david-mccoy/universi...

hackuser 12y ago
> The original comment listed some issues with free-market financing but gov backing is not suddenly more altruistic/fair because it's not coordinated by 'free-market' billionaires. I agree (though I don't think it's a 'free market' in sense of the economic term of art), however the issue is political power and control. Do we want a few citizens to have that much influence over our society, such as deciding which good works get funded, and who gets the funding? What happens when a donor threatens to reduce funding for the local hospital if the city council passes a law that impacts the donor's business? Also, I tend to think the NSF will do a better (if not perfect) job of evaluating grant proposals than the random philanthropist. You are right that the wealthy already have outsized influence; that's not a reason to give them more.

angersock 12y ago

The reason you're being downvoted is that your point (as read) seems to be "Well, .gov funds research that kills babies!" This is rubbish, because it also funds research that leads to medicine, better roads and health, the Internet, and all number of other things that are absolutely positive things. The balance is by far on the good, not the bad. Private research brought us things like the Maxim gun, the Gatling gun, most of the shitty food you can buy today, lots of unhealthy chemicals, and all sorts of other things. It's a comparison that, even if executed properly, is hard to make--and you failed to execute.

Tycho 12y ago
The point is that private companies have no incentive to pursue things like wMD programs or PRISM. Only governments have that.
- mcguire 12y ago
  > or PRISM Google. Facebook.
  - nickff 12y ago
    Those companies were complying with legal obligations, not eagerly helping the NSA collect any and all data because they were gung-ho.
    - mcguire 12y ago
      No, they are collecting data because that is how they make money. And I rather suspect that if you compare what the NSA knows about you, personally, with what th' Goog' knows, the NSA will come up well behind. I'm not trying to minimize what the NSA has done; what they do is supposedly done in our name, which is offensive, and they have more power than any company to do harm with what they collect, which is frightening. And I'm not trying to attack the companies; they have every right to what I give them, most of which is not private even if I would wish it to be, and they do provide useful services with that information. But if you are upset about an organization collecting information to use in some way that may be other than your best interest, the two are pretty equal.