3 ms·

I think we simply have different core values. It appears that you believe that the ability for an individual to have total control over their money is a basic r

I think we simply have different core values. It appears that you believe that the ability for an individual to have total control over their money is a basic right. I believe that an individual has a fundamental responsibility to the society into which they were born; this is vague and nebulous, but a portion of this responsibility includes funding scientific and educational projects if they are so able. Science has, many times in the past, embarked upon a path to which there was no obvious benefit, yet ultimately came upon a discovery or application which improved the lives of humans immeasurably. Could Halley have had any idea how large the impact would be when he coerced Newton to record calculus and the laws of gravity in a book? What about Michael Faraday's fascination with electricity, generously supported by the Royal Society? People aren't, as a whole, equipped to understand the long-term consequences of our actions. Predicating funding for something so essential to all of the progress made in the last few centuries on this faulty understanding would cripple our development. A government which attempts to offset the massive social cost of such a missed opportunity with speculative research is doing its duty to its citizens. We don't know what we don't know; evaluating scientific research with your limited cost/benefit analysis fails to take into account the enormous opportunity cost of a lost discovery. As others have noted, taxation which funds things you don't agree with is a basic fact of modern life, but it has benefited you immensely - complaining about this funding model while you enjoy its output seems disingenuous.

mycroft-holmes 12y ago
> I believe that an individual has a fundamental responsibility to the society into which they were born Why exactly?
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  If the OP is like most of us, because its right to give back more than you've received. Just using a tool like society isn't enough; you want to contribute to its maintenance, maybe even improve it while you're there.
- rybosome 12y ago
  Being born into a society (particularly a wealthy one) bestows many gifts. Chance of survival increases drastically, and the new member is given access to a treasure-trove of information accumulated over tens of thousands of years. Take growing crops, for instance; such an essential part of human life, it is something that we ("we" being humans) have earned. The acquisition of this knowledge was hard-won, requiring the effort of countless human beings. How many people starved to death, teaching the survivors that a particular strategy was bad? How many people collaborating did it take to develop a language and writing system with which to communicate these teachings? This goes on and on; modern society, for all its faults, is a towering monument to the best of human potential, and to the incredible sacrifices made by our ancestors so that we could be here and alive today. Given that we all owe our existence (and current level of comfort) to the social responsibility born by our progenitors, we must shoulder that same responsibility for the sake of our peers and our descendants. Someone who does not wish to take on that responsibility has no reasonable claim to the continued benefits of society - e.g. if you won't foster an environment in which medicine can be studied, then you do not deserve to benefit from the years of medical study prior to your interference. This is a fundamental value for me; I'd be interested in hearing a counter-argument, but I highly doubt that I could be dissuaded.

mycroft-holmes 12y ago

> I believe that an individual has a fundamental responsibility to the society into which they were born Why exactly?

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
If the OP is like most of us, because its right to give back more than you've received. Just using a tool like society isn't enough; you want to contribute to its maintenance, maybe even improve it while you're there.
rybosome 12y ago
Being born into a society (particularly a wealthy one) bestows many gifts. Chance of survival increases drastically, and the new member is given access to a treasure-trove of information accumulated over tens of thousands of years. Take growing crops, for instance; such an essential part of human life, it is something that we ("we" being humans) have earned. The acquisition of this knowledge was hard-won, requiring the effort of countless human beings. How many people starved to death, teaching the survivors that a particular strategy was bad? How many people collaborating did it take to develop a language and writing system with which to communicate these teachings? This goes on and on; modern society, for all its faults, is a towering monument to the best of human potential, and to the incredible sacrifices made by our ancestors so that we could be here and alive today. Given that we all owe our existence (and current level of comfort) to the social responsibility born by our progenitors, we must shoulder that same responsibility for the sake of our peers and our descendants. Someone who does not wish to take on that responsibility has no reasonable claim to the continued benefits of society - e.g. if you won't foster an environment in which medicine can be studied, then you do not deserve to benefit from the years of medical study prior to your interference. This is a fundamental value for me; I'd be interested in hearing a counter-argument, but I highly doubt that I could be dissuaded.