3 ms·
correct me if i'm wrong, but this is what you are saying "poor countries should spend money on feeding the poor instead of funding fancy science projects" well
by maskedinvader 12y ago
correct me if i'm wrong, but this is what you are saying
"poor countries should spend money on feeding the poor instead of funding fancy science projects"
well allow me to retort,
having science projects trying to answer some of the biggest un-answered scientific questions would help with the following:
1. Retention of Talent: would enable physists to stay in india rather than immigrate elsewhere.
2. Boosts Economy: Expenditure as salary stays within the country and can help boost economy.
3. Innovation : innovation in advanced fields of physicts/space exploration can help develop new consumer technologies.
3. would enable governments to get international fame/credibility and quite possibly a seat at the big boy table.
Now you might wonder is this worth it, well I believe its worth spending a fraction of the GDP to fund such projects. Its not like all the funding given to such projects can solve the various poverty related problems the country faces.
- quonn 12y agoFirst, thank you for this reasonable response. To address our points: 1) Maybe. But probably you can retain many good scientists when doing projects that will contribute the GDP eventually. 2) Sounds plausible. 3) It can, but India fails to develop even basic technology at scale in decent quality. I guess I will get downvoted again, but this is simply a fact. I have lived in India for a year. I know. 4) I guess that is the purpose. It might also get foreign governments to reconsider their foreign aid, perhaps rightly so. If India would be where China is now, I would understand all this. But they aren't. Not even close. Not even in 20 years will they be close. And they are not, because they don't deal with the important issues _first_.