01 Aug '12 08:49>4 edits
I have given this much thought and have come to the conclusion that we should stop spending any significant money on pure science and only spend money on applied science until if or when world poverty is eliminated because, until then, that money could arguably be better spent on vastly more urgent things such as putting food into the mouths of the starving etc.
That pure science includes most of space exportation especially manned missions which does next-to-nothing for science anyway but even sending probes to Mars should be cancelled. The only space stuff that should be done is that involving weather and communication satellites and searching for rogue asteroids to give us early warning of an asteroid hit on Earth and stuff to do with early warning of solar storms. That means, at least for now, no space probes to other planets, no manned space missions and no expensive space telescopes to look at the stars.
We should also stop spending money on particle physics.
Instead, we should spend all our science budget on useful applied sciences with the significant potential to benefit humanity such as on solar power, more energy efficient computers, medicine etc. we should re-employ most/all the current scientists that are doing pure science to do applied science.
Don't get me wrong here; I am not saying we should never do pure research! What I would say here is, what is the hurry in doing pure research? Why not wait until world poverty and the global warming threat etc is solved and only THEN do that pure research?
Now, I have heard it argued that the spending on pure science is justified because it can give unpredictable spin-offs that then justify the initial spending on that.
But we are not doing pure research for the unpredictable spin-offs and “ unpredictable” is the operative word here; there is no guarantee of any significant benefit from any pure research but the benefits from applied science is obvious. And, now come on, do you really think that the billions of dollars spent on, for example, particle physics, is likely to result in spin-offs that would alone justify all those billions spent on it? Surely not.
I have also I have heard it argued that if we stop spending on pure science until there is no more world poverty etc then we would never spend money on pure science because there will always be world poverty etc. But that argument is flawed because there will only always be world poverty etc if we keep spending vast amounts of money on things like pure science instead of spending that same money on eliminating world poverty etc.
Besides, what is the damn hurry in discovering, say, the properties of the Higgs? Why should we consider it so damn urgent to know about the Higgs that rather than finding out in ~50 years time by spending all those billions we have now on eliminating would hunger etc, we should spend our billions that we have right NOW on finding out about the Higgs right NOW thus take potential food straight out of the mouths of the starving in the third world? I am not suggesting we should spend ALL our money on directly eliminating poverty but, IF we are to spend money on science, at least make sure it is only the most useful kind of science to humanity.
Although military science is an applied science, we should also strive to either stop or, failing that, at least reduce our spending on military research by international agreement so that all countries of the world have the opportunity to divert wasteful funding away from military research and into funding useful things.
Anyone agree? Disagree? Only partly agree? Debate:
That pure science includes most of space exportation especially manned missions which does next-to-nothing for science anyway but even sending probes to Mars should be cancelled. The only space stuff that should be done is that involving weather and communication satellites and searching for rogue asteroids to give us early warning of an asteroid hit on Earth and stuff to do with early warning of solar storms. That means, at least for now, no space probes to other planets, no manned space missions and no expensive space telescopes to look at the stars.
We should also stop spending money on particle physics.
Instead, we should spend all our science budget on useful applied sciences with the significant potential to benefit humanity such as on solar power, more energy efficient computers, medicine etc. we should re-employ most/all the current scientists that are doing pure science to do applied science.
Don't get me wrong here; I am not saying we should never do pure research! What I would say here is, what is the hurry in doing pure research? Why not wait until world poverty and the global warming threat etc is solved and only THEN do that pure research?
Now, I have heard it argued that the spending on pure science is justified because it can give unpredictable spin-offs that then justify the initial spending on that.
But we are not doing pure research for the unpredictable spin-offs and “ unpredictable” is the operative word here; there is no guarantee of any significant benefit from any pure research but the benefits from applied science is obvious. And, now come on, do you really think that the billions of dollars spent on, for example, particle physics, is likely to result in spin-offs that would alone justify all those billions spent on it? Surely not.
I have also I have heard it argued that if we stop spending on pure science until there is no more world poverty etc then we would never spend money on pure science because there will always be world poverty etc. But that argument is flawed because there will only always be world poverty etc if we keep spending vast amounts of money on things like pure science instead of spending that same money on eliminating world poverty etc.
Besides, what is the damn hurry in discovering, say, the properties of the Higgs? Why should we consider it so damn urgent to know about the Higgs that rather than finding out in ~50 years time by spending all those billions we have now on eliminating would hunger etc, we should spend our billions that we have right NOW on finding out about the Higgs right NOW thus take potential food straight out of the mouths of the starving in the third world? I am not suggesting we should spend ALL our money on directly eliminating poverty but, IF we are to spend money on science, at least make sure it is only the most useful kind of science to humanity.
Although military science is an applied science, we should also strive to either stop or, failing that, at least reduce our spending on military research by international agreement so that all countries of the world have the opportunity to divert wasteful funding away from military research and into funding useful things.
Anyone agree? Disagree? Only partly agree? Debate: