Oh, Professor, I have zero opposition to us the taxpayer spending trillions on
R&D for both basic research and technology. I do note with deep concern that
trillions over the years has been wasted. Unfocused discovery of wonder is
terrfifc, but human need supercedes unrelated stuff in my opinion. How much is
enough, and when does x cross y for a return on investment? I am not a young
man and have been waiting 45 years for fusion, either magnetic or inertial
confinement, eh? Space travel will benefit, but again 20 years?
What seems more likely in a few yers is pervoskite solar, possibly deep
georthermal (maybe), and we could've developed fail-safe fission, and JC's MSR
reactors. Medicine? That's the Cash Cow for R&D and seems underfunded, and
uncoordinated. I'd have used US Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi's method of income
engancement for All US citizens, by giving US taxpayers the right to donate 1%
of their taxes to stocks that have R&D behind them, say medicines? Again, ROI.
Just an idea...
Ciao!
On Saturday, April 19, 2025 at 06:54:52 PM EDT, Russell Standish
<li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 04:42:17PM +0000, 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything
List wrote:
> My criticism of the Dems is we have gives tens of trillions over the decades
> with little return on investment, considering the cash spent. Secondly, as I
> hold, scientists who let their Ideology Eclipse theiir Intellect, are of no
> use
> to the rest of the species. Gentlemen, if you get furious over little with us
> nornies, then yes, you have misread the room. But of course, you don't care.
> Basdic research is the essence of science, but the lead time toi usefulness is
> problematic. Tell us why we should fund you John? Where's the ROI?
>
There is a well-known anecdote about Michael Faraday, who exhibited an
early form of an electric motor in 1821, and was asked what was the use
of his electromagnetism. His response was "what is the use of a
baby?".
The question should not be whether society invests in scientific
research - it should be, and at a few percent of GDP, is modest,
affordable and it has historically had extremely high ROI given
long-enough time. The question should be who decides which scientific
programmes get the money. I can see problems with all the usual
choices: the scientists themselves, nameless bureaucrats, the
broligarchs, or politicians like Trump.
Cheers
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/aAQprZwV13zwTwUW%40zen.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/402190470.1998587.1745155448061%40mail.yahoo.com.
