Should science be public? I think it would be better if the free market handled it. Competing companies would make the best science. We would also save tons of money from government funds that are being wasted on nonproductive science.
Should science be public? I think it would be better if the free market handled it...
Justin Gutierrez
Other urls found in this thread:
spinoff.nasa.gov
twitter.com
Christopher Mitchell
It would be incredibly short sighted to put all focus into current needs. For example, while electric vehicles are hot right now, 30 years ago, manufacturers didn't even see the need for such technology.
Aiden Rivera
It wouldn't be profitable enough for anyone to finance it. Most big companies just work for profit, not the advancement of society. Inb4 heres a bunch of said societies because, as bad as this is gonna taste coming out of my mouth, the government is still a better option.
Josiah Russell
>nonproductive science
so all science?
Evan Wood
>Competing companies would make the best science.
This so much. I work under an R&D position in ""the private sector"" and imo I'm glad I'm not publishing data that's worthless mental masturbation.
Chase Sanders
>the free market
L0L as if
Angel Allen
...
Kayden Young
>30 years ago, manufacturers didn't even see the need for such technology.
I'm so glad the government helped with the invention of the internal combustion engine when all the people wanted was faster horses.
Leo Young
Well, the bloody got their faster horses, didn't they?
Anyways, it isn't the job of the government to *directly* act as an inventor/scientist/entrepreneur. It's their job to stimulate such behavior and cultivate an environment where they can flourish. That's why there are many government sponsored universities, science institutes, and agencies such as NASA/ESA.
The government actively encourages entrepreneurship. If you're aware of your universities campus, they probably have a tech-startup hotspot, where young blokes with ideas are helped in cultivating their ideas, they are offered courses and advised in the business and legal matters.
Adam Edwards
So, what about space travel and exploration?
You know, that is pretty useless shit, right. Why do we need to know what is on other planets? No company would ever do what US did during the space race, because there was no obvious return.
The problem with most research is that it is often high-risk business. You often don't know what you get from that research and if that something will actually be useful.
Most companies actually do behave same way as government when it comes to base research. They just dump some money into research and don't expect it to return. And if they get some good return, it is seen as a nice bonus. Its like lottery for them.
Gabriel Bell
>You know, that is pretty useless shit, right. Why do we need to know what is on other planets? No company would ever do what US did during the space race, because there was no obvious return.
spinoff.nasa.gov
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
>The problem with most research is that it is often high-risk business. You often don't know what you get from that research and if that something will actually be useful.
Well, yea, exactly. Which actually begs the question why you wrote the part under that. Most companies can't afford to make such risks.
>Most companies actually do behave same way as government when it comes to base research. They just dump some money into research and don't expect it to return. And if they get some good return, it is seen as a nice bonus. Its like lottery for them.
I think only large multinationals have the money and resources to afford a large R&D departments. These companies are only 1%, though. 99% are other smaller companies that focus on one specific of are expertise, where they know they can improve something, based on their experience.
Christian White
>spinoff.nasa.gov
>This is just the tip of the iceberg.
I knew some retard would reply with this.
Maybe if you understood what I said would you not make retard out of yourself.
Samuel Bailey
>Maybe if you understood what I said would you not make retard out of yourself.
Make me understand.
Aiden Kelly
>the free market
L0L, as if
Easton Russell
Did anyone, when space race started, knew they will get any of those?
If no, why would they put money into it, knowing they get nothing in return?
Dominic Cruz
>Did anyone, when space race started, knew they will get any of those?
Maybe you're too young to know about this, but It didn't matter at the time. It was a dick-measuring contest between the USA and the Soviet Union. In a way they did know it. Once they got the technology to do it the USA was afraid what the SU can do with those ballistic missiles, and those probes in orbit, so they started their own research, and vice versa.
Once the benefits were obvious - it was only a matter of time - the governments have all started doing it. Now, besides NASA, we have ESA, CNSA, JAXA, among others.
Xavier White
What do you mean by "they", Peasant?
Aaron Brooks
>Competing companies would make the best science.
Just like all things capitalism, it would make for science that either makes companies look better or is safe bullshit that is churned out as quickly as possible to make a profit.
Zachary Young
Take your pedophile cartoons back to .
Jose Phillips
>nonproductive science
gtfo, idiot
Nicholas Morris
There's lots of value in fooling people. Maybe the most valuable thing in modern society. Yes good make people focus on silly stories of aliens and planets while we use the tech developed to build ever increasingly complex surveillance and propaganda to fool them even more.
Adrian Carter
>Did anyone, when space race started, knew they will get any of those?
It is in the nature of science that you do not know what you will discover.
Don't confuse the R with the D, even though these often come in pairs.
Bentley Collins
It would retard science because companies wouldn't share data and only pursue things that are profitable in the short term.
Andrew Parker
>what is Microsoft Research
Parker Morales
One of the few big enough to do that.
Anthony Cook
Companies already do science in the fields of their interest and don't share data.
Op is imagining an ideal world where pretty much everyone hence business owners included are giving a shit about scientific progress.
At this point in history a great deal of people feel bad about paying taxes and for scientific projects being developed... it's often donations from exotic sources that keep big projects going.
Brayden Taylor
>At this point in history a great deal of people feel bad about paying taxes and for scientific projects being developed
Not sure what you're on about. Do you think people in the past gave a shit about science?
Andrew Martinez
>Companies already do science in the fields of their interest and don't share data.
Prime example is Big Pharma.
>Do you think people in the past gave a shit about science?
They cared about results. They could not care less about HOW it was achieved.
People have come to demand continuous progress in medicine, pharma, computers, transport and more. R&D is at the core of how this achieved. If you dropped all R there would still be room for about 20 years of D before stasis sets in. Then people would care. And then it would be too late.