The world is unfair and that includes genetics.
You can't fault people for thinking that smart people have smart kids or clever people have clever kids...
And they wouldn't be wrong. It's one of those facts of the world which darkens any model that failed to take it into account.
If a grant is already written and approved, but the funds have yet to be dispersed, will I still get money?
It's NHS, funding my master's degree and PI's new lab
>cuts NASA budget
>NASA can't make muslim outreach their #1 priority anymore
>all brainlets, women, diversity hires etc get sacked
>only hyper autistic huwhite men as God intended
>NASA starts to actually get shit done
Clever man.
Except that's been demonstrably wrong. It's one of the reasons we moved away from feudalism and nobility to begin with. A great king was a poor indicator the son would be a great king, especially since the son grew up in an environment separated from the peasants and could not understand their needs. The same flaws are appearing with capitalism and the system will be forced to change eventually. It's just dialectics in motion.
>NASA can't make muslim outreach their #1 priority anymore
Proofs?
I get that most of Veeky Forums knows nothing about .gov policy (this applies to /pol/ as well), but while money is being cut it's not going to be catastrophic. Here's why:
1. Most American bioscience initiatives is paid for by Medicare. The GOP will not dare touch it because most of their base belongs to the AARP.
2. The cutting edge of American applied physics/chemistry research is spearheaded by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who also happens makes our nuclear weapons (and made a major breakthrough in fuse design just last year). Trump has already greenlighted the nuke modernization program, which will cost over a Trillion dollars.
3. The Dept. of Education has been more or less the bitch of private contractors since the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act, which in practice created huge monopolies out of existing textbook publishers (Pearson, Houghton Mifflin, McGraw Hill, etc). The Common Core created a situation where education could be completely commodified on the Federal level, thereby making privatization efforts much easier. Trump cutting funding out merely accelerates the process. Congress has also floated the idea of letting college debt be absolved during bankruptcy, thereby allowing that market to function better. If this happens the market will crash and there will be no reason for large DoE grant programs.
4. Most of the Dept. of Energy cuts go to renewable subsidies, which states can reimplement if they so desire. Blue states (ie the states that consume the most energy) likely will.
5. The Dept. of Housing and Urban Dev. hasn't EVER done anything productive in it's entire existence. In the 60s they were the thing that knocked down urban districts to put up freeways and hi-rise social housing blocks. Cutting them out entirely gives large blue cities much more control over their own affairs.
6. Likewise, most of the Dept. of Transportation's budget goes toward freeway construction and maintence, thereby enabling unsustainable suburban sprawl. Gutting them means a rapid expansion of toll roads which is objectively good as it encourages better land use and transit use.
7. Foreign aid undercuts businesses in recipient countries and should be done away with entirely if we want those countries to improve. 2017 Africa is not 1947 Germany, Marshall Plan inspired policies do not work.
So, taken broadly Trump's cuts aren't that bad. They're just accelerating things that have already been in the works since the end of the Cold War. Which is it's not catastrophic.
Hereditary nobility isn't actually a good way of governing. You might think that the wealthy are somehow a more deserving breed of genetically superior beings, but actual human history has demonstrated that assigning positions of power based on birth is a recipe for a stagnant, corrupt society.
Wow a poster with a brain when it comes to government function rather than simply looking at numbers and crying. Color me surprised.
> Hereditary nobility isn't actually a good way of governing
> actual human history has demonstrated that assigning positions of power based on birth is a recipe for a stagnant, corrupt society
[citation needed]
History is full of examples of extremely effective monarchies. Are they "nice" by the standards of modern liberals? No. They didn't give a shit about "tolerance" or "gender identity" or any of that bullshit. But the fact is that they got shit done. Sre they were brutal, but that's why they worked. Brutality might be nasty, but it is undeniably effective. Modern liberal democracies, on the other hand, are festering shitholes that do nothing but hand out free stuff to an unproductive mob. They care so much about hurt feelings, minorities, and criminals that it completely paralyzes them. Nations need strong leaders, and democracies are shit when it comes to producing strong leaders. Monarchies at least have a chance at cultivating a good genetic lineage of strong leaders, whereas democracies are constantly being pulled away from strong leadership by the masses who want a government that will do nothing but take care of them.