The End of Science

[EyeSeeCold]

The ideas that it is a choice between feeding people and making scientific progress, and that scientific progress is at a limit, show complete ignorance of what technology actually is.

Progress creates the tools for prosperity, those tools create additional progress, and so on and on and on, and on a logarithmic scale no less. Thinking that progress will end, or that it won't continue to help feed more people, not only requires a complete break from logic, but also contradicts all data and trends.

Yes, this is the more "ignorant" or whatever you want to call it, version of that perspective, but to be more understanding(?), the real issue is that more funds and labor are going towards causes that are completely ignoring the human condition of life on Earth(space science, military, Higgs Boson etc). Of course there are enough resources to focus on more than one issue, and it's not about stopping scientific research, as research and development can be performed in the field of nutrition, bioengineering, genetic food engineering and other health & technology sciences that could improve the quality of life for people in third world countries and the poor in first world countries.

I personally have already acknowledged that technology trickles down and has trickled down in the past from military and space research, but those are byproducts of an inadvertent effort. The idea is to make an intentional effort.

 

[defghi]

Yes, this is the more "ignorant" or whatever you want to call it, version of that perspective, but to be more understanding(?), the real issue is that more funds and labor are going towards causes that are completely ignoring the human condition of life on Earth(space science, military, Higgs Boson etc). Of course there are enough resources to focus on more than one issue, and it's not about stopping scientific research, as research and development can be performed in the field of nutrition, bioengineering, genetic food engineering and other health & technology sciences that could improve the quality of life for people in third world countries and the poor in first world countries.

I personally have already acknowledged that technology trickles down and has trickled down in the past from military and space research, but those are byproducts of an inadvertent effort. The idea is to make an intentional effort.

Unfortunately, all money must ultimately obey economic conditions before human conditions.

Where I mainly take issue with this perspective is that you are considering space science and theoretical physics as a remotely significant part of our spending, when it is in fact well under 1%.

If it is not about stopping scientific research, and only about starting more, then why the issue with funds going towards certain scientific research?