Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
I am rather surprised that people on this list are taking the idea of
"spinoffs" seriously at all. The whole concept of justifying
expenditures on science and technology on the basis that they will
produce spinoffs strikes me as akin to prostitution. "Hey there, big
boy. Spend a few billions with me and I'll show you some spinoffs
that will knock your socks off! Of course, I can't tell you what they
are before you spend the money, but you won't be disappointed. I've
got some stuff you wouldn't believe" (spoken with an erotic
breathiness).
The technological fruits of science are out there for us to see,
although if we analyze the details, I think we'll find that science
has benefited more from technology than vice versa,
We cannot direct science to any end. And it is dishonest to offer to
do some version of science as something that will provide some
previously specified benefit to humankind.
Just as we justify the
arts as activities that define our humanity, we have to justify
science the same way.
Will the money we devote to these activities
always be spent wisely? Probably not, but we cannot predict that in
advance with any reliability. If the public chooses not to support
science, that is their choice, and it is probably our fault for not
making the case strongly enough,
but to try to sell science based on
its presumed benefits to humanity seems immoral to me.
The problem of
public support of science compared to public support of the arts is
that in the modern era, doing science is so much more expensive. But
like the arts, science is worth supporting because it is part of what
makes us human. Probing the limits of knowledge is a uniquely human
activity and for that reason alone, it is worth supporting.