the trouble with money

[taylrl]

This is partly biology based, but it is mostly a financial thing. i have been thinking it for a while and would just like to see what people think.

 

It appears to me, that money is halting our own evolution and development. The humanrace, has the knowledge, or the ability to obtain the knowledge, to further our species. We also have many of the raw materials available. the only thing we lack in order to conduct reasearch into new technologies is money. Can you imagine what we would be able to do if there was an endless supply of funding for scientifi reasearch an development. It seems a bit ironic that money is a man has made, and yet it is holding us back from our full potential. Is there anyway, without crippling the economies of the world, that endless funding could be given to the sciences? couldnt money just somehow become obsolete in a few instances?

[Aardvark]

Scientific research does get quite a lot of money spent on it.

 

Money is a means of rationing finite resources. As such it is not possible to throw unlimited supplies of it at anything. Resources are limited, it is a question of deciding priorities, in effect dividing the cake into different sized slices. It is not possible to cut an infinite sized slice.

[taylrl]

Sure a lot of money is spent on scientific research, but money is finite, mans capacity for knowledge isnt. Am i wrong in saying that our development is directly related to money, and i feel that it is a sad restriction. Is it a restriction that is created by man.

[ed84c]

as aardvark said, money is just away of quantising other resources such as physical ones an man hours. If you didnt have money, you still wouldnt have enough man hours/ physical resources to complete an operation without restriction.

[taylrl]

we could be using a lot more resources than we are then

[the tree]

Not really, apart from manhours, we're pretty much using what we've got.

[sunspot]

There is an old saying that necessity is the mother of invention. Sometimes the lack of resources makes people work a little harder using bare-bones things to solve problems. This needed ingenuity often leads to faster and cheaper innovation than would occur if one has all the bells and whistles.

 

I remember an article about the Soviet Space station. Their technology and resources were highly limited by American standards. This made their astronauts have to constantly create and improvise to make up the lack. Duct tape was often important and solve the problem just as good as very expensive retrofit.

 

Edison didn't have the resources of a National Laboratory yet he was able to create enough inventions to fill one. If one does not have all the latest and greatest resources, one needs to rely more on logic, common sense, research skills, quick experients and ingenuity. With unlimited resources science would turn into a beaurocratic exercise, requiring more resources than needed to solve problems, and less reliance on basic things like logic and ingenuity.

 

This is not to say money and resources are not important. Once an innovation is concieved it is hard to do science up to par with those who have access to considerable resources. One's practical limitation are often misjudged by those with more resources, as lacking without regards to circumstances. Edison's quick science would give the well equiped scientists of today fits. He may have been bogged down to a couple of inventions.

[taylrl]

thank you sun spot, thats very enlightening. its not all about money. although quite a large part of me still feels that with more funding, more would be possible. therefore we are not working at our maximum potential.

[Aardvark]

quite a large part of me still feels that with more funding, more would be possible. therefore we are not working at our maximum potential.

 

You are talking in very vague terms. How much more do you think science should get? How do you come to the conclusion that not enough is being spent? Especially as scientific research has never been so highly funded and productive.

 

Are you simply taking the view that however much is spent is never enough?

[taylrl]

I am not denying that there is huge funding for science, its just more of a thought i have had. I mean i feel that there are a lot of things in the world which arent neccessary for example entertainment systems etc. If people could have enough food, and housing (so some people would have to be employeed in that, and all the relevant spin-offs), but everyone worked in reaserching and developing new technologies/medicines. then in theory it is possible that we could be a lot more advanced than we are now. I feel that our development as a race is directly proportional to the amount of money spent on it. This i feel is strange as money hasnt always existed and so is a thing which man has created to serve a very valid purpose. Isnt it strange therefore that man has created a thing which a lack of having, inhibits our development.

[Aardvark]

I am not denying that there is huge funding for science, its just more of a thought i have had. I mean i feel that there are a lot of things in the world which arent neccessary for example entertainment systems etc.

 

Almost nothing is absolutely 'necessary'. But living without any luxuries like my computer, central heating, holidays etc isn't a price i or i think most people would be prepared to pay to build some new research laboraties, esp as it would result in the destruction in the economy and as such probably retard science.

 

If people could have enough food, and housing (so some people would have to be employeed in that, and all the relevant spin-offs), but everyone worked in researching and developing new technologies/medicines. then in theory it is possible that we could be a lot more advanced than we are now.

 

I think that is unlikely. Most people would not be suitable to work in researching new technologies, it requires a certain type of person. Sticking everyone in research labs probably wouldn't actually advance science that much.

 

I feel that our development as a race is directly proportional to the amount of money spent on it.

 

I think that is a bit simplistic, money does not automatically equate to science.

 

This i feel is strange as money hasnt always existed and so is a thing which man has created to serve a very valid purpose. Isnt it strange therefore that man has created a thing which a lack of having, inhibits our development.

 

The problem isn't lack of money. Money is simply a means of allocating resources. The problem is that resources are finite. Therefore money enables limited resources to be used efficently, money does not inhibit the development, it facilitates it.

[taylrl]

I am only talking theoretically.

What would happen if george bush was to give nasa ten times its current funding. Would a manned mission to mars or even the moon be more likely?? and hence further mankind. what i mean is that we could physically send man to the moon tommorrow, its just that money seems to be an issue.

[silkworm]

Money is fictional, of course it is misapplied and stunts our growth as a species.

 

If I could pick my world, I'd pick one without religion, fiction, or money. I'm into reality.

[taylrl]

Silkworm sees my point..........hallelujah.....sorry no religion