Money Shouldn’t Limit Technological Innovation
The journey from caves to modern day civilisation, hasn’t been an easy one for us. We have had to survive in a world that runs on an ‘eat or get eaten’ system and on top of that we had to discover or invent all the things that we know of today.
The journey that we are on is an endless one and one that we have been on for hundreds of thousands of years. The journey I am talking about is that of human exploration to continuously expand the collective human knowledge.
Our curious nature seems to be hard wired into us and that, coupled with our intelligence, has led to us achieving marvels and feats that were simply considered impossible until they actually became reality.
But we are only getting started. There is so much we don’t know and there are so many problems to solve and things to invent and we have to keep at it so that humanity is able to continuously reach new heights.
Money - A Necessary Evil
The thing with innovation is that although it is led by our curiosity and necessity, things can’t move forward without money. Any research requires a lot of funding even to get started, let alone turn results into tangible progress.
And a lot of that funding comes from the government. That is why when you hear things like “Trump cuts funding to several science agencies”, you start wondering if money should limit science and technology.
The answer is a definite no but we also know that money will always be a necessary evil and where people are involved, money will be needed to push things forward and since money is not unlimited, there are bound to be problems as to its allocation.
But could we not, as a civilisation, come up with a system where science and technology do not have to suffer because of a lack of funding?
After all, the more we advance in terms of technology, the better life we will be able to live. So, in a way, cutting funding for science, is cutting funding for a better life. Ironical!
Innovation Should Be Unbounded
Be it the government or the private entities, technological innovation shouldn’t suffer at the hands of either, due to lack of funding. Just imagine if we didn’t have internet or the smartphone or the cure for even some of the diseases we have developed over the past few years.
The world would be a different place, it would be backward and that’s not a direction that humanity likes to travel. And things will only get faster as we pursue new avenue of growth and development like space exploration, genetic modification, cures to all the diseases, technologies to combat climate change and a lot more.
Clearly we have a lot to do and if we keep letting money be a problem, we will never achieve what we set out to. Ok, we could still do it but it would take a lot of time.
Therefore, it is quite pleasing when you hear that the Congress bypassed Trump and actually increased funding to the science agencies for 2017. At least some people in the government realise the importance of science and tech.
Maybe in the future, we will develop an AI that will develop all other things for us and so, a lot of innovation will be done at very low costs. But until we reach that point, we will have to make sure that we keep moving forward, unhindered in our grand pursuit.
Money is a good, not an evil. It, standardized barter trade to be specific, has helped us tremendously compared to where we would have been without it.
Forgive me if I'm painting too grim an image for some folks stomachs to muster, but frankly, money is what has allowed us to have industrial developement without mass starvation and ethnic genocides.
-What I think is that government should be a voluntary organisation that you can benefit or abstain from.
Don't limit science by making it state controlled and steered by interests that reach into the pockets of others and demand we live as they choose. But don't take "money out of government", because ultimately that can't be done. Instead, take the state out of government.
Oh, I totally agree that money has been rather crucial for creating the current civilisation. The phrase "money is a necessary evil" is more of a figure of speech, per say.
Also, I agree that governments should be just another entities where it competes with other entities for profits. That way it HAS TO be efficient and forward looking.
If that happens, science won't be state controlled anymore and things will begin flourishing :)
I am all for science and I agree society needs to overcome the economic challenges to advancing science. Perhaps we might need to look at our financial system to come up with better solutions.
All this talk about money is confusing to people because the misunderstand the difference between money and currency. Money is a medium of exchange, but our money has failed miserably as a store of value. That makes our money nothing more than a currency. In fact our money is created by debt! Therefore anyone who believes that hoarding dollars is a safe way to store wealth, probably also believes government is good. Uncontrollable government spending and interference in the marketplace is what has corrupted our market and our politicians. Ultimately every piece of fiat currency will be reduced to the value of the paper on which its printed.
Free markets have proven to inspire mankind/womenkind to reach for the stars and beyond, government controlled markets are nothing more than a boot stomping on the face of humanity. (George Orwell like quote).
"without mass starvation and ethnic genocides."
ummmmmmmmmmm
Yes I said that. Look at how well "industrialisation" went in places where the reach and use of money was significantly limited by a state entity (robbers, kidnappers, slavedrivers, monarchs, modern "communism" and fascism etc).
mfw capitalism cannot exist without a state
Very original ;) How law is enforced is a different matter. This usually boils down to us mainly relying on different definitions.
Let's be AnCap-meets-Anarchist friends ^
make up your own word for your own economic system jesus christ is it that hard
You seem to have no idea who you're speaking to.
I'm not an anarchist and I don't call myself an anarchist.
(I'm an anarcho-capitalist. And if you want to get specific about strategy, a cooperative-agorist.)
Money can not limit creativity or human imagination, maybe it could only limit the materials but the ingenuity does not need money, nice post
Thanks :)
In ovation often happens in spite of then governemt. Bitcoin is a great example: there was no public involvement or known private financing agent pushing the development of it. Someone(s) simply made it, put it out there for the world to see -- without permission -- and the chips fell.
Upvoted
@shayne
Or so it has been made to seem that way?
It is that way, and growing exponentially.
Indeed my friend.
SteemIT is another great example. Decentralization is the way forward.
Yes, sometimes someone come along and scores a masterstroke and Bitcoin and Steem are good examples of that. But still, in many areas of science, great ideas get crushed due to a lack of funding. Who knows what world changing ideas have died out just because they couldn't be funded.
I'm curious to know: what is your proposal? Do you think that all projects labeled "scientific" should be federally funded?
No of course not. Therefore we need blockchain technology to be more pervasive. If we can have a blockchain that pays bloggers, maybe we can have a blockchain that pays researchers and spurs innovation.
Oh I see where you're going. Yes indeed, user-generated cryptotokens are the future of monetization for developers, content creators, and curators, but I hadn't thought about researchers until just now… interesting!
Yeah it might work really well and innovators will no longer be limited by a lack of funding. Imagine how much untapped talent will come out and just increase the pace of innovation by a multitude of factor.
Thanks for the sharing!
Here in Canada, we also went through a tough pass where scientists and their researches were greatly weakened... Luckily, many documents were saved and are now available on-line for free from anywhere in the world.
As soon as I saw the title of your article, I thought you might be mentioning Tesla and his work that ended up being taken, if not stolen, by the government. He ended up broke though he was ultimately one of the great scientists of our age. I can only agree with you and wish money wouldn't be a barrier to our scientific and artistic endeavours. May we rise to this challenge with the powers of cryptocurrencies!
All for one and one for all! Namaste :)
Yes, I wanted to mention Tesla. He would be the perfect example to put my point across. But I have mentioned him a LOT in my previous posts so I thought I refrain from doing it here. hehe. But in hindsight, I should have mentioned him for sure.
Playing devil's advocate here. What if some of the funding cut was for stupid and silly nonsensical projects...
Like can we splice a bee and and an ant together? What happens? Who cares? I'd cut funding for that in an instant.
I've heard about crazy funded innovations before... some of them aren't helpful, or their sole purpose is to be utilized for bad things unbeknownst to the innovator until it's too late.
Yes, some of the funding that was cut was perhaps called for but cutting ALL of the science funding is a bad idea.
Isn't it really Intellectual Property rights and Patent Law that create the limitations that are most bottle-necking humanity's progress?
Yes... I really do think so... most of the time it does.
However, humanity's "progress" is a phrase of semantic satiation. (I looked up that definition and I know I'm using it incorrectly) - I ran out of time finding the right word to basically negate the word "progress" when it comes to humanity. :(
Ok. In plain english... I don't think humanity is progressing. Or maybe it is... progressing toward self destruction, if it is progressing anywhere.
Our new shiny toys do allow our dark human natures to manifest in more profound ways.
That's the problem with many of todays "liberals" and "progressives". The liberals don't care about individual liberty anymore and the progressives don't really care where "progress" leads us further down the road.
(Not to speak of "conservatism", which is a philosophy for the nostalgic at best)
Yes, they are another source of suffocation of innovation. Forgot to mention that part in the post. Thanks for mentioning it here :)
Great post overall :) and welcome
I don't think money is good or evil. It is a tool. Tools in good people's hands create things. Tools in the hands of evil people become weapons and destroy things.
Precisely. A tool is built or thought up for a productive purpose, which is why it is a "good". But that same "good" can be used for an evil purpose and then in the hands of the wrong person, it is a tool used for evil. Still a "good" if it carries potential for better use in the hands of a saner person, but it's current use is bad.
Money is a tool just as a weapon is.
Yes, it is just a tool. Unfortunately the government uses it more for war than advancing science. Just compare the amount of money that goes into war vs what goes into science.
A lot of great points. Unfortunately negative energy will take advantage of any system created to benefit technology and science.
That's exactly what has been happening for centuries :(
Money is not good or evil but the tool of the ones chosen to control and disperse it.
Yes, true. And the people in control of the tool are doing a fine job of using for nefarious purposes rather than productive purposes.
Good move from your Congress. Must have some cleaver people in it, and fortunately also the collective is cleaver enough! :) I indeed agree for the 100%, science and technology innovations and development shall be facilitated. Interestingly, in Europe we see mostly the government paying for science and breakthrough technology developments, and the private commercial companies claiming the patent hence the benefits. That is totally wrong of course, but that is how it works today. How is this in the USA?
Agree, we will have AI at some point in time cleaver enough to invent new things, but indeed, we are not at that point, hence we shall do whatever is required to help science and tech.
I am not from the USA so I don't know how it works there. But no matter which country it is, science should come first because it is literally the solution for all our problems!
Hahahahaha, that is a very bold statement! :)
I can think of a problem or two which science is not able to solve, or should not be used to solve, but I understand what your are saying and agree with you; Science shall be supported with all we have; Independent Science even more; Patent rights shall at the same time be ruled out, ie removed from our law systems though, this gives powerful companies even more power.
I love the views of this guys Ricardo Semler, he is a Brazilian entrepreneur who is very successful with his concept of self steering teams and companies with a democratic system giving all employees right of vote for company matters. He is against patents!
Yes, I do agree that it was an over-generalisation on my part, but we both understand the my underlying idea. :)
Most, possibly, unless you count philosophy and economics to the sciences.
I've noticed a lot of "belief" in science these days. People are starting to think that religion will disappear if people are just "exposed to science", which is a problematic conviction as this implies empirical evidence precedes metaphysics and epistemology.
I'm an atheist, a "hard" atheist because I claim positively that I know there are no deities, but the overreliance on "science" in what is really a philosophical debate in this manner bugs me.
Well, it's not money it's actually greed that limits the developments imho
Yes, "greed for the unearned".
Yup, that's true!