/sci/ - Science & Math

Money isn't the problem, the problem is that the fucking stupid ass public doesn't care about science and sees no need to allow it to progress.

I fucking hate how everything has to be in the name of profit.

>>949104
money is the worst idea ever

>nasa

modern science = underfunded projects

>>949120
Who are you? do you think your jesus or someone? Money is the only good thing in the world, and if it cant directly make money, its not worth doing.

>>949134
Nasa spent millions+ making a pen to write in space.. not rlly underfunded

>>949116
Profit is the main motivation for science today. Tons of work is done through private R and D for the sole reason of profit. I'm not saying that profit is the only thing holding up science, but it's definitely a good thing rather than a bad thing.

>>949150
Shit. When I say holding up, I mean propping up.

>>949141
>Who are you? do you think your government or someone? Money is the only bad thing in the world, and if it can advance the human race, it's worth doing.

>>949120
money is the very concept of property and stems from the human mind having it's own will. Money is not money without an exchange value. As long as we possess the ability to own things, money will not go away; and this will never happen since every person owns his own mind and thus his own workforce, which has an exchange value if anyone wants it.

tl;dr: money is freedom on a very basic level

"He at first tried to fight it, but realized that was impossible. Instead, he eventually came up with a completely new way to think about human societies. In the Australia Project, humans get the best that the robots have to offer, rather than the worst. He took the open source model of free software, added the robots and brought the model to the material world. The revolutionary idea in open source software is the fact that no one owns the code. Because there is no owner, the code is free to everyone."

Cynthia picked up the thread. "Eric's key concept was extremely simple. What he realized is that, in a robotic civilization, everything can be free."

"How is that possible?" I asked.

"It works like this. Let's say that you own a large piece of land. Say something the size of your state of California. This land contains natural resources. There is the sand on the beaches, from which you can make glass and silicon chips. There are iron, gold and aluminum ores in the soil, which you can mine, refine and form into any shape. There are oil and coal deposits under the ground. There is carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen in the air and in the water. If you were to own California, all of these resources are 'free.' That is, since you own them, you don't have to pay anyone for them and they are there for the taking."

"If you have a source of energy and if you also own smart robots, the robots can turn these resources into anything you want for free. Robots can grow free food for you in the soil. Robots can manufacture things like steel, glass, fiberglass insulation and so on to create free buildings. Robots can weave fabric from cotton or synthetics and make free clothing. In the case of this catalog you are holding, nanoscale robots chain together glucose molecules to form laminar carbohydrates. As long as you have smart robots, along with energy and free resources, everything is free."

>>949161
must admit, i did laugh a little.

>>949166
What book is this from?

>>949189
http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

Me to, OP.

>>949166
your "free everything" concept would only work if you had infinite and instant supply. Apart from that your text is retarded and meaningless

It's a real shame. I go to a university that's very large on research (SUNY Stony Brook), and recently tens of millions of dollars were cut from our budget by the state.

Although I'm sure matters are pressing, it's a shame that education and the advancement of our species' future and of science have to take a back seat.

ITT:
>Space pen myths, econ textbook reciting and christfags being the limits of science funding.

Really, that's just a trivial problem that can be solved by being clever and just coming up with something that will make you some money. Hell, almost any scientific advancement can make fucking money, it's just that when you try to solve problems that aren't fucking there, no one gives a flying fuck about it, and THAT'S why no one invests in it. So money REALLY isn't the limit of science, it's still your own human ingenuity.

TL;DR, If you aren't doing anything that'll make you money, produce something that will, and fund yourself for the other projects.

>>949353
Yeah, that's the thing. No one cares about what they can't see yet, so they don't pursue it and science receives meager funding. This type of reasoning leads to slow progression and stagnation.

WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM IF WE HAD WORLD PEACE. Oh, the magic of the applied prisoner's dilemma is endless.

>>949097
what about morals? Religious fantastics?

Why can't underfunded scientists just become supervillains and rob banks to fund their research?
I think you could probably pull an autoteller out of the wall in Neogentronyx-one.

>>949150

Profit is what leads drug companies to research treatments and ignore cures.

>>951234
This.