/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2664891]

So Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, was on the Daily Show last night.

Does /sci/ think that libertarianism would be better for science?

humanity basically lived under libertarianism for most of history, and lots of scientific discoveries were made then.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-march-7-2011-rand-paul

[Anonymous No.2664910]

>humanity basically lived under libertarianism for most of history, and lots of scientific discoveries were made then.

what is this i don't even

[Anonymous No.2664912]

nothing?

[Anonymous No.2664921]

>>2664910


it's true.

i don't think euclid received federal research grants.

[Anonymous No.2664923]

NOPE.jpg

I think there is an amount of government intervention and an amount of market freedom that results in a well functioning society.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2664926]

>>2664923
This
Also holy fuck captcha

[Anonymous No.2664930]

Libertarianism is pretty much bad for everything. If we can give research grants to science that can better the world, then why not? If we didn't have government we'd just be back in the stone ages.

[Anonymous No.2664931]

Government provides fixed price seed money for private companies.

Thats all the government should do

[Anonymous No.2664933]

i think libertarianism would be optimum, with a lassaiz faire approach to economics, for the maximum amount of innovation in a society.

[Anonymous No.2664934]

>Does /sci/ think that libertarianism would be better for science?
Depends on who's in charge.

[Anonymous No.2664943]

No libertarian is a death knell for science


Simply put, free market does not pay people in lab coats to make expensive breakthroughs. Free market pays for results that translate into profits.

[Anonymous No.2664946]

>>2664930
research grants take money away from productive sectors of society and gives it to money-sinks.

[Anonymous No.2664949]

>>2664921
I don't think you know history or economics. Do you even know what feudalism is? Fuck, do you even know what capitalism is?

[Anonymous No.2664953]

>>2664946

Was NASA a money-sink?

[Anonymous No.2664954]

>>2664943
Yeah like the transistor, modern computing, and all modern medicine

[Anonymous No.2664955]

>>2664943
how does expensive breakthroughs =/= maximum profits. I would think they go hand in hand.

[Anonymous No.2664960]

I'm sure Libertarians can explain when their ideology supports the preservation of undisturbed land in the form of government funded national/state parks for the public.

[Anonymous No.2664964]

>My idea of a perfect government is one dude sitting at a desk, and the only thing he's allowed to decide is who to nuke.

[Anonymous No.2664970]

>>2664953
Yes yes it is

the private sector is doing more with far less money.

[Anonymous No.2664973]

>>2664960
property rights. If someone or a coalition of people wants to buy land and say that no one can touch it, they're allowed to do it.

[Anonymous No.2664975]

>>2664954
Yea, that privately funded NIH really propelled us into the future

Tell me how a libertarian would support taxpayer money for this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

[Anonymous No.2664979]

>>2664953


The private sector has contributed more to American science than NASA.

That's an Intel processor in your computer. It doesn't have a NASA logo.

[Anonymous No.2664994]

a lot of the hatred of libertarian ideas really comes from being conditioned throughout your whole life of having a government do things for you. It also comes from misunderstanding or not fully comprehending the ideas. A lot of the arguments people make against it are basic problems and they think supporters of libertarianism support the idea even though they haven't thought of these basic problems.

[Anonymous No.2665000]

>>2664955
They don't

Here is the paper of sequencing the mosquito that devastates a large percentage of the human population. From it, we've been able to make genetically modified mosquitoes that drop the population to near zero thereby suppressing spread of Dengue fever.

How many years do you think would be acceptable before someone pays scientists on a for-profit model of solving the world's most devastating problems?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/298/5591/129.abstract

http://news.discovery.com/tech/gm-mosquitoes-released-in-malaysia-to-reduce-dengue-spread.html

[Anonymous No.2665010]

So tired of this shit.
Any kind of extremism has been shown to be bad.

[Anonymous No.2665013]

>>2664979
oh yea? try calling someone with a cell phone without using technology developed by NASA funding

hint: that means not using a satellite

[Anonymous No.2665014]

>>2664979
>Implying that research for transistors and vacuum tubes wasn't funded by government
>Implying that Intel does all their research in-house instead of piggybacking on research done in government funded schools by government funded scientists
>Implying initial demand for processors wasn't from the government

You. Fucking. Idiot.

[Anonymous No.2665016]

OP here. Make sure you watch the extended interview. it's on the front page of the dailyshow website.

[Anonymous No.2665022]

>>2664953

yes, it's unfortunate but NASA is incompetent.

[Anonymous No.2665024]

In 2011 technology has progressed so far that any kind of ideology can work as long as people don't go fullretard.

[Anonymous No.2665029]

>>2665010

It's not extremism you brainwashed idiot.

What's so extreme about not having science be hostage to how much money the government is willing to give you?

[Anonymous No.2665033]

>>2664994
No, this is the science board. The disdain for libertarianism comes from the near universal declaration that anything besides the bare minimum of spending is considered "waste"

And the vast majority of the scientific research in this country, and planet by extension, comes from government funding.

Government funding leads scientists to discovery X (inserting genes into plants).

Private company Y takes discovery X and utilizes this knowledge to improve the world. (inserting insect resistance into corn)


Without funding for X, we get fucking nowhere fast.

[Anonymous No.2665049]

>>2665029
sounds pretty good when you put it in those terms. Too bad that translates into medical companies researching bullshit solely for profit.

Do you have restless leg syndrome? Maybe you should see your doctor, and get the pills modeled to make a profit.


Do you have malaria? Well, fuck you because you live in a country that can't pay for the cure so private companies won't fund "sink holes"


Turns out "hostage to govt funding" really just means government the only source of funding. Because it is the collective will of the people to allocate money into research that improves the livelihood of everyone, just those with investments.

[Anonymous No.2665050]

/sci/ talking about economics.

Nope.gif

[Anonymous No.2665052]

>>2665000
My view is that if we need to fund something thats in the public we pay a corporation on a fixed price basis

[Anonymous No.2665057]

>>2665013
Trolling or stupid?

Satellite phones are rare and extremely expensive. Regular cell phones just use radio waves and cell-tower network.

[Philebus No.2665062]

>>2665014
This. The first computer (ENIAC) was developed with war money--not only the hardware technology, but the math and the circuit design, which were much more expensive.

It is true that Bell Labs and other privately-held research enterprises made enormous contributions to technological development, but those days are long past. Today, to take drug development for example, even though 90% of the costs of developing new drugs are paid by NIH (the whole basic science component), drug companies are increasingly reluctant even to underwrite the last 10%, and drug companies are the most profitable corporations there are.

Significant scientific research is the classic example of a public good--it benefits everyone, but it doesn't benefit any private entity enough to justify their taking it on.

[Anonymous No.2665063]

>>2665029
>brainwashed

You know, when you use this term, you come off as either a fascist, a fucking idiot, or both.

[Anonymous No.2665064]

>>2665029
>You don't like my ideals which are clearly superior, therefore you must be brainwashed

You know what? What's a very old tactic used by politicians through history.
>politicians

This isn't science, therefore sage.
The logic isn't hard.

[Anonymous No.2665071]

>>2665033
>And the vast majority of the scientific research in this country, and planet by extension, comes from government funding.

What if this would not be true? Would you reconsider your point or find some other excuse? I know facts rarely disturb people in the internet debates.

[Anonymous No.2665088]

>>2665071
if it weren't true, we wouldn't have landed on the moon?

I don't get your question. Are you asking for an alternative universe where govt doesnt fund science?

Imagine life without a computer, internet, or effective antibiotics.

[Anonymous No.2665093]

>>2665071
Private research is property of the company doing the research.
Public research is widely available, and thus should boost the economy far more.

[Anonymous No.2665095]

>>2665057
No GPS no cellphone you twat.

[Anonymous No.2665102]

>>2665095
GSM doesn't need no GPS

[Anonymous No.2665108]

>>2665062
>90% of the costs of developing new drugs are paid by NIH (the whole basic science component), drug companies are increasingly reluctant even to underwrite the last 10%

Do you like creationists? Why do /sci/-frequenters talk about economy using their level of arguments?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

In 2003, research and development expenditures were approximately $95 billion with $40 billion coming from public sources and $55 billion coming from private sources.

[Anonymous No.2665111]

Libertarians must hate James P. Hogan and especially his book, Voyage From Yesteryear.
http://www.mediafire.com/?wpn11d4rvojzdj0

In this book, libertarians are the monsters and come close to extincting the whole human species.

[Anonymous No.2665112]

>>2665095

My CDMA iPhone on Verizon doesn't need any fucking GPS you faggot.

[Anonymous No.2665116]

>>2665108
Not all R&D is drug research.

[Anonymous No.2665132]

The idea of living without a government that essentially controls your destiny is terrifying to /sci/ socialist anons.

No surprise there.

cowards.

[Anonymous No.2665140]

>>2665108
You know shit. That figure is for drug and device research, which is the end of the process. It's the science behind the drug and device research that costs all the money. There are new drugs to treat cancer by stimulating the immune system. Nobody would have had the slightest idea how to begin to research these drugs unless there had been decades of basic science research into immune monitoring of cells in the body. Or take implanted defibrillators. Nobody could have begun to investigate these before years of basic research into cardiac electrophysiology. Assholes like you take for granted what the government does for you and then complain about taxes and state control. Fuck you.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2665141]

>>2665111

Explain pic.

[Anonymous No.2665143]

>>2665132

[Anonymous No.2665146]

>>2665132
>inept arguments don't work, time to try inept insults
No, this still isn't science.

[Anonymous No.2665159]

>>2665141
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Broadcast_System#False_alarm_of_1971

[Anonymous No.2665161]

>humanity basically lived under libertarianism for most of history, and lots of scientific discoveries were made then.

AND THEN WE WENT TO THE FUCKING MOON!

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2665163]

>>2665159

Nevermind, I'm already reading the http://www.stlradio.net/pages/ebsaccident.htm site, but why did you put it there with your post?

[Anonymous No.2665167]

>>2665141
EBS Accident, someone accidentally sent WW3-warning to radio stations.
>At 10:33AM I heard the teletype machine ring ten bells. I'd heard a couple or three bells before, telling me of fairly common weather situations in the Central Texas area...tornadoes and such. But not in February. Ten bells was definitely not good news. I ran over to the next room, the news studio, and watched this come in...

>Not good, I thought. Definitely not good. I was not only a station part-timer but also in the Army, an NCO in the 2nd Armored Division at Fort Hood. If this was true, if we were really at war, I'd have to hotfoot it to back to 2ADHQ or at the very least desert the military and spend the remaining few moments of the end of the world with my wife and one-month old daughter.

More info on the EBS system:
http://www.ae5d.com/ebs.html

sage because I don't want to bump this non-sci thread

[Anonymous No.2665171]

>>2665163
because fear-induced nuclear holocaust is related to the book

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2665180]

>>2665171

Alright.

[truth_seer !!PTkceGOMAhO No.2665187]

>>2664891

>Ron Paul.

Idiot. You seem to assume that Ron paul, or indeed the continent known as "america" actually exist. Here's a little history lesson:

The "america" you see in movies/etc is actually a creation of the jewish/atlantian alliance (formed in 1930 by adolf hitler (emporer of the jews) and mohammed al quaeda (public representative of the phouke'goff she-Ted (the alien race famous for ordering mohammed to found islam (so they could hide out on earth wearing burqas)). So where do all these jews, atlantians and kr'ingo live?
Atlantis of course. The illusion of this "military superpower" known as america and their ability to print of "dollars" in exchange for real goods here in europe is how they maintain their supremacy. It's time we did something about it, but first i need to huff more petrol to re-establish contact with my future self and learn more about this vast conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.2665194]

>>2665140
You are trying to weasel your way out with insults. Private spendings on research are larger than public spending. Your 90%/10% does not hold true.

[Anonymous No.2665198]

Government funded research is awesome. not because government is better but rather because unlike many things it wouldn't actually cause less research in the private sector because of two reasons.

Usually when the government gets involved what you see is that they create a monopoly and they say "Only we can do this and no one else", monopolies are bad because the people who run them are basically unaccountable or can just wave their hand and explain their short comings. With government grants. You'd simply take some money which would probably not impact the economy that greatly and invest in telecom technology or something and after a couple of years you'd get the internet. You don't actually stop research from being done elsewhere on any serious scale, any you might be indirectly stopping is probably far down the line in the chain of exchange that it probably couldn't be argued successfully that the amount of taxes that go to government research grants actually decreases the amount of research.

Also

The government is there for long term research. Shit like fusion power and that kind of world changing shit and private industry is there for short term research aimed to maximize efficiency. Going to the moon and shit.

[Anonymous No.2665201]

science is fundamentally anarchic, there are no central violent authorities that decide what is true or false in a scientific proposition. there is no 'department of mathematics' that decides what 2+2 is.

[Anonymous No.2665209]

Libertarianism has its pluses.

Though American "libertarianism" is just watered-down neoconservatism.

[Anonymous No.2665222]

>>2665198
The government has to take that money, first.

Yes, government funding of science crowds out non-violent funding of science 1:1.

[Anonymous No.2665224]

>>2665209
>>2665209

>Though American "libertarianism" is just watered-down neoconservatism.

You are a retard of immeasurable stupidity. I want you to know this.

[Anonymous No.2665229]

>>2665224
Well it is kind of true. Glenn Beck is a self-proclaimed libertarian, and "mainstream" libertarianism is associated more with conspiracy theories than any kind of rational analysis of the nation-state.

[Anonymous No.2665234]

>>2665229

>using Glenn Beck as an example of what a libertarian is like or how he thinks

Confirmed for ultimate retard.

[Anonymous No.2665242]

>>2664933
>lassaiz faire

Good for business, bad for consumers (and no what is good for business is not always good for consumers).

Learns you some history boy.

[Anonymous No.2665243]

>>2665234
I'm an anarcho-capitalist (libertarianism applied consistently), I said Glenn Beck was a self proclaimed libertarian, which he is.

a minarchist is still a statist, a conservative is still a statist.

[Anonymous No.2665250]

>>2665242
>laissez faire
>good for business, bad for consumers

you're retarded, what do you even know about economics besides cliched shit you've heard on the news?

[Anonymous No.2665264]

science funding should be charity/private based, not publicly funded.

with more free market there will be a lot more bored billionaires getting older and they'll want to find cures for their ailments. a big DUH here.

[Anonymous No.2665266]

>>2665250
Under libertarianism there is either a shortage of labour or everybody is horribly underpaid.

[Anonymous No.2665272]

>>2665198

>Shit like fusion power

Fusion power is a fucking joke. The expense of producing deuterium from sea water is higher than the price of refining fissionable U235 for every kilowatt hour that could be produced from either. And that is taking into account the cost of disposal or reprocessing of the expended fuel rods. And that does not account for breeder reactors that could make creating Pu239 from U238 or U237 from thorium much cheaper than refining the U235.

Fusion power can prove useful in areas that lack uranium or thorium reserves, but it is not needed or desirable at this time and ultimately will probably not contribute much to our total electrical production unless an cheaper source of tritium, deuterium, of lithium can be found. And getting He3 from lunar regolith is still too expensive.

[Anonymous No.2665274]

>>2665264
also billionaries and millionaires have friends and family just like everyone else and they get sick too, and so they'll want to find a cure, and they will donate money to find a cure... but only to organizations that produce results, not lazy government science institutes

[Anonymous No.2665279]

>>2665266
can you tell me why that is?

[Anonymous No.2665281]

>>2665250

I studied history. I tried to you know... find reasons why say the FDA was invented... perhaps tried to figure out why child labor occurred, etc.

But I know you are just going to troll me with some textbook fantasy quote about how it is the greatest thing ever right?

The truth is, if you've ever believed in the concept of the scientific method, you've given up on it long ago.

[Anonymous No.2665293]

>>2665279
There are no unions.

[Anonymous No.2665295]

>>2665281
>perhaps tried to figure out why child labor occurred
child labor has been a permanent fixture of human existance, it's only now that capital accumulation has created so much wealth and quality of life increases that we can look back and gasp in horror at how bad people lived before capitalism.

Can you tell me please, how many years of state education you went through?

[Anonymous No.2665300]

>>2665293
Well there could be unions, it's that you can't use violence to get what you want.

[Anonymous No.2665302]

>>2665243
>>I'm an anarcho-capitalist

The Marxists of the right. Probably you crawled out of the fever swamps of Auburn, Alabama. Do the world a favor and kill yourself. The tax money used for your placement in the potter's field will be well spent.

[Anonymous No.2665307]

>>2665302
This is not an argument.

[Anonymous No.2665310]

>>2665295
>how bad people lived before capitalism.

Newsflash: It happened during capitalism!


You keep holding on to them old ideas though. Cause the definition of progress and improvement is always taking 2 steps back, turning around and labeling it 2 steps forward.

[Anonymous No.2665317]

>>2665281
How does it feel knowing that the majority of the US public has no idea what the Gilded Age was?

[Anonymous No.2665329]

Libertarian description of their utopia always bring to my mind the Pak Protectors of Larry Niven.
Maximized profit in a freely competitive environment = at least 3,000,000 years of war.

[Anonymous No.2665337]

>>2665307
fucking spare me. One can't argue with an AN-CAP. They believe 6 impossible things before breakfast.

Just like the communists, they compare a fantasy world to the real world and what do you know, the real world ain't perfect.

[Anonymous No.2665342]

>>2665317

Sad.

I just don't get how people forget this occurred and what reality was like...

Or it feels like I was one of the few who payed attention in class.

Granted the few free market republicans I know who have argued for LF Capitalism usually try rather poor tactics to defend it. Mostly based around revisionist concepts of history (taking bad things and saying they are actually good things then pushing these as triumphs of LZ Capitalism). Essentially it's nothing more than inductive bullshit to protect their own opinions rather than appreciating fact.

[Anonymous No.2665343]

>>2665337
you've literally not made a single argument

[Anonymous No.2665363]

>>2665337
>Just like the communists

Says the guy who obviously hasn't read any actual communist philosophy.

I'm not arguing for communism, I'm just saying you are blatantly overlooking the Idealist/Non-idealist split between the major sources of philosophy of the Communists.

[Anonymous No.2665366]

>>2665343
Why don't you go argue that the confederacy was the good side in the US civil war, you AN-CAP cultist.

[Anonymous No.2665370]

Many libertarian ideas are very unintuitive.

Psychological experiments show loss aversion is twice as powerful as desire to acquire gains.

More often than not - leaving things to free market ends up with companies coming up with innovative solutions for cooperation instead of terrible dystopias.

You, /sci/tards, also suffer from faults of human psychology. Just that when you can easily see said experiments through in simple mathematical models doesn't mean you are free from the same biases when presented with situations where you have no experience and adequate information.

[Anonymous No.2665406]

>>2665370
>Psychological experiments show loss aversion is twice as powerful as desire to acquire gains.

And what is the problem with this? There isn't anything inherently wrong with trying to avoid loss.

This is just a reason why people dislike Libertarian(ism), not a reason why they do or do not hold factually true beliefs.

[Anonymous No.2665413]

laissez faire = lasts for two years then falls to shit

socialism = falls to shit in two months

socialist leaning mixed economy = inefficient, bureaucratic infighting, high unemployment, high taxes even on lower income brackets, still vulnerable to market fluctuations, social services readily available but slow or of low quality due to high demand an large cost, ultimately a failure but a sustainable failure

capitalist leaning mixed economy = requires 12-15% higher taxes on the upper 5% of tax brackets to remove money used only for speculation, social services usually provide for basic living expenses(food stamps, state mandated housing), can have market fluctuations due to stock speculation, efficiency highest in medium to small businesses, workable efficiency for large corporations, moderate failure but with workable solutions.

Solution
Take US tax system increase taxes by 5.5% for the upper 12% of the tax bracket. Increase it by 15% for the upper 2% of the tax bracket, that money just gets shuffled around in the stock market anyway and does not get directly invested. Offer tax breaks only for direct investment into personnel and equipment for businesses. Drop business taxes by 2% essentially making them 0%, that money is actually used for direct investment. Unemployment now means you are assigned to a road crew if you are getting state unemployment or a federal construction project(more fucking nuclear reactors) or the maintenance. If you are not part of either your welfare gets cut off after 2 years just like today. Healthcare covers work related injuries, chronic or acute, to get workers back to work as quickly as possible. Any other healthcare covers only easily treatable conditions that do not require specialist work. Got incurable cancer, you don't get shit. Once again, to get people who can work back to work.

[Anonymous No.2665422]

>>2665413
continued

You want social justice, equality, and egalitarianism? Fuck you. You want the rights of businessmen to be respected, equal opportunity, and men to be entitled to the sweat of their brow. Fuck you. Morality, ethics, justice, rights: these are all just empty platitudes. Only brutal objectively codifiable efficiency matters.

Socialism is only good from big public works projects like the TVA or the military industrial complex. And yes social fags the military industrial complex is socialist. It makes very little money and many of the CEOs are government appointed. But that is only right, the military is always the concern of the state, and one of the few things it can run properly.

Libertarianism works for business, and business is the only place it will be applied.

[Anonymous No.2665424]

>>2664953
omfg yes

[Anonymous No.2665437]

>>2665363
I'm not trying to write a dissertation here, only pointing out some common and fallacious rhetorical tactics that anarcho-capitalists ironically share with advocates of communism:

even when there are abundant historical examples that imperfectly approximate their ideal society, they resort to the imaginary idealized model and blame undesirable attributes on the ways in which real societies differ from their (unattainable) ideal.

'true communism has never been tried'

[Anonymous No.2665537]

>>2665437
I like how people bring up the Paris Commune as an example of either one working, despite the fact that it was an utter failure before the french army broke it up.

1) There was an exodis of people from the city at first, which helped remove dissidents that may not have agreed with the commune. On a national level that sort of movement is not really possible so internal strife will result from a sudden political or economic shift like that.

2) Two months before the french army arrived the commune was having problems with food supplies since it could not convince surrounding farmers to give it food. Ultimately it had to raid or coerce the farmers into taking worthless commune currency in exchange for grain.

3) Artistan and industrial processes were slow due to lack of demand.

4) It was latter found out that hording was common among the people, either because they thought it wouldn't last or because the would not trust others with their property.

Ultimately people who support communism or anarchism due so because they value peoples happiness. I don't, I only value their functionality. They are impossible pipe dreams.

[Anonymous No.2665539]

>>2665422

>>2665437

Then we should employ the principles of technique to be applied in decision making to reach efficiency. (i.e. what makes the most sense) Instead of bullshit belief systems of the left and right.

[Anonymous No.2665566]

>>2665539
There is a tradeoff between efficiency and redundancy. For many things, you want redundancy so the house of cards doesn't topple over at the slightest breeze.

[Anonymous No.2665570]

Today's libertarians are lame as hell. You want a libertarian that know what they're talking about, check out Milton Friedman.

[Anonymous No.2665578]

>>2665539
There have to be goals for there to be efficiency. What are the goals?

[Anonymous No.2665627]

>>2665406
There is something wrong with loss aversion taken to rather illogical levels.

As I told people in /sci/ would not fall for it, but among the general population and using much more complex wording and formulas for the given problem:

You are given one dollar. Would you choose a fair coin toss with heads losing it all for you and tails keep the dollar and paying you 1.50.

half of the people chose to not throw.

If the financial gain/loss were the same, but question was worded differently then people made a different choice.

Sorry for my english btw.

[Anonymous No.2665679]

>>2665578
Survive and propagate. As individuals, nations, states, and a species. Disseminate our descendants everywhere we can using nuclear pulse propulsion. Utilize all available resources to increase our numbers and therefore the number of people working on technologic innovation so that we can support higher populations. Repeat ad infinitum.

The plan so far as I know is to travel to all the stars of this galaxy using nuclear pulse propulsion, which we can do in 250-500,000 years assuming the maximum attainable velocity of 0.12C is attained within 1.5 years of departure while accelerating at 1g. Then disassemble all rocky planetoids using lofstrom loops powered by nuclear or geothermal energy to lift mass of the planets. It should that about 10 million years for 10,000 lofstrom loops with a lift capacity of 200 million tons per year to disassemble Earth. So 10 million years after we reach each stellar system we will be able completely devour all rocky objects within them and arrange them in Dyson Swarms.

Using antimatter propulsion with water as a reaction mass we could get up to 0.6C, and the time dialation invovled would allow even interstellar travel within 20 years(ship time). Ultimately meaning that we can colonize the entire visible universe in less than 20 billion years. Then we huddle around red dwarfs and fight over the scraps until they burn out in 120 trillion years. And after that we'll have to see what comes up.

Basically the goal is to conquer everything. Ultimately it will be our ways, our prides, our prejudices, our children, our ways, our form of life, our Gods; that determine the fate of the universe. And all other life will be forced to serve us or die. The stars are the providence of Man alone.

[Anonymous No.2665959]

>>2665566
>>2665578

How about providing a high standard of living while expending the least possible amount of non renewable resources? We are currently raping the shit out of our ecology for the purpose of what? profit? And profit didn't raise standard of living, it was science and technology. So don't give me that bullshit about ingenuity spawning a higher standard of living libertarians!

What about biological necessities too? Such as health and psychological well being? These are novel concepts that can be goals.

[Anonymous No.2665975]

>>2665959

And to add to this, extend the length of time this is possible to the max.

[Anonymous No.2666029]

>governmental policy
>govern
>mental
>policy
>6
>6
>6

[Anonymous No.2666038]

>>2665959
>least possible amount of non renewable resources
Nothing is truly sustainable, even stars die. But we may endure until the last stars burn out.

>We are currently raping the shit out of our ecology for the purpose of what?
see >>2665679
>implying we want to remain part of a biosphere when it becomes economically and technologically viable to live without one.

>What about biological necessities too?
>Implying we want to remain biological

>Such as health and psychological well being?
SANITY IF FOR THE WEAK!

[Anonymous No.2666084]

>>2666038

Lol transhumanism much?

[Anonymous No.2666255]

>>2666038

>Nothing is truly sustainable, even stars die. But we may endure until the last stars burn out.

refer to this...>>2665975

>implying we want to remain part of a biosphere when it becomes economically and technologically viable to live without one.

When the fuck is this going to happen?

[Anonymous No.2666274]

>humanity basically lived under libertarianism for most of history, and lots of scientific discoveries were made then.

NO IT DIDN'T.

lrn2history

[Anonymous No.2666292]

[Anonymous No.2666335]

>>2666255
When we get photoelectric cells to be more than 37% efficient at collecting photons. You can already produce glucose with less energy than a plant uses. But our best photoelectric cells are only 19% efficient while the best C4 photosynthetic process captures the energy from 37% of the photons that strikes the leaf.So after we make better solar cells we just pave over the entire planet with them. With that glucose as a substrate to grow bacteria on we can produce all the other organic compounds we need by utilizing the metabolic processes of the bacteria.The ultimate plan is the make humans completely independent of any outside aid. Self repairing and self replicating, requiring only the acquisition of materials and access to an energy source to live, without the need for supporting organisms.

It'll probably take several thousand years to attain that kind of technology but that's ok.There is still a 78 year supply of cheap oil(cheap meaning able to produce gasoline for less then 4.10 2001USD/gallon assuming a 5% increase in demand compounded yearly) based on known recoverable reserves. But even after the exhaustion of all hydrocarbon resources it would still be possible to make hydrogen to fuel internal combustion engines(methane engines are in common use today) using electrolysis. The only thing humanity really needs to continue industrial production is electricity. With enough electricity many things that are not currently economically viable become possible. And with nuclear breeder reactors U238 and Thorium can be breed into the nuclear fuels Pu239 and U237 respectfully. This will provide sufficient electrical generation capacity, assuming a 8.5% increase in the consumption of electricity compounded yearly for population of 10 billion for at least 30,000 years. Supplementing this with solar, wind, and water power will ensure our survival for the foreseeable future.

Life on this world exists because we allow it. It will end because we demand it.

[Anonymous No.2666394]

>>2666335

>There is still a 78 year supply of cheap oil(cheap meaning able to produce gasoline for less then 4.10 2001USD/gallon assuming a 5% increase in demand compounded yearly) based on known recoverable reserves.

This is complete bullshit. It takes more energy to take out of the ground over time. It also takes more energy to extract resources over time.

Current estimates suggest the shit hits the fan in about 20 years.

lrn2geophysics

[Anonymous No.2666396]

>>2666394

I forgot the link here

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3810

[Anonymous No.2666401]

>>2666335
>>When we get photoelectric cells to be more than 37% efficient at collecting photons

The theoretical limit is 30%, meaning the best we could do physically is 29.999999%.

[Anonymous No.2666402]

>>2666666

[engineer !1BuTTsexks No.2666410]

>>2666401
You can buy 40% ones today

[Anonymous No.2666411]

>>2666335
I like the idea of using plants and bacteria to make our chemicals normally derived from petroleum, but it'll be exceedingly difficult to use those to make our fuel.

What we need is space-based solar that beams the energy down to us from the heavens. It'll be more expensive than coal, that's for sure, but it'll be much better for the planet.

[Anonymous No.2666418]

>>2664994

Libertarianism is like the christian faith, if you think it's wrong it's because you haven't fully understood it.

[Anonymous No.2666424]

No. Libertarianism results in monopolies, which distort the market. The free market only works when there is sufficient competition. The high cost of entry into many markets means these markets must be regulated to ensure no single player becomes powerful enough to game the system.

[Anonymous No.2666450]

[Anonymous No.2666467]

>>2666394
I have an MS in stratigraphy.

Currently you get about 12 times the amount of btus from the final products you produce than from the energy you expend to get it. Assuming that the reservoir rock has about 20-35% porosity, as most of the carbonate reserviors of the Gulf, Arabian Penninsula, and Russia have. That accounts for both to pumping and to refinement of the crude petroleum. That energy expendature has been about the same for the last 30 years. Openflow oil wells give you about 118 times times the energy you put in. The reason for that declining trend is the declining number of oil wells that did not require pumping over the period from 1950-1980. That is all stuff from the AAPG Bulletin.

[Anonymous No.2666469]

>>2666467
That estimate that I gave you does account for more energetically expensive petroleum sources like oil shale, partially because the reserves are speculative. Actually my number was based on the current estimated known recoverable reserves from cratonic(on shore) oil drilling only, from various AAPG Bulletins. The peak oil graph you guys use alot on your sites is on the Hubbard Decline Curve. However this only counts proved recoverable reserves rather than known recoverable reserves. Proved means that you have 4 wells within the drainage radius of the proposed well site, which ensures that you will hit oil. Putting this way, proved reserves are for areas with active drilling, while known reserves are estimates based on geology but in sections of oil fields without enough active drilling to prove the reserve exists. I always used the lower estimates though, so the number should be as conservative as the current data allows. Hubbard Decline Curve is also optimized to predict decline of oil production from Texas limestones, in fields where all data is available(Texas law states that all companies have to give their well logs and production reports to the state and that they must be accurate), and that there are outside markets that cause diminishing returns from marginally producing wells. This was an excellent graph that tracked the production of Texan oil very well. However a graph showing the worlds production of petroleum as it is exhausted would be a descending plateau rather than a peak, since there is no outside source of oil to make the marginally producing wells undesirable. So instead of a 150 year slow decline from a peak, you get a 75 year plateau and a steep drop off at the end.

[Anonymous No.2666482]

>>2666401
I thought the peak collection of photons was 70%, just like the peak efficiency for any mechanical system.

[Anonymous No.2666509]

>>2666411
Using plants or bacteria for the fuel is inefficient. The bacteria are just for the organic compounds that make up and sustain our bodies, or any fleshy bits we'd have. Fuel would likely be hydrogen or methane gas produced by electricity or the breakdown of organic wastes respectively. An you'd just us them in internal combustion. That's why you want nuclear, lots of electricity for electrolysis, which means lots of hydrogen can be produced.

[Anonymous No.2666537]

>>2666509
The time of our return is coming. Our numbers will darken the sky of every world.

We have no beginning. We have no end. We are infinite. Millions of years after your civilization has been eradicated and forgotten, we will endure.

Your civilization is based on the technology of the mass relays. Our technology. By using it, your civilization develops along the paths we desire. We impose order on the chaos of organic life. You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it.

Your words are as empty as your future. I am the Vanguard of your destruction. This exchange is over.

[Anonymous No.2667080]

bamp

[Anonymous No.2667118]

Im european and had no idea what libertarianism is. By googling found that they support monopoly capitalism and personal freedom, with minimal government structure. Isnt that just contradictory seeing as monopolies can be as bad at oppressing people as some governments.

Also over here most of science funding comes from government, if they wernt involved it would be worse for science

Sorry for my english

[Anonymous No.2667138]

What is this Nasa vs Private enterprise thread?

Goverment does much more than Provide money for NASA. It provide reaserch grants for reaserchers and professors at university. This is where most noble prize winners come from.

And learn to diffrentiate between commercially viable science and science.

Free market enterprise willl only invest in science that can make them money in less than 20 years. Things like medicine , technology etc are viable so they get funded.

Where as things astrophysics, quantum mechanics, GR, or many math reaserach topics are not. Who will fund those?

[Anonymous No.2667367]

>>2667138
pure science master race reporting

[m1ckey !dkJI/P7Y32 No.2668810]

ITT: the general populace of /sci/ reaches new lows in their knowledge of economics and politics.

[Anonymous No.2668821]

>>2667118
Libertarianism is basically just a cover used by the rich to support policies that make them richer while making everyone else more dependent and easy to control.

[Anonymous No.2668829]

>>2666418
>>2666424
Nope.

[Anonymous No.2668834]

>>2668821
Making everyone dependant on who?

[Anonymous No.2668840]

>>2668834
The rich. Welcome to the Gilded Age ver2.0.

[Anonymous No.2668845]

>>2668840
Except Libertarians wouldn't support policies that protect the rich or any business.

[Anonymous No.2668848]

>>2668834
on the employers

basically, people with power (that is capital) automatically engage in anti competitive practices (form cartels, elites, close markets down), because it benefits them.

the best way for free market capitalism to work is with a government to ensure this doesn't happen.

[Anonymous No.2668849]

>>2668845
they don't, it is true

because the rich can do it themselves much better

[Anonymous No.2668854]

>>2668848
>>2668849
So then everything remains the same as it is today lol.

[Anonymous No.2668856]

>>2668845
You honestly believe that? Complete deregulation will lead to a resurgence of total monopolies, and effective employee serfdom. There's no protection like having no competition and limitless slave labor.

[Anonymous No.2668862]

If there is one thing the rich hate, it's the free market. They would much rather control it.

[Anonymous No.2668872]

ITT nobody knows shit about shit.

Socialized sciences create. Privatized sciences refine. Both are pretty good at what they do.

[Anonymous No.2668878]

>>2668854
pretty much, except much worserer

[Anonymous No.2668880]

>>2668856
I don't actually believe that would happen as you described. My rhetorical skills aren't good enough to explain, so please watch this video that shares (more or less) some of my view on the matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU

[Anonymous No.2668889]

>>2668880
>rhetoric

so you are swayed by rhetoric rather than empiricism?

yeah, well, this is a politics thread.

libertarianism is an unstable equilibrium. it would lead to some kind of oligarchy.

[Anonymous No.2668925]

Union Carbide. Oh yes! I can just feel the love and happiness that businesses bring!
Oh, it was just a cloud of death and now me and 15,000 others are dying arglebargle....

[Anonymous No.2668926]

>>2668889
Nope. I'm probably just using the word incorrectly like I always do.

I don't see how libertarianism leads to some sort of oligarchy. It's not as if having a laissez-faire market would eliminate the government.

[Anonymous No.2668930]

>>2668926
>doesn't understand what libertarianism is

[m1ckey !dkJI/P7Y32 No.2668941]

>>2668930
and he's apparently under the opinion that Milton Freidman is a libertarian.

[Anonymous No.2668953]

>>2668930
>>2668941
Well yeah, he considers himself to be one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PaN9M4WwHw
(theres your definition)

[m1ckey !dkJI/P7Y32 No.2668977]

>>2668953
He supported certain libertarian policies, but isn't a libertarian in that his views on economic policies, among other things, were not in line with the Austrian economic school of thought.

[m1ckey !dkJI/P7Y32 No.2668979]

*wasn't a libertarian

[Anonymous No.2668984]

Randian idea of "value" is that the only trubly objective "value" is valuable insomuch as people are willing to trade labor for someone else's labor.

Besides this, there is very little I agree with libertarianism about. Libertarianism supports wage slavery.

[Anonymous No.2669000]

>>2668977
I understand now what you mean. Personally, I agree more with his views than the Austrians.

[Anonymous No.2669931]

>>2668926
Because it allows for the concentration of power and wealth among a small group of people that can control everyone else. Granted that's what we have now, but Libertarians don't even bother with the illusion of equality.

[moot's jewish boyfriend No.2669941]

>>2668984
moron, slaves don't get paid

[Anonymous No.2669958]

>>2669941
>wage slavery
>slave's wages

You lack proper reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.2669959]

>>2669931
>libertarians don't even bother with the illusion of equality

and you use this as an argument against libertarianism? so you're supporting ideals that are more filled with illusions?

[Anonymous No.2669997]

>>2669959
> Granted that's what we have now, but Libertarians don't even bother with the illusion of equality.
Now and a libertarian future are similar.

[moot's jewish boyfriend No.2670005]

>>2669958
You're just abusing words to make an unwarranted emotional appeal. You failed, numskull.

[Anonymous No.2670009]

>>2669997
you make less sense with each post

[Anonymous No.2670015]

>>2670005
Because slave wages are bad, they shouldn't be used as an argument against anything?

[Anonymous No.2670018]

>>2670005
listen, i'm not that guy, but wage slavery is a real term, its what exists in nearly all sweatshops. it means to pay someone just enough for them to meet their bare essential needs of food, clothing, shelter, and not a penny more. i.e. you are using money to give them exactly what a slave owner would give them. this is economically the maximum level of worker exploitation.

[moot's jewish boyfriend No.2670025]

>>2670018
Sweatshops don't have slaves you moron, slavery is illegal.

[Anonymous No.2670040]

>>2670025
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery
Quote:
The term draws an analogy between slavery and wage labor, and may refer to an "[un]equal bargaining situation between labor and capital", particularly where workers are paid comparatively low wages (e.g. sweatshops)

[moot's jewish boyfriend No.2670045]

>>2670040
Idiot.
Where in that sentence does it say sweatshops have slaves.

[Anonymous No.2670055]

>>2670045
It says such wages are analogous to slavery.

[Anonymous No.2670128]

Can a sweatshop even last forever? WIth consumer demand, unions, competition and technology rising, there is need for more skilled labor and I believe business must make accommodations to its workers in order to stay in business. I don't know of any monopoly that exists/ed without some sort of government support or violent force to keep slave-like workers (ex: hiring gangs to harrass workers). I'm pretty certain the problem is corrupt government.

[Anonymous No.2670148]

>>2670040
Everyone is fighting to get the most money. An extreme an intolerable version of this desire is robbing a bank or shooting a store clerk. An acceptable version is "exploiting" one's workers, the profits derived from which benefit the economy and boost incentive (as well as the workers, by the way - they get to eat). Also, it's not impossible for a sweatshop worker to one day catch a break, get a better job, and eventually own a sweatshop himself; that's the beauty of capitalism.

That said, you cannot go to the extreme of capitalism, either. Some things just aren't profitable yet nonetheless important, like non-industry scientific research. That's why public research universities, the NIH, and NASA exist. To say we need to "abolish" these aforesaid scientific institutions is extremely moronic and only inspired by some dogmatic adherence to a libertarian ideology.

[Anonymous No.2670168]

>>2670128
they will become obsolete when the work can be replaced by large scale automated machines which cost less to run than the sweatshops, then many unskilled workers will be replaced by few skilled technicians.

the issue is the huge discrepancies in the living wages between countries, sweatshops cost so little to run that it's cheaper than paying for electricity and a few technicians to run the factory in a developed country.

[Anonymous No.2670195]

>>2670148
Whats to say those institutions wouldnt have existed anyways? Afterall look at how many private investors are getting into the space scene.

[Anonymous No.2670221]

>>2670168
I've thought of that, but then I think of a sweatshop in some foreign place improving, using more automated machinary. It seems like a crazy cycle lol.