you even make me look like a socialist. ;)Git a rope! Gary's gone Commie!
I've seen the light comrade! ;)
Hmm loads of debate on picking on science and innovation funding. Interesting site this. Wont bore you with the 6,800 spinoffs from the NASA program or subtleties like I wouldnt wake up in the morning without my LCD alarm clock but using the argument no good came out of space investment or to that matter defence research is a pretty poor and unsupported one. Worth browsing, you would be amazed at some of the life saving and everyday benefits that have come out of it, water management technologies, medical, environmental, transportation...
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/
The US investment in innovation and their approach is still world leading. I would continue to support it personally, the benefits far outway the cost.
As for the US welfare system it differs in attitude from many other countries by comparison in it provides those who want to improve, those who have for whatever reason fallen on difficulties a chance to recover and to become self sufficent and really does provide that opportunity. It is the only country where I have seen the system geared for moving people on and they should be commended on it. many oter countries fail past basic support, the US system genuinely tries to improve all. Its an attitude thing. Denyng the system would ultimately end up with the problem that other countries face which is a desire to live off it, rather than help dysfunctional families better themselves, provide to children where parents wont or havent, and give opportunity to those who genuinely want to progress. And for the most part I think the system works very well. I wouldnt try to fix something that isnt broken. Mess with it and the problems it would create would far outway the few dollars saved in someones tax return.
However if you want a real sign of government wasted policy, the UK is now making MP's show their expenses, you have to feel for the woman government minister whos husband put watching adult movies on her parliament expenses. Now thats a tough one to get out of...
As for the US welfare system it differs in attitude from many other countries by comparison in it provides those who want to improve, those who have for whatever reason fallen on difficulties a chance to recover and to become self sufficent and really does provide that opportunity. It is the only country where I have seen the system geared for moving people on and they should be commended on it. many oter countries fail past basic support, the US system genuinely tries to improve all. Its an attitude thing. Denyng the system would ultimately end up with the problem that other countries face which is a desire to live off it, rather than help dysfunctional families better themselves, provide to children where parents wont or havent, and give opportunity to those who genuinely want to progress.
First of all, welcome to the boards!
Second... you seem to have some incorrect info there, regarding how other wellfare systems work (in reference to the bolded statement above). Seriously, I'd love to know how the U.S. is the only country with a "system geared for moving people on" - of course, you do say that it's the only system where you have seen this and if you haven't been outside the U.S. then I guess that could be right. It COULD be the only system you've seen.
Factually, though, on an international scale, you're wrong.
As for the US welfare system it differs in attitude from many other countries by comparison in it provides those who want to improve, those who have for whatever reason fallen on difficulties a chance to recover and to become self sufficent and really does provide that opportunity. It is the only country where I have seen the system geared for moving people on and they should be commended on it. many oter countries fail past basic support, the US system genuinely tries to improve all. Its an attitude thing. Denyng the system would ultimately end up with the problem that other countries face which is a desire to live off it, rather than help dysfunctional families better themselves, provide to children where parents wont or havent, and give opportunity to those who genuinely want to progress.First of all, welcome to the boards!
Second... you seem to have some incorrect info there, regarding how other wellfare systems work (in reference to the bolded statement above). Seriously, I'd love to know how the U.S. is the only country with a "system geared for moving people on" - of course, you do say that it's the only system where you have seen this and if you haven't been outside the U.S. then I guess that could be right. It COULD be the only system you've seen.
Factually, though, on an international scale, you're wrong.
I might be wrong, but from my reading I got the impression that he was not from the US. If I had to guess, maybe the UK.
I might be wrong, but from my reading I got the impression that he was not from the US. If I had to guess, maybe the UK.
I had that thought too, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that he's still factually wrong about the U.S. being the only country where this happens.
Fair point it was worded badly. I think I was tying to say the US system is pretty darn good and although not native US I have seen what they do in some detail and I was hugely impressed with it. As for the comparison again , a straw poll on other countries doesn't validate my argument but it was certainly the most striking change was the attitude of the nation to helping and how there was this 'transition' approach. Wasn't meant to do other systems down more say the system there is good and a healthy attitude towards it.
It seemed quite a few were knocking the US welfare and as an outsider I can tell you it has a lot of plusses. As for knowledge of others I have seen inter EU approaches and its a mix so wont comment unfairly on particular countries. From seeing the cultural differences I think it's a pretty healthy system and seems quite efficient too. It does seem very geared up for helping people. Sure I dont know all the ins and outs and stats, budgets etc but still impressive. Point was the grass isn't always greener on the other side..unless its Ireland of course where grass is always greener.
Well, I guess we'll have to disagree where the naivete is placed. You think that charities are not accountable with the money they spend, I disagree, due to personal experience. I think the government is not accountable with they money they spend, you seem to believe they are.As for paid staff, the charity I worked for was staffed by volunteers for the most part, and had no paid advertising or marketing staff. In fact, I was it for a marketing staff for six months. The reason I had to leave was that I needed to find a paying position. This was a charity whose monetary disbursements to various charitable groups reached into the millions of dollars. You can run a large charity with a minimum of staff and volunteers, it is easy when people care and are passionate about their work.
Firstly I have never said that the civil services is fully accountable, however there masters and there masters do have the ability to place pressure on them are accountable in this country. This is especially true at the local electoral level where multiparty politics is very strong with three major parties as well as a substantial number of other parties who successfully contest seats in both national and local elections. Say what you like about public choice theory. It has given government some teeth when dealing with the civil service.
What i think you don't understand is that we have a welfare state here for a reason. We had a Philanthropy only system; it was not fit for purpose. In fact, things were so bad that our ability to wage war was inhibited by the standard of public health. We only had government intervention, because a system based on Philanthropy failed.
I have worked with three small charities. All three had about a 1/3 to 1/2 of their staff paid as well as having to pay for outside auditors. Larger charities have marketing budgets that are frankly shocking.
Of the three charities, i have worked for, only one had any form of accountability to the public, and that was because it was a city farm and has a large numbers of visitors. Even then, accountability in that case came very much in the form of ensuring that visitors had a nice time and that the animals looked well cared for, the farms numerous other projects had almost no contact with donor and beyond the board, and funding bodies, I know of no one who ever read our yearly reports.
Frankly, the staff could have used any money left over from purchasing feed and basic maintenance to go out on the piss once a month and the donors would have known nothing about it. Hell, we probably would have even half starved the animals to get in some extra drinks and the public would not have known the difference. Fortunately we are cared enough about the project itself that nothing like that ever happened, but nothing about the nature of charity prevented us from being hugely wasteful.
The only time we had an real accountability was in applying for funding, and this applied at CCDP and Signals (though signals also made some money by providing services to other charities) as well. Making funding applications, which represented most of the actual work the charities did, required genuine accountability.
You had mentioned before that 'most people suck' in one of your previous posts, then why can't you wrap your head around the fact that some people will do ridiculous things like having children just to get benefits? You can argue that it's not a smart thing to do, but when has a teenager ever been accused of long-term thinking? People make that descision all the time, I know, I am friends with people who have made that very descision. I could have made that descision, but I didn't. I have always attempted to be a long-term thinker. I think my forbearance has been validated, as most people my age who have leaned on the government for support now live sh!tty lives. That is an observation from being at their houses, not some academic abstract. They thought it was the easy road, but it is a road fraught with peril.
I can wrap my head around it. It does happen. It is a bad thing. I even argued that their where cases where this happened earlier. See -
If you where making the case that given the choice between having no hope of getting a house or a decent job and living on tiny levels of benifit without a baby, and getting a little, fairly s&!~ty appartment, a tiny bit mre cash and a slightly easier time with the people at social security, but gathering massive social stigma and a dependant your equiped to raise properly, you would be presenting a much more reasonable and realistic dilemma.
What you seem unable to grasp is that some girls will end up having children without a support structure regardless. If you don't have a system in place to protect them, they are in serious trouble.
Welfare will never give anyone other than a minimum to live, but when you are starting out from high school, the government's idea of 'minimum' looks like a good deal, especially if you are a basically lazy person. It is only later when the people who sweated out higher education and the poverty of their post-college years start to reap the benefits of their work, does the welfare-supported life lose its luster.
The issue is that once you stop working, you lose all chance of advancement. Barring cost-of-living adjustments, you are stuck with that life, and it's hard to leave it, especially when you have a child. Some will successfully game the system, get the free degree and move along to their lives. Others will crumble under the unexpected burden of childrearing, drop out and just decide to stay at home, collecting the check and feeling ever more desperate.
If the system isn't there, those people who need the help have no chance at all.
If the system is there, some people will game the system.
Which outcome cause the most harm to society?
i would argue that the welfare system needs to be considerable more generous. Not in its baseline amount, but with incentives to train and work. Give people an incentive to do sort them selves out and they are more likely too. Positive reinforcement is far more effective than negative reinforcement.
Desperation and hopelessness are the true 'gateway drugs' and with the ease that folks procure pills these days, it is all too easy to get the government to fund your drug habit as well. I see it now, where instead of marijuanna and other drugs, teenagers are taking Percosets, Vicodin and Oxycontin for recreation now. Once again, this is not quoting a statistic, this is direct experience. It is not just the teens, they are getting these drugs from people my age with 'maladies' that obtain them a narcotic perscription. They sell off their surplus to gain a little extra folding money. Why not? They can always get a refill. How has it gone from illegal to perscription drugs as the recreational choice in a 20-year span? Pure economics. The perscriptions are subsidized.
Codeine addition has almost nothing to do with recreational use. Codeine addition is about prescription drug misuses. If we funded medical research into the conditions, which people medicate with Codeine and Codeine derivative a bit better, we'd might have better treatments than providing opiates.
Ofcause, all of your points again fail to explain how a charity large enough to deal with national welfare avoids inefficence and how you can ensure that this super charity will receive the money it needs to provide the serves. Libertarian magic dust?
...stuff...
I think we are talking apples and oranges, and as the tone is turning snarky, I think I am going to walk away after this posting. A few points before I go:
1. I was never advocating getting rid of government welfare, or making a super charity to replace it. I would merely like more accountability from the government as there are in the charities I worked for. If you worked for charities that didn't conform to this standard, then I don't know what to tell you. We obviously have different life experiences.
2. I am fully aware that we need a system in place. I just feel that the system is a little too easy to get on. It becomes a substitute for normal life rather than an aid to distressed individuals. Once again, we have different views on the subject of who is getting the aid and what its long-term consequences are.
3. Recreational use of perscription drugs lead to dependency. Just like any other addicitive substance. The point I was making is that there is a lot more recreational perscription drug use out there than there was just 20 years ago. Once again, I am talking about my particular corner of the world, YMMV.
3. I think perhaps one of our problems is that we are comparing and contrasting two different governmental systems. There are plenty of government officials who are hard working and caring, but there are also ones that are not. In our system here, a federal or state employee has to bascially commit a major felony to be fired. Job performance is not even an issue. Once agian, YMMV.
Anyhoo, as I am starting to sense some hostility, I am dropping the conversation. Good luck and safe travels.
...stuff...I think we are talking apples and oranges, and as the tone is turning snarky, I think I am going to walk away after this posting. A few points before I go:
1. I was never advocating getting rid of government welfare, or making a super charity to replace it. I would merely like more accountability from the government as there are in the charities I worked for. If you worked for charities that didn't conform to this standard, then I don't know what to tell you. We obviously have different life experiences.
2. I am fully aware that we need a system in place. I just feel that the system is a little too easy to get on. It becomes a substitute for normal life rather than an aid to distressed individuals. Once again, we have different views on the subject of who is getting the aid and what its long-term consequences are.
3. Recreational use of perscription drugs lead to dependency. Just like any other addicitive substance. The point I was making is that there is a lot more recreational perscription drug use out there than there was just 20 years ago. Once again, I am talking about my particular corner of the world, YMMV.
3. I think perhaps one of our problems is that we are comparing and contrasting two different governmental systems. There are plenty of government officials who are hard working and caring, but there are also ones that are not. In our system here, a federal or state employee has to bascially commit a major felony to be fired. Job performance is not even an issue. Once agian, YMMV.
Anyhoo, as I am starting to sense some hostility, I am dropping the conversation. Good luck and safe travels.
'A true gentlemen is one who is never unintentionally rude.' - Oscar Wilde
No hostility was ment and i certainly didn't mean to be rude. I will admit to a little frustration however, but please don't leave the convosation because of that.
Certainly our experiences differ. But the point i was making is that it is dangerous to make generalisations. You seemed to be implying that charity was always, by its nature accountable. It isn't always.
Note i didn't think any of the charities i worked with and for were bad institutions or didn't do a lot of good, but to claim they where accountable to those recieved donations from, would be laughable.
Living in different countries ofcause our experiences of government is different. Living here in england i can say that with regards to how public services are run, there are countries i would rather live in. I can also say that if i was staggeringly rich, I would choose to live in america over any of them. I would not choose to have my current life transfered to america because i doubt my family could afford medical insurance and i do not believe i would qualify form Medicare.
While i agree that some people take advantage, i have to ask. Which is more important. That every one who needs help gets it, or that no one ever takes advantage.
While i agree that some people take advantage, i have to ask. Which is more important. That every one who needs help gets it, or that no one ever takes advantage.
If I may, I will ask a question to your question in return. Is it wrong to ask for better use of funds so that more people can be helped? Or would it be better to maintain the status quo and risk a major collapse of the system in a few years that leaves everyone unprotected? My whole point is not that people shouldn't be helped. I feel quite strongly that people should be helped. I have helped many myself in the past. What bothers me is the observations I personally have of people involved in governmental programs, both recipients and government officals. More and more money is being spent, and less and less good seems to come of it. The lack of accountability (I see here) is one major problem.
My issue is not with people who need help, my problem is with the inefficient method by which they receive it. I would hope we could do better, and I was using my experience with a private charity to show how millions of dollars can be successfully disbursed by a handfull of dedicated volunteers and professionals. Do all charities attempt this? All the reputable ones. The disreputable ones are usually found out and then no one donates to them any more. People are always looking over a private charity's shoulder.
Let me ask you another few questions. I am not sure how up you are on American history, but a lot of the current mega-governmental assistance programs came into being in the mid Sixties as part of a 'War on Poverty'. After forty-plus years, is there more poverty or less? Has the trillions of dollars spent made a lasting difference? Will cutting the charitable tax deduction law help people, or concentrate all monies in government's hands?
Once again, let me reiterate, I come to my standpoint through personal observation, as I am sure you do. I am merely trying to explain why I feel the way I do. I believe that the government could cut a lot of waste if the standards its employees were held to were a bit better. I also think that many more deserving people could get more assistance if there was some sort of accountability or personal development expected of the recipients (once again, those who could be expected to be able to do so, not the folks who cannot improve themselves by nature of their situation), rather than them just receiving a check in the mail. If it was possible to fire a government employee for poor job performance that would be a start.
Anyway, I understand your frustration, and I hope that you will take this post in the spirit it is offered. Phrases like 'Libertarian magic dust' don't help advance the conversation any more than a phrase like 'Socialist magic dust' would. I know I will not convince you, I am sure you know you wont convince me. But if we close ourselves off to other people's dissenting opinions then we enter the echo chamber. There is far too much of that going about these days IMO.
Sorry to come back to this, but it bothered me while I was thinking about it at work.
Certainly our experiences differ. But the point i was making is that it is dangerous to make generalisations. You seemed to be implying that charity was always, by its nature accountable. It isn't always.
Generalizations are dangerous. But there is this:
Charities: Mix skilled and unskilled members, with zero accountability.
The original problem I had with your statement on charities was because it was a sweeping generalization stating that they have zero accountablility. I acknowlege that I did the same thing by saying they have 100% accountability, but we are both generalizing here.
Sorry to come back to this, but it bothered me while I was thinking about it at work.
Certainly our experiences differ. But the point i was making is that it is dangerous to make generalisations. You seemed to be implying that charity was always, by its nature accountable. It isn't always.Generalizations are dangerous. But there is this:
Charities: Mix skilled and unskilled members, with zero accountability.The original problem I had with your statement on charities was because it was a sweeping generalization stating that they have zero accountablility. I acknowlege that I did the same thing by saying they have 100% accountability, but we are both generalizing here.
Hey i admit it, i goofed. It is an easy trap to fall into.
Hey i admit it, i goofed. It is an easy trap to fall into.
Indeed it is. One that even the most rational person can stumble into.
It is easy to demonize the other side, and it is harder to try and see things from their perspective. I respect your opinion ZN, even if I don't share it. You just want to help the downtrodden, which is a noble persuit. I wish to help them as well. We just differ on how best to accomplish the same goal.
Hey, I thought "Libertarian magic dust" was pretty funny. Tinkerbell in 2012!!!
Hey, I thought "Libertarian magic dust" was pretty funny. Tinkerbell in 2012!!!
shrugs
I'd vote Tinkerbell over Bob Barr any day of the week.
|
Hey, I thought "Libertarian magic dust" was pretty funny. Tinkerbell in 2012!!!shrugs
I'd vote Tinkerbell over Bob Barr any day of the week.
Amen, Brother.
Barr was a sick joke, for sure. But then, I haven't taken the LP seriously since they nominated Brown twice...
What's a two major party hater like me to do in these troubled times?
What's a two major party hater like me to do in these troubled times?
Beats me bro. I hate 'em both too. I guess keep the faith that maybe people will finally get tired of the Reporklicans and Spendocrats and finally revamp the system. You are right though, the Libertarians definitely have an identity crisis, and tend to back 'name-brand' candidates rather than candidates that exemplify their beliefs. I mean, who can take a party seriously that in one election backs Brown, and in another backs Barr? Could you think of two politicians with less in common?
Beats me bro. I hate 'em both too. I guess keep the faith that maybe people will finally get tired of the Reporklicans and Spendocrats and finally revamp the system. You are right though, the Libertarians definitely have an identity crisis, and tend to back 'name-brand' candidates rather than candidates that exemplify their beliefs. I mean, who can take a party seriously that in one election backs Brown, and in another backs Barr? Could you think of two politicians with less in common?
What's a two major party hater like me to do in these troubled times?
You are both welcome to emmegrate to england :p. We have loads of parties you can choose from ;)
|
|
You are both welcome to emmegrate to england :p. We have loads of parties you can choose from ;)Beats me bro. I hate 'em both too. I guess keep the faith that maybe people will finally get tired of the Reporklicans and Spendocrats and finally revamp the system. You are right though, the Libertarians definitely have an identity crisis, and tend to back 'name-brand' candidates rather than candidates that exemplify their beliefs. I mean, who can take a party seriously that in one election backs Brown, and in another backs Barr? Could you think of two politicians with less in common?
What's a two major party hater like me to do in these troubled times?
Yeah, but we're godless pinko Commie socialist European liberal scum* (I think that covers most of the epithets), why would good old Americans want to emigrate here?
You are both welcome to emmegrate to england :p. We have loads of parties you can choose from ;)Beats me bro. I hate 'em both too. I guess keep the faith that maybe people will finally get tired of the Reporklicans and Spendocrats and finally revamp the system. You are right though, the Libertarians definitely have an identity crisis, and tend to back 'name-brand' candidates rather than candidates that exemplify their beliefs. I mean, who can take a party seriously that in one election backs Brown, and in another backs Barr? Could you think of two politicians with less in common?
What's a two major party hater like me to do in these troubled times?
Yeah, but we're godless pinko Commie socialist European liberal scum* (I think that covers most of the epithets), why would good old Americans want to emigrate here?
** spoiler omitted **
Mmm...how about an awesome anti-folk scene? ooor...mmm...really good curry?
I wouldn't emigrate, but I'd love to visit :P My wife wants to go to Scrooby and investigate her Puritan ancestors. Me I want to do the same in the Hebrides (So it'd have to be a summer trip).
As for political parties, I kinda wish we had more of a parlimentarian system rather than the 'winner take all' electorate. But that will never happen. I still refuse to vote Republican down the line, even if they (supposedly) espouse some of the same small government values I hold. The problem with them is that when they get in power they start trying to legislate morality, which is just as bad as the Dems. trying to legislate a living for everyone off the public teat.
If the Republicans get a major influx of congresspeople in 2010 (which I personally am betting they do) watch them spin their wheels on anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-stem cell, anti-flag burning and the rest of the tired fiddling while Foggy Bottom burns.
One of the issues I had with the Libertarian choice for president this year was that he spent his time in the Republican Party backing the same kind of crap that Libertarians are supposed to abhor. Heck he was one of the architects of the Defense of Marraige Act (DOMA) from the early nineties after the Republican Revolution. He had the balls to call for his own legislation's removal >LINK< once he'd jumped ship. Talk about a flip-flop. That and he always grandstanded what he thought of as 'easy' issues like trying to ban pagans from serving in the military. Nothing but a political opportunist, he'd say ANYTHING to get elected.
*SIGH* I need to start my own party. The 'Leave me the fnck alone' party.
If the Republicans get a major influx of congresspeople in 2010 (which I personally am betting they do) watch them spin their wheels on anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-stem cell, anti-flag burning and the rest of the tired fiddling while Foggy Bottom burns.
And in one paragraph you have described exactly why I am no longer a registered Republican. And your next paragraph succinctly describes why I can't, in good conscience, call myself a "libertarian," as I have no wish to be associated in any way with the, er, "gentleman" you mentioned.
The Republican party is not against stem-cell research, they are against EMBROYIC stem-cell research. There is a distinction. It is like the difference between being described as being pro-choice and being pro-abortion.
The Republican party is not against stem-cell research, they are against EMBROYIC stem-cell research. There is a distinction. It is like the difference between being described as being pro-choice and being pro-abortion.
Further, adult stem cells are already producing therapeutic results, whereas embryonic stem cells are constantly touted for their (so far unrealized) 'potential'...
Further, adult stem cells are already producing therapeutic results, whereas embryonic stem cells are constantly touted for their (so far unrealized) 'potential'...
Much as firebombing Dresden was already underway, while nuclear weapons were constantly being worked on for their (then unrealized) 'potential'? I'd submit that anyone who is not a molecular biologist doesn't really know what their potential is, and that taking the standpoint that no research should ever be conducted into unfulfilled 'potential' would be essentially barring further major discoveries forever -- or at least until that policy changed.
The Republican party is not against stem-cell research, they are against EMBROYIC stem-cell research. There is a distinction. It is like the difference between being described as being pro-choice and being pro-abortion.
Mea Culpa. Either way, my belief is that the Republicans should spend more time getting their fiscal house in order than spending time on whether embryonic stem cells are used in research. If they aren't useful, then they won't be used. If it is immoral, then those participating will be punished by whatever divine agency you feel is angered, without governmental assistance.
|
|
Further, adult stem cells are already producing therapeutic results, whereas embryonic stem cells are constantly touted for their (so far unrealized) 'potential'...Much as firebombing Dresden was already underway, while nuclear weapons were constantly being worked on for their (then unrealized) 'potential'? I'd submit that anyone who is not a molecular biologist doesn't really know what their potential is, and that taking the standpoint that no research should ever be conducted into unfulfilled 'potential' would be essentially barring further major discoveries forever -- or at least until that policy changed.
Funny you should mention WWII. Before WWII, scientists seemed to invent things and find stuff out just fine without government money. Bush never banned research using embryonic stem cells, he banned government funding.
I guess scientists are just glorified welfare queens, if they can't do anything without government funding these days...
Before WWII, scientists seemed to invent things and find stuff out just fine without government money.
Before WWII, they weren't fighting against a culture that increasingly demanded superstitious answers to questions about how things worked.
|
|
Before WWII, scientists seemed to invent things and find stuff out just fine without government money.Before WWII, they weren't fighting against a culture that increasingly demanded superstitious answers to questions about how things worked.
Come again? Scopes monkey trial? What?
Did you manage to type that without a chuckle?
;)
Come again? Scopes monkey trial? What?
Argh. Got me there. But at least the president wasn't weighing in on the Creationist side...
The Republican party is not against stem-cell research, they are against EMBROYIC stem-cell research. There is a distinction. It is like the difference between being described as being pro-choice and being pro-abortion.Mea Culpa. Either way, my belief is that the Republicans should spend more time getting their fiscal house in order than spending time on whether embryonic stem cells are used in research. If they aren't useful, then they won't be used. If it is immoral, then those participating will be punished by whatever divine agency you feel is angered, without governmental assistance.
I agree, and Derek hit it on the nose. Nobody is stopping private embroyic research, but asking taxpayers to pay for it and it if the moral aspects of it are questionable then that is offensive. I don't feel comfortable knowing that the government paid for the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. I certainly understand others objections to embryonic stem cell research.
Further, adult stem cells are already producing therapeutic results, whereas embryonic stem cells are constantly touted for their (so far unrealized) 'potential'...Much as firebombing Dresden was already underway, while nuclear weapons were constantly being worked on for their (then unrealized) 'potential'? I'd submit that anyone who is not a molecular biologist doesn't really know what their potential is, and that taking the standpoint that no research should ever be conducted into unfulfilled 'potential' would be essentially barring further major discoveries forever -- or at least until that policy changed.Funny you should mention WWII. Before WWII, scientists seemed to invent things and find stuff out just fine without government money. Bush never banned research using embryonic stem cells, he banned government funding.
I guess scientists are just glorified welfare queens, if they can't do anything without government funding these days...
If you want to know how profoundly dependant upon funding science actually is, you need look no further than 'On the origin of species, by means of natural selection.' Charles Darwin would likely never have made the connections, which led to his writing of his theory, without his time upon the HMS beagle. The beagle was a British survey ship, payed for by the tax payer. Such research vassals paid for with military coin advanced biological science by at least a hundred years on what it would have been at the rate it was progressing as a hobby of the gentry. This funded expedition gave us the first unifying theory in science.
Also, rates of discovery in basic research have blossomed since WW2, which has caused an applied science and technology revolution undreamed of before. This very discussion is possible because of three institutions whos research has been funded either in whole or in part, by the taxpayer. Bell Labs (microprocessing), CERN and the United states military (The Internet.)
Without state sponsorship, Physics would be up s!*%-creek at this point. Why? because Applied sciences based upon the development of both cosmology and quantum physics are prohibitive to private industry. Private industry cant afford to build CERN or launch space telescopes like Hubble and the Chandra X-ray Observatory.
In short, Industry gives us THIS .
Government gives us THIS .
We need both.
|
|
If you want to know how profoundly dependant upon funding science actually is, you need look no further than 'On the origin of species, by means of natural selection.' Charles Darwin would likely never have made the connections, which led to his writing of his theory, without his time upon the HMS beagle. The beagle was a British survey ship, payed for by the tax payer. Such research vassals paid for with military coin advanced biological science by at least a hundred years on what it would have been at the rate it was progressing as a hobby of the gentry. This funded expedition gave us the first unifying theory in science.
Um, Darwin paid for his own passage on the HMS Beagle (it was common practice then, so ship's captains could have companionship of their station and intellect on voyages). Darwin's father paid for Charles' expenses. The British Government did not.
If you want to know how profoundly dependant upon funding science actually is, you need look no further than 'On the origin of species, by means of natural selection.' Charles Darwin would likely never have made the connections, which led to his writing of his theory, without his time upon the HMS beagle. The beagle was a British survey ship, payed for by the tax payer. Such research vassals paid for with military coin advanced biological science by at least a hundred years on what it would have been at the rate it was progressing as a hobby of the gentry. This funded expedition gave us the first unifying theory in science.Um, Darwin paid for his own passage on the HMS Beagle (it was common practice then, so ship's captains could have companionship of their station and intellect on voyages). Darwin's father paid for Charles' expenses. The British Government did not.
No he paid for his presence. the government paid for the expedition itself. Without the Hydrological servey mission. No origin of species.
What darwin did was the equivilant of taking a gap year with ones one money, to join a research team which has gotten funding from a governmental or intergovermental agency.
Not to mention that it in no way changes that we are living in a scientific renissance and that privite industry and individuals will not and cannot provide the capital needed to create the instrimentation we need to crack the really big questions at this time.
|
|
No he paid for his presence. the government paid for the expedition itself. Without the Hydrological servey mission. No origin of species.If you want to know how profoundly dependant upon funding science actually is, you need look no further than 'On the origin of species, by means of natural selection.' Charles Darwin would likely never have made the connections, which led to his writing of his theory, without his time upon the HMS beagle. The beagle was a British survey ship, payed for by the tax payer. Such research vassals paid for with military coin advanced biological science by at least a hundred years on what it would have been at the rate it was progressing as a hobby of the gentry. This funded expedition gave us the first unifying theory in science.Um, Darwin paid for his own passage on the HMS Beagle (it was common practice then, so ship's captains could have companionship of their station and intellect on voyages). Darwin's father paid for Charles' expenses. The British Government did not.
Without his dad paying his way, no Origin of Species.
Without his dad paying his way, no Origin of Species.No he paid for his presence. the government paid for the expedition itself. Without the Hydrological servey mission. No origin of species.If you want to know how profoundly dependant upon funding science actually is, you need look no further than 'On the origin of species, by means of natural selection.' Charles Darwin would likely never have made the connections, which led to his writing of his theory, without his time upon the HMS beagle. The beagle was a British survey ship, payed for by the tax payer. Such research vassals paid for with military coin advanced biological science by at least a hundred years on what it would have been at the rate it was progressing as a hobby of the gentry. This funded expedition gave us the first unifying theory in science.Um, Darwin paid for his own passage on the HMS Beagle (it was common practice then, so ship's captains could have companionship of their station and intellect on voyages). Darwin's father paid for Charles' expenses. The British Government did not.
Which is only an arguement for more funding by goverment for education and research. That way you can have a chance that darwin goes on the beagal even if he was a coal miners son.
Lets perform a thought experiment:
'There will be in the next ten years person who is able to crack a unifying theory of physics. This person has an equal chance of being born and educated anywhere on earth, to any social or economic group.
To achieve this they will need to be employed for five years on solving the problem and will need a peice of apperatice which costs $100,000,000.
We have two seperate world, both with this same oppertunity. One will have govermental and Inter-govermental science funding for equipment, education and staff pay.
The other will be funded by private individuals.'
Which society is more likely to produce a unified theory?
I agree, and Derek hit it on the nose. Nobody is stopping private embroyic research, but asking taxpayers to pay for it and it if the moral aspects of it are questionable then that is offensive. I don't feel comfortable knowing that the government paid for the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. I certainly understand others objections to embryonic stem cell research.
shrugs
Fair enough. I don't have a problem with restricting government funds to it, but then again I usually don't have a problem restricting government funds to do anything. As long as the research itself is allowed to prosper I think that if it is a positive line of research scientists should be able to exploit it without government grants.
That being said, I still think that the Republican Party has a lot more pressing issues than trying to legislate morality. If it doesn't find a clear message, it will keep losing voters like Kirth and myself. I want the Reagan fiscally prudent Republican Party. If I can't get that then the 'Pubs will not get my vote. Morality legislation should be a sideline, not the main focus.
Show the voters what you can do to reduce spending and they will come in droves. Look at what the recent tax protests show. There is a large grassroots groundswell of discontent over the spending and defecits. Despite what the media and the Left would like to think, they were not a Republican-led initiative, though they did play a role (some of them). Focus on your fiscal policy, roll out some clear initiatives, and you will do well in the upcoming elections.
Part of the problem is that the people often can only elect representatives, but not vote on issues.
I love being Swiss since we can vote on new taxes, whether or not we have a biometric passport, whether or not this street or that building gets built, what kind of penal system and civil laws we want, etc.
Once that kind of votes are around, once once party has not just to beat the other party to get 4 years in the driver's seat, but has to convince the people each time something important comes up that their planned law is good, you'll see a much different attitude among politicians - and you can elect politicians you're overall ok with while knowing that you'll still be able to vote against those of their views you disagree with.
|
As I believe I explained earlier, public money is needed for the big fundamental breakthroughs in science, while private enterprise is needed for those breakthroughs to have real world applications. Both depend on each other.
Private enterprise would not be willing to give over the predicted $6.4 Billion needed for the LHC, given that they would be unlikely to see a return for that investment. Yet, when the LHC finds the Higgs Boson and potentially leads the way for scientists to develop a Grand Unified Theory, that will lead to enormous benefit to humanity as a whole, not just in terms of knowledge but in applied products in the marketplace. So the public sector steps in to fund these big scientific projects.
Before WW2, scientific discoveries were actually doable by a single person. They could afford to engage in a life of science. Edison never had a problem like finding a Grand Unified Theory though. I doubt he could have fronted $6.4 Billion, for instance. As science has descended into the genome, the atomic and sub atomic level, it's become too expensive for those great pioneers of the past to grasp alone. So public money is needed (and hey, I'd far rather my tax money go on scientific pursuits then anything else)
...I'd far rather my tax money go on scientific pursuits then anything else)
Even if it was things for like the Tuskegee Syphilis Study?
|
|
...I'd far rather my tax money go on scientific pursuits then anything else)Even if it was things for like the Tuskegee Syphilis Study?
No. However, that was a failure of proper ethical standards, rather then anything else. Nor would such an experiment be repeated today, as there are rigorous ethical standards in place for experimentation on humans.
... as there are rigorous ethical standards in place for experimentation on humans.
What is the definition of a human?
Of a Human? Well, that's easy. A Member of the Species Homo Sapiens.
I think though you were intending to ask what is a Person, which is rather more complicated then a simple matter of biology (which is what you asked).
I realize the difference, but you said that "there are rigorous ethical standards in place for experimentation on humans", not on persons but humans. So according to your statement it would seem there are ethical standards against members of the species Homo Sapiens (which would scientifically included embryos).
|
|
Yes? There are ethical standards in place for experiments on humans. There are also different ethical standards in place for experiments on embryos.
Embryos are not humans yet. They have the potential to develop into them, sure, but to treat them like humans when they are still embryos is like treating a heir to a throne like the king.
Yes? There are ethical standards in place for experiments on humans. There are also different ethical standards in place for experiments on embryos.
Embryos are not humans yet. They have the potential to develop into them, sure, but to treat them like humans when they are still embryos is like treating a heir to a throne like the king.
So being a human isn't just being a member of the species Homo Sapien then.
|
|
So being a human isn't just being a member of the species Homo Sapien then.Yes? There are ethical standards in place for experiments on humans. There are also different ethical standards in place for experiments on embryos.
Embryos are not humans yet. They have the potential to develop into them, sure, but to treat them like humans when they are still embryos is like treating a heir to a throne like the king.
Had I known you were going into this silly embryonic debate, I would have clarified my previous position (which is a fine one for general work). A human being is a member of the species homo sapien that can or has survived on his/her own. Embryo's cannot. Once removed from the womb, they cannot continue existing.
Had I known you were going into this silly embryonic debate,
So people who have moral objections to the use of embryoes for scientific research are silly? People who don't use the same definition of "human" that you use?
I would have clarified my previous position (which is a fine one for general work). A human being is a member of the species homo sapien that can or has survived on his/her own.
Would this include or not include members of the species homo sapien who need artifical means of survival (i.e. can not survive on their own)?