Maxwell511
Contributor
- Jun 12, 2005
- 6,073
- 260
- 42
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
As it is science funding is ridiculously low.
Scientific funding is extremely high. It is just ridiculously misdirected.
Recall the extremely expensive LHC? It cost about the same as two stealth bombers. The US built the bombers, but let LHC remain in the EU's hands. Here some complain it was an expensive undertaking. What nonsense! It isn't expensive! Military, THAT'S expensive.
What do you think military expenditure is mostly on? Is it paying the soldiers or is it on a crazy amount of scientific and technological research?
Considering I am talking to you through a machine, that was basically designed to decode German communications, on a communications network that was designed to survive Soviet nuclear missile attacks. What do you think military expenditure is mostly on?
You must understand that once nanotech finds a viable or potential military application that it will be given an incredibly ridiculous amount of money. Not even to build products, but just to research the topic.
Almost all scientific and technological research is done by Military. That is why Military is expensive. It is sad state of affairs, however that is the way it is. A person would hope that it does not have to be this way. In my opinion, and I am guessing yours, it does not seem moral in any way.
Science is one of the most funded endeavors of mankind. However we seem to be doing this mostly in order to figure out how to kill other people. As I said science funding is ridiculously misdirected. It is not low.
Upvote
0