Science, Medicine, the Arts and Government
What Government Funded Should Science Do?
Firstly, i guess i should state the role that i see appropriate for the government and funding scientific research. That role is... nothing. Taxpayer dollars should not be spent of scientific pursuits (unless these pursuits can be shown to make money for the government). Humans have a natural curiosity about them, about the universe and their place in it. Science can give answers, but at great cost (especially financially).
Think of it more in an investment model - only pay for things that financially enrich the country. This would mean that a group like NASA shouldn't send up shuttles/rockets (at great expense) for missions that are just a cash drain. Missions with real money on the line (like deploying satellites) might make sense if the cost of the mission is covered by the revenue from the mission. Planning a manned exhibition to Mars would be a waste of resources that would be better used elsewhere.
Some amount of scientific research may be needed for certain government agencies, like maybe the CDC and FDA, but should be limited to what is strictly necessary. Science should advise, never rule. The highest paid government employee should not be a scientist - even if he thinks he is "science".
What Government Funded Science Should Not Do
There is a cost/benefits tradeoff in research. Science should be about practical use/discoveries (not studies determining how much beer a rat can drink before it dies of alcohol poisoning). However, practical discoveries are more practical if they have dollar signs attached to them. Leave the theory to academia and the funding for non-cash generating revenue to whatever non-governmental entity wants to fund it.
Science should not be about discovering the mysteries of the universe with a blank check. Practically, learning about quarks and sub-atomic particles could expand scientific knowledge - but is it really a benefit to the general population when these theories and equipment to fund them are paid for by the taxpayer who will never see any tangible benefit? Many of the answers scientists would love to find would be nice to know, but not worth the investment (and largely irrelevant to most people).
Much of this up to now has been about the government funding of science. This is more about the ethical dilemmas of science. Science should not be about playing God. Things like cloning humans and animals (partially or whole) are morally wrong (even if they could cure diseases or a litany of other medical problems).
This falls under the whole you can do it, but should you type discussion. i do not see a good reason for it. Stem cells are a dangerous area of work (considering how they might be obtained). i am against using stem cells for medical and scientific research.
In the modern world, science has taken on the air of religion. Scientism, if you will. COVID response and "climate change" have almost religious adherents and you are not allowed to question the dogma. An inconvenient "truth" indeed. The appeal to authority fallacy on steroids.
In many ways science is political. In other ways, if you want to follow the science, follow the money. There are some globalist plays at hand, using "science" as a justification to take away rights and add control over the population. Afterall, it is easier to rule a scared population.
What Should Be Funded by the Government
i probably covered some of this, but this will also include the arts. Scientific research should not be directly funded by the government unless it can be shown practically to be in the citizens of the country's best interests.
This does not apply to unlocking the mysteries of the universe, just research on things with practical real-world applications. Missions like the proposed NASA trip to Mars do not fit the bill (neither do space stations or shuttle/rocket missions).
Now for the arts... What should the government fund? Nothing. The arts are a private pursuit based on the concepts of beauty and message. The public government should not set the tone for art, neither should they fund it.
So, to be clear, the US government should not fund: poetry, literature, art (painting, sculpting, etc), theater and music (composition, artists, etc.) The government should also not fund TV, movies, radio, newspapers, websites, or other mass media outlets. These should all be free market situations.
Ethics of Government Involvement in the Arts
i am not a fan of the US claiming it own the bandwidth (over the air). Furthermore, the government should not have the responsibility (or right) to censor broadcasts on radio, TV or the internet (or enact content-based fines because of it). It is not the federal government's place to set a code of "decency" for the country (and actively police it). It is not the government's place to say what constitutes art and determine the message it conveys.
It is also not the government's responsibility to police information dissemination and say what is right or wrong. This clashes with free speech considerations. The government should not propagandize arts or the media to control a message. Broadcasting is best left to the private sector and should not be subsidized by the government in any way.
No comments:
Post a Comment