3) & If gov spending wasn’t 40% of GDP people would have more money to spend on whatever they’d like.
If a research just adds knowledge to humanity or focusing on a problem affecting a small number of people. yes, it will be worthless for most from a monetary POV.
Yeah, we still need public funding for the most important science. I'm thinking high energy particle physics, and such. Theorists tend to need public grants. R&D is too specific.
True, *for most*. We have billionaires though that are throwing their money at living forever (lol what’s new? 😒). Of course it could be asked,
if it only affects a few people, why are the rest of us forced to pay? You can argue that there are too few people with scientific curiosity. Or the projects are too large/expensive.
but you keep repeating it’s “worthless” but I’ve given you examples that show 1) that attitude towards data is changing and 2) people do/pay for things
just because they bring joy: out of curiosity (eg data analysis), beauty (eg art), or some unexplainable need to measure and categorize.
again, people already pay for “worthless” things. People will pay for basic science out of pure curiosity. And certain people collect data just because. Not all basic science is CERN or ITER.
"What started as a combination of personal curiosity and a lifelong habit of record-keeping has evolved into an invaluable source of data for scientists of all stripes."
The general trends I see are data is getting cheaper to collect and store & more open to the public to use. & where data is not open (23andMe) it is being researched by the owners of the data.
Who share their insights.
The most important science is at CERN, and other particle colliders.
sure, but that's a minority of basic funding. & like ITER & most gov projects over budget. other topics (AI, medicine, biology, electronics) are either cheaper or closer to applications.
(Gaarder Haug, E. Planck Mass Measured Totally Independent of Big G Utilizing McCulloch-HeisenbergNewtonian Equivalent Gravity. Preprints 2018, 2018060391 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201806.0391.v2)
couldn't find a peer reviewed version yet, maybe still in review.
