Preferably get government out of funding Science altogether (or as much as possible outside of National Security (i.e. weapons not climate)).
Remember the days before WWII when it was private or academic endowments that paid for Science. Diversity of funding leads to diverse Science. What’s wrong with that?
Eisenhower warned us about the danger of government control of research funding. We’re seeing that in action. As the meme goes, “97% of scientists approve of those providing their funding.”
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present–and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Being one of those solitary inventors myself, I certainly have a problem with massive government involvement/control over research funding. Not that I should get any of it, but because it is quite difficult to get serious help on projects that don’t have massive funding. Why should an expert be interested in a project with a budget in the low four figures when there is government money in the high five figures for even less effort?
John:
Not that I should get any of it, but because it is quite difficult to get serious help on projects that don’t have massive funding. Why should an expert be interested in a project with a budget in the low four figures when there is government money in the high five figures for even less effort?
While you won’t get the best, there typically are massive overproduction of knowledgeable people in STEM fields and thus a routine excess that gets kicked out of the academia research nest. I’m thinking people who work a non-research main job (or unpaid parenting job for that matter), but would be willing to work a part time second job to keep their hand in the field.
For example, it’s common for mathematicians to teach at universities well below the level of their alma maters. You might find some pretty good people at teaching-only colleges or community colleges, for example. They won’t have high five figure government money for the most part.
Or in the private world, ex-mathematicians might be hiding in accounting and other fields. Don’t know how you’d go looking for them. Maybe technology or learning oriented non profits?
I don’t know if this would even be worth your time. Definitely, it wouldn’t be easy, but maybe some networking in the local colleges and professional societies for the sort of people you’re looking for, might yield results.
Not listed, but I think the one that scares me the most is “Gray Goo” and other similar scenarios.
Gray goo is a real risk but not so much of a near-term risk. But also not listed is the accidental production of a chemical ecophage. For example, a completely novel chemical that is powered by sunlight and consumes atmospheric CO2 to completion.
Chlorophyll?
The ICE-9 variant of Chlorophyll.
Call it Gray Chlorophyll…
Chlorophyll isn’t a single chemical. It is an organelle that cannot survive apart from being within an organism. I should have mentioned that the chemical would need to be self-replicating. The concept is that all of chemspace contains innumerable possible chemicals many of which don’t have a natural biologic or physical (e.g. lightning, thermal vent, etc pathway). So, if there is a self-replicating chemical ecophage within that chemspace then it is dangerously to be conducting experiments that produce novel chemicals.
From the perspective of any dominant-at-the-time archea, chlorophyll-bearing organisms likely really *were* an existential risk.
Climate change is always a risk, one of the many filters civilizations face, but gullible warming is not.
That climate change is not so severe as to be an existential risk by the study definition doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be aware of it, stay aware of what factors causes it, and attempt to moderate or reverse them if desired. Failure to meet the first of these points should not become a way to avoid all of them.
My fave is the 5 existential geological risks to the Continental U.S.
1. The Big One that dumps L.A. into the Pacific Ocean.
2. The Big One that dumps Seattle into Puget Sound.
3. The Big One that dumps Memphis into the Mississippi River.
4. Volcano that buries Chicago under a 100 feet of ash.
5. Canary Island tsunami that wipes out the East Coast.
Re-prioritize Science funding.
Preferably get government out of funding Science altogether (or as much as possible outside of National Security (i.e. weapons not climate)).
Remember the days before WWII when it was private or academic endowments that paid for Science. Diversity of funding leads to diverse Science. What’s wrong with that?
Eisenhower warned us about the danger of government control of research funding. We’re seeing that in action. As the meme goes, “97% of scientists approve of those providing their funding.”
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present–and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Being one of those solitary inventors myself, I certainly have a problem with massive government involvement/control over research funding. Not that I should get any of it, but because it is quite difficult to get serious help on projects that don’t have massive funding. Why should an expert be interested in a project with a budget in the low four figures when there is government money in the high five figures for even less effort?
John:
Not that I should get any of it, but because it is quite difficult to get serious help on projects that don’t have massive funding. Why should an expert be interested in a project with a budget in the low four figures when there is government money in the high five figures for even less effort?
While you won’t get the best, there typically are massive overproduction of knowledgeable people in STEM fields and thus a routine excess that gets kicked out of the academia research nest. I’m thinking people who work a non-research main job (or unpaid parenting job for that matter), but would be willing to work a part time second job to keep their hand in the field.
For example, it’s common for mathematicians to teach at universities well below the level of their alma maters. You might find some pretty good people at teaching-only colleges or community colleges, for example. They won’t have high five figure government money for the most part.
Or in the private world, ex-mathematicians might be hiding in accounting and other fields. Don’t know how you’d go looking for them. Maybe technology or learning oriented non profits?
I don’t know if this would even be worth your time. Definitely, it wouldn’t be easy, but maybe some networking in the local colleges and professional societies for the sort of people you’re looking for, might yield results.
Not listed, but I think the one that scares me the most is “Gray Goo” and other similar scenarios.
Gray goo is a real risk but not so much of a near-term risk. But also not listed is the accidental production of a chemical ecophage. For example, a completely novel chemical that is powered by sunlight and consumes atmospheric CO2 to completion.
Chlorophyll?
The ICE-9 variant of Chlorophyll.
Call it Gray Chlorophyll…
Chlorophyll isn’t a single chemical. It is an organelle that cannot survive apart from being within an organism. I should have mentioned that the chemical would need to be self-replicating. The concept is that all of chemspace contains innumerable possible chemicals many of which don’t have a natural biologic or physical (e.g. lightning, thermal vent, etc pathway). So, if there is a self-replicating chemical ecophage within that chemspace then it is dangerously to be conducting experiments that produce novel chemicals.
From the perspective of any dominant-at-the-time archea, chlorophyll-bearing organisms likely really *were* an existential risk.
Climate change is always a risk, one of the many filters civilizations face, but gullible warming is not.
That climate change is not so severe as to be an existential risk by the study definition doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be aware of it, stay aware of what factors causes it, and attempt to moderate or reverse them if desired. Failure to meet the first of these points should not become a way to avoid all of them.
My fave is the 5 existential geological risks to the Continental U.S.
1. The Big One that dumps L.A. into the Pacific Ocean.
2. The Big One that dumps Seattle into Puget Sound.
3. The Big One that dumps Memphis into the Mississippi River.
4. Volcano that buries Chicago under a 100 feet of ash.
5. Canary Island tsunami that wipes out the East Coast.
Risks?