🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov2.042653.13150@news.weeg.uiowa.edu> jboggs@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (John D. Boggs) writes:
>From article <23553@galaxy.ucr.edu>, by baez@ucrmath.ucr.edu (john baez):
>> In article <1ct83dINNogs@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> metzler@pablo.physics.lsa.umich.edu (Chris Metzler) writes:
>>>Bravo, Scott.  You have hit upon what I consider to be the core issue of
>>>supporting basic, pure scientific research.  I believe that in some sense,
>>>we must consider learning simply for learning's sake to be worthwhile.
>>>I work in theoretical cosmology -- specifically, the theory of large-scale
>>>strucutre -- which is probably one of the least practically useful fields
>>>of physics.  I believe that the justification for funding my research
>>>is a lot like the justification for being patrons of painters or poets.
>> 
>> I hope, then, that you will satisfied with a level of government funding
>> of science comparable to that received by painters and poets.  This means
>> either a massive increase in government support of the arts, a massive
>> decrease in government funding of pure scientific research, or something
>> in between.  
>> 
>
>Seems to me that saying the justification is similar is a far cry from
>saying there should be equal funding...  or even that that funding should
>come from the same source.  Sorry, that witty response just doesn't make
>any sense.

Indeed, In most businesses, various activities get funded according to need.
Toilets are crucial at a GM plant.  Try building cars without them.  But
they don't get the level of funding that the site safety engineer gets,
who doesn't get as much money as the robotics people.  It's not that 
robotics is more or less important than worker safety.  It just costs more.

A rational government also factors need together with utility when determining
how to allocate money.  How much cash is needed to support an intellectually
exciting artistic community from which we would all benefit?  I suspect
that a fair number would be more than is currently allocated (the budget has
been slashed by the right-wingers in the Reagan/Bush administrations), but
not nearly as much as is needed for activities which require large investments
in infrastructure, like NASA.  

-Scott 
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas