Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
Without research you don’t know what technology you actually need, which lowers demand for said technology to be researched and developed. This isn’t the chicken or the egg type scenario you’re trying to make it out to be, more research will always lead to more knowledge, alternative method trials using existing technology and a higher likelihood of progress than with less investment in research.
By that logic we shouldn’t be donating any money to cancer research because the technology doesn’t exist to make any advancements in treatment. Again, you don’t know what your current limitations are and what technology you need unless you are researching it.
|
You aren't really reading what I'm saying. It's not that we shouldn't fund the research, it's that there are limitations to progress that can't just be overcome by throwing money and research at it. It's not like we haven't been making steady progress over decades, which seems to be what you think. "If we had just looked into batteries more, we would have better ones" is not an argument based on reality. We have been throwing everything at the field for decades.
Look at the complications around cold fusion. No one would argue we haven't been spending boatloads for decades on it, or that it wouldn't be an incredibly beneficial tool to society, one that you could argue we should pursue at all costs. But we don't have the technology to get there, and we sure didn't in the 90's. We are closer now, but no amount of thinking harder or spending more would make it happen sooner.