Merle
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2022
- Messages
- 415
- Gender
- Male
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic Humanist
Scientific spending is a function of discretionary income. Cut the standard of living, you cut the scientific budget more. Trying to stretch things out as long as possible leaves no room for spending money to discover new things.I am still trying to understand why you think my approach will be counterproductive. I recommend we tackle this problem from all angles, including technical solutions, affluence reduction in wealthy countries, gradual non-coercive population reduction, and even a calm acceptance that we are screwed. I think the only part of that plan which disturbs you is the gradual non-coercive population reduction.Yup--I find the green approach counterproductive. It's betting it all (taking that route will really clobber research as scientific budgets are highly related to the standard of living) on a path we know ends in failure. The greens always put that failure point off the end of their charts but the line is always heading down at the end.
If the economy would collapse due to lack of spending on innovation if population was significantly below 8 billion, how is it that the economy and innovation did so well in the 20th century?