If one considers the leisure that the time’s thinkers were afforded with estates and enterprises underneath them, I wouldn’t be surprised if the sum total of the photoelectric investigations came to billions inflation adjusted.
This is one of the most harmful attitudes to come out of otherwise smart people in Silicon Valley. Dismissing any effort that does not bear immediate, tangible fruit, failing to follow a chain of causality to long term benefits and discounting the intellect of people working on such efforts.
For example, a similar attitude would have dismissed J.J. Thompson's work on cathode rays and electrons in the late 1800's, and would have seen his intellect directed to steam engines and steel work. That would have seen a delay in the very technology ecosystem that enabled the parent to post their comment.
Root cause of that attitude is the 3 month metrics reporting required by Wall St.
It is arbit and the largest corps that do research fully understand it can generate these counter productive attitudes generating deadline based superficial progress.
Which is why they try to keep their R&D people separate but it is never long lasting cause its all built on top of contradictions.
You want to build something long lasting look at how the Vatican survives not at how corporations/nations/empires survive. But getting science orgs to be that open minded is very tricky given all the baggage the Church has accumulated.
Interesting doesn’t necessarily mean important. There are an infinite number of potential scientific endeavors, I don’t think it’s unseemly to suggest that a field’s likeliness to improve humanity’s quality of life should be a factor in determining funding.
I think any advances in basic science is worthwhile. You can’t predict when or how it will become useful. Quantum mechanics or relativity were probably pretty useless for a few decades after their discovery.
Sure, but we don't have unlimited time and money. Prioritization is obviously a necessity, and therefore I think the OP's point stands. Considering potential tangible rewards shouldn't be seen as a taboo factor in that calculation.
Sure. But we also need a certain base level of research that has zero potential rewards we can imagine now but pushes the boundaries of our knowledge further out. Because a few decades or even centuries later it will become useful.
Evolution is search. These projects create demand for high tech manufacturing, this alone is a net positive. The money isn't burned in a pit, it is spent employing people.
Then why don't we give everyone a job? Why don't we do even more "searching", without any restriction? Let's spend, spend, spend government money. If your theory is correct, it can be nothing but a "net positive"...
No, you're being ridiculous. We must stamp out this notion that everything that feels good, is useful. Sometimes it's just a waste.
