From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Sun Aug 22 1999 - 08:02:09 MDT
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Patrick Wilken wrote:
> >
> >Very bad also that they are now shifting government sponsorship of research
> >to the one area that does not need it: applied reseearch. In other words,
> >the government sponsors particular firms at the cost of other firms, in
> >areas in which those firms woudl have invested anyhow. The one thing that
> >firms are unwilling to do (basic research) is left to die on the vine.
I don't think I saw who originally wrote this [an interesting feature of the
current email distribution method is that things show up out-of-order :-(]
At any rate, I can make an argument that the government should only
fund applied research. Some of us believe that the singularity
is coming and that we all become "effectively wealthy" beyond
many of our wildest imaginings -- 10 kg of nanobots can assemble
a lot of interesting (personal) stuff from the air & dirt & sunlight
over a 1 year period. So, given this perspective one would like
to get there as soon as possible. That would imply that *any*
research not focused on this is a waste of money and time.
After the singularity you will have much more money and time
to go back and do *lots* of "un"-applied/theoretical research.
Now, with regard to what research should be funded, I would list
in order -- atomic force microscopes, construction of molecules
that self-assemble, micro&nano-electronics, AI-research,
molecular nanotechnology, biotechnology, complex-systems,
MEMS and throw in a good dose of particle beam weapons for
defense against nanotechnology based machines.
I will admit that what is "theoretical" and what is "applied"
is a very slippery slope in some of these areas. It seems to
me that the time that things go from "theory" to "application"
is getting shorter and shorter. I will also grant that setting
priorities within these areas is very difficult.
> If the same sorts of
> energy spent on football and cricket were spent on sicence and technology
> Australia would already have a base a on Mars and another in orbit around
> Jupiter. *sigh*.
I would agree with this in the U.S. as well, though I have no interest
in having a base on Mars (not when we can dismantle it and turn it
into computers & O'Neill colonies).
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:50 MST