mdxyz said:
As much as we as scientists like to pretend, because it's in our interests to do so, there isn't much connection between GDP growth and science spending.
I think there is. There is a lag period of about twenty years. That's why I think things are dangerous. If we cut science spending today, and the lights go off, people will realize that it's a mistake, and fix it quickly. However, any science spending that gets done today, won't have any impact until 2025.
The other issue is that it's hard to run the experiment. If GDP growth today is 1% then I could (and do) argue that if we go back and cut spending then it would be -5%. But I don't have a time machine handy to demonstrate it.
The reason I *do* think that it matter involves looking at the history of things like the internet.
First, research with direct economic value is done anyway by the market.
Yes but that builds on research that has no direct economic value. Also the thing about government spending is that it's an indirect subsidy on the market. If the government does research, and then it goes out for free, then it makes it easier for companies to take that research and make a profit since their costs are low.
And second, basic research doesn't work unless it's published, so it doesn't give anyone an advantage they can stop other people getting.
Disagree. When people do basic research there is a lot of unwritten knowledge that never gets published. For example when I work on supercomputer code, there are things that I just *know* will work or don't work. If you sit someone next to me and have them watch me, some of that knowledge will rub off.
But I couldn't publish a paper on it, because I don't even know that I have this knowledge.
Also, there is a lot of knowledge infrastructure. For example, China probably has the complete blueprints to a Boeing 787 airliner, but that doesn't mean that China can make a 787, because there are critical bits that aren't written down and is in the heads of engineers. You can get a car without any problems. But that doesn't mean that you can build a car factory or car industry.
China has been growing a lot in the past few years because it started at a level of extreme poverty with terrible institutions, and now has only quite bad institutions. It will grow rapidly until its productive capacity reaches the equibilibrium level of its institutions, at which point growth tends back to the 1-2% rate of technological improvement.
And Singapore?
China got itself out of the ditch around 1990. The institutions are bad, but they are improving.
This already happened in Hong Kong, which is poorer than the US, and has better institutions than the PRC is ever likely to adopt on the mainland.
Ummmm... Have you been to Hong Kong lately? It doesn't *feel* poorer than the US. Heck, go to Shenzhen, and it looks as wealthy as most places in the United States. The recession in China ended years ago.
Also Hong Kong is an excellent commercial center. It's not very good at pure science. The center of science in China is Beijing. The big effort is to try to merge the systems so that you get something with the commercial skill of HK with the scientific expertise of Beijing University. Hard and painful. But it's happening.
And then there is Singapore.
Moon bases and high speed trains are the equivalent of the Beijing Olympic opening ceremony - a signal you've arrived, and a symptom of wealth rather than a cause.
Moon bases aren't that expensive. Also high speed rail is *extremely* useful. You quickly figure things out if you want to get from point A to point B in China. Airplanes are hellishly expensive and very inconvenient. Low speed rail is too slow. HSR is going to be wonderful, except that there is this missing link which should be built later this year. Every time a link gets built, you can see the impact it has on the economy.
Also moon bases and HSR provide jobs and keep people employed. Once you figure out how to build a moon base, then people will use this to figure out how to put stuff into LEO. Once you get those costs down, then the skies open up. The thing is that you absolutely need government money for this. You can have private contractors do the work, but for things like SpaceX and Bigelow to go anywhere, you need government contracts. The nice thing about private industry is that often you get things done cheaper and faster, but there is a limit to how cheap and how fast, and I think we are close to it.
There is one commonality between railroads and space exploration. Costs are N+large constant, but usefulness is N^2 + zero. One KM of railroad track is useless. One space station isn't that useful either.
A bit off-topic maybe, but I think people would see the career aspect of getting a physics PhD in a more realistic light if they accept that they are essentially being given cash to play with some cool toys by the taxpayer, for little more reason than the government and the public feel that science is something that ought to get done. Not because they'll suffer greatly if it doesn't, like if all the engineers and doctors and lawyers decide not to show up to work one morning.
Eyes roll...
Let's try this social experiment. You have country A that treats physics Ph.D.'s as if they are a burden on the economy, and then country B that treats physics Ph.D.'s as if they are a national treasure. Let's see where we are in 2030.
There's only so much that you can do. I happen to believe that the US science research system is one of the most beautiful, most productive systems ever created. If Americans are idiots and want to toss this system into the mud, then so it goes. Democracy includes the fundamental right to be stupid. May be I can't stop it, but if it happens at least I can say that I tried.
It makes me sad. It makes me more than a little angry. But sometimes, you just have to face the reality that there is not that much you can do, and if you end up in a country that thinks that physicists are just "taxpayer burdens" then maybe it's better to move somewhere else that people think differently. In the case of China, it's still painfully recovering from the effects of losing the "technology game" in the 19th century. My father saw first hand the importance of physics, because it was because of physics that the US could defeat Japan whereas China couldn't. The scary thing is that when I hear most Americans talk about science and technology, it reminds me a lot about some of the arrogance you saw in China circa 1800 before everything went bad.
In some ways trying to become a physics professor is like trying to become an Olympic athlete. A lot of people are competing with you for the enjoyment and the prestige, and most of them will fail. A good thing about physics degrees is that you can learn to do programming, engineering, electronics and so forth in the meantime, so you have more alternate employment opportunities than a failed Olympian.
Like working in Wall Street.
I like my job, and I'm grateful for the people that give it to me. But I really *wonder* if I'm doing the most social good doing what I'm doing. Yes, it's the best that I can find, but I'm not convinced that the world wouldn't be better off with less quants and more industrial physicists.
