Talk-Polywell.org

On the question of the small number of research projects funded, anyone care to remember some past research projects criticized as foolish when they were first funded, but which paid off big?

William Proxmire used to hand out the "Golden Fleece" award for wasteful government spending. He famously criticized one project to study the mating habits of a beetle. However, the study revealed the females would only mate once even if the male were sterile, and this introduced an entire new industry of controlling ag pests without pesticides, by releasing sterilized males before the wild males matured. The method targets species, with no harm to beneficial insects, and is probably worth billions.

The Brits funded a study to solve the "embarrasing social problem" associated with eating beans, on the thought that it would increase consumption of this useful group of veggies. A researcher determined that Clostridia living in the human gut went nuts when it received a polysaccharide in beans, and went on to devise an enzyme that disarmed the process. I wonder how many marriages have been saved by the resulting product, Beano.

Tom Ligon wrote:anyone care to remember some past research projects criticized as foolish when they were first funded, but which paid off big?

err.. that'll be "any that paid off big"!?

What projects haven't been criticised as foolish at some point in human history?

chrismb wrote:

Tom Ligon wrote:anyone care to remember some past research projects criticized as foolish when they were first funded, but which paid off big?

err.. that'll be "any that paid off big"!?

What projects haven't been criticised as foolish at some point in human history?

Manhattan Project

The need for climate science.

Note: I am posting this from the year 2186 (yeah, life extension happened). It was once thought a ludicrous waste of money by half of the population or more. Now, we people in the 22nd century look back and see how stupid we were as a species, and are thankful for that early science since it led to us geoengineering the planet by 2057.

Do they still have violins in 2186?

Of course they do. If you want to go PC, they have the ultra user-friendly Violin Suite MaxPro 3000. And if games are more your thing, they have Dance Dance Rock Fiddler Hero.

EricF wrote: Manhattan Project

What was the big pay-off? And isn't this one case where it was actually some of the inventors themselves that decided it had been a bit foolish!!?

chrismb wrote:

EricF wrote: Manhattan Project

What was the big pay-off? And isn't this one case where it was actually some of the inventors themselves that decided it had been a bit foolish!!?

Seriously? We won the war big time, and guaranteed our position as a world superpower.

Josh Cryer wrote:The need for climate science.

Note: I am posting this from the year 2186 (yeah, life extension happened). It was once thought a ludicrous waste of money by half of the population or more. Now, we people in the 22nd century look back and see how stupid we were as a species, and are thankful for that early science since it led to us geoengineering the planet by 2057.

Even more people look at people with such fevered imaginations and back away slowwwly.

Hungarian Physicist - CO2 is irrelevant

EricF wrote:

chrismb wrote:

EricF wrote: Manhattan Project

What was the big pay-off?

Seriously? We won the war big time, and guaranteed our position as a world superpower.

It is no more possible to win a war than it is to win an earthquake.

What did the US get out of it? Many of its fine young folks killed on the battle fields, industry geared up to weapons of destructions, vast quantities of resources now sunk at the bottom of the Atlantic or buried in the mud of some forgotten european or pacific plot. And for what?

The war mobilised great industrial and scientific developments, but it could be equally argued that they all happened too fast. Look at us now! How long did that development *need* to take? The US would've got to its status soon enough given its inward resources, people and materials, and the innovative spirit to develop which now seems to be waning. A candle twice as bright burns for half as long.

The war was going to happen whether or not we chose to pursue the Manhattan Project.

What did the US get out of it? Many of its fine young folks killed on the battle fields, industry geared up to weapons of destructions, vast quantities of resources now sunk at the bottom of the Atlantic or buried in the mud of some forgotten european or pacific plot. And for what?

To get the Nazis out of Europe and the Japanese out of China. An end to European militarism for 65 years (so far). Same for Japan.

The French will never be grateful. We don't expect it. But you know - without lend-lease you Brits might be speaking German.

And might I add that your defense of the free world while America dithered was your finest hour.

The purpose of war is to settle irreconcilable differences between nations. It does accomplish that from time to time.

MSimon wrote:

What did the US get out of it? Many of its fine young folks killed on the battle fields, industry geared up to weapons of destructions, vast quantities of resources now sunk at the bottom of the Atlantic or buried in the mud of some forgotten european or pacific plot. And for what?

To get the Nazis out of Europe

It's a shame you let the Russians in, though. Caused the US a cold war for 4 more decades - one decade for each year the US participated in WW2.

My point was (as is the purpose of the thread) where was the *pay* off. What monetary/security/territory gains did the US make?

If anyone is to be declarded the winners of WW2, it was clearly the Russians. They're so clever, those crafty pink chess-players, most people don't even realise that's the case.

What won in the end, as is always the case, is the capital enrichment of society - as US became wealthy and out-bought the Russians in military hardware, as Russia itself became more 'liberalised' towards capitalism, and look at how well China, Japan and Germany have done, these supposed *loosers*, using their war-honed knowhow on industry.

Just compare that with Britain - still on war rations in 1954 and 5 decades later bereft of technical competencies, manufacturing but real big on national debt. The glorious winners!!! Yeah. right!

It is no more possible to win a war than it is to win an earthquake.

I think that depends on how you define a win. Even if you define winning a war as something impossible, losing a war is certainly still possible, and NOT losing is generally very, very desirable.

bcglorf wrote:Even if you define winning a war as something impossible, losing a war is certainly still possible, and NOT losing is generally very, very desirable.

I don't disagree.