Skip Navigation

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
668 comments
  • Have you considered that this too might be an 'experiment'?

    Defenders of monarchy and the divine right of kings used to argue the exact same thing - that we tried democracy before and it failed in the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece - so clearly feudal monarchy is the best, right?

    Yet here we are, experimenting again.

    Why is this joke of a system the ideal? It doesn't produce innovation - most of the stuff that led to the internet and modern computing came out of DARPA and various govt funded universities. All of our space advancements were from state-run NASA and the Soviet space programme. The wealthy CEO types only start 'innovating' after taxpayers fund most of the R&D. Same with medical advancements, material science, physics - almost every single positive innovation has come from state-run, taxpayer-funded, or non-profit institutions.

    Maybe try reading a little bit more about all this innovation you seem so fond of:

    https://academic.oup.com/ser/article/7/3/459/1693191

    https://demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/files/Entrepreneurial_State_-_web.pdf

    https://yewtu.be/watch?v=oLLxpAZzy0s

    • Have you considered that this too might be an 'experiment'?

      Yes. It very well might be. But todays world is so strongly interwoven. Tons of conflicts are constantly challenging the system. And it has yet to break. The final test will be the sudden termination of economic growth. This will be the point, where it will be shows how resilient capitalism rly is.

      Defenders of monarchy and the divine right of kings used to argue the exact same thing - that we tried democracy before and it failed in the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece - so clearly feudal monarchy is the best, right?

      Tell me which system to try next. But pls don’t suggest to repeat another one again.

      Yet here we are, experimenting again.

      And that’s a good thing.

      Why is this joke of a system the ideal? It doesn't produce innovation - most of the stuff that led to the internet and modern computing came out of DARPA and various govt funded universities.

      That was maybe the start. But big companies managed to elevate the importance to another level. The complexity of everything was reinforced and elevated drastically, driven by private companies. Just take a look at AI at this point. AI is innovation, mainly driven by private companies.

      All of our space advancements were from state-run NASA and the Soviet space programme.

      Because most of it was useless. What kind of innovation did. space exploration bring to humans?

      The wealthy CEO types only start 'innovating' after taxpayers fund most of the R&D.

      As I already stated, this is not the case. Especially pharma, medical and IT is heavily driven by big corporations. Basic research on the other hand, there you are right. As it usually does not feature real world appliances, means that it’s mostly founded by tax payers and the government.

      Same with medical advancements,

      Especially medical innovation is heavily driven from the private sector. Pharmaceuticals as well. There is not much involvement of any government or tax payer.

      material science, physics - almost every single positive innovation has come from state-run, taxpayer-funded, or non-profit institutions.

      But as I said, mostly for the basic research. Without much interest in application.

      Maybe try reading a little bit more about all this innovation you seem so fond of: https://academic.oup.com/ser/article/7/3/459/1693191 https://demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/files/Entrepreneurial_State_-_web.pdf https://yewtu.be/watch?v=oLLxpAZzy0s

      I have a good understanding of sciences. Especially in chemistry and physics. Thanks.

      • None of those links are about Chemistry or Physics. The demos link is Economics, The Entrepreneurial State. The youtube link is about the history of the internet. Maybe try learning something that isn't STEM. Might broaden your way of thinking.

        I'll respond to the rest of your comment later, although I'm not sure I want to anymore since you clearly have no interest in taking into account new information.

        Also how the fuck can you be interested in technology and say something like this:

        Because most of it was useless. What kind of innovation did. space exploration bring to humans?

        If you know anything about any science you should know how stupid of a point this is

        • None of those links are about Chemistry or Physics. The demos link is Economics, The Entrepreneurial State. The youtube link is about the history of the internet. Maybe try learning something that isn't STEM. Might broaden your way of thinking.

          Sure it would. But it probably wouldn’t change my standpoint.

          I'll respond to the rest of your comment later, although I'm not sure I want to anymore since you clearly have no interest in taking into account new information.

          Yes, unfortunately I am extremely stubborn. Sorry.

          Also how the fuck can you be interested in technology and say something like this:

          Because most of it was useless. What kind of innovation did. space exploration bring to humans?

          Because rockets are boring. Bubble and stuff is just extraordinary craftsmanship and black matter will take some time. And I overall hate relativity theory. I am hoping for gravitons. Wave functions rock.

          If you know anything about any science you should know how stupid of a point this is

          Not stupid. Some sciences simply are idiotic. Do you have any idea how much I hate biologists. Entitled brats. Some of them have an extreme superiority complex. And don’t get my talking about physicists. Buch of weirdos. You should see physicists interact with biologists. It like two different species encountering each other. But communication attempts are futile.

You've viewed 668 comments.