[ExI] Against government science funding was Re: New Hope for Alzheimer's Disease Vaccine

Stathis Papaioannou stathisp at gmail.com
Sat Apr 26 16:18:12 UTC 2008

2008/4/26 Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 3:52 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>  >
>  >  Let's say that there is a project that may be undertaken in a country
>  >  of 1 million people that will cost $100 million and will provide $200
>  >  of utility, on average, to each citizen. The nature of the project is
>  >  such that the utility is spread across the entire population, i.e. if
>  >  a wealthy individual decides to fund the whole thing himself he will
>  >  still probably only get $200 of utility for his investment. Such a
>  >  project will likely be funded through taxation, but not through the
>  >  free market, except as an act of charity.
>  ### Give me an example of any scientific project that had similar
>  economic parameters, was successfully funded by a government, and
>  couldn't have been commercialized. Just one example.

It's difficult if you're going to disagree that anything is worthwhile
*unless* it can be commercialised. The Apollo project "lost" billions
of dollars of taxpayer money while soft drink manufacturers had
comparably large sales through the workings of the free market. Does
that make soft drink a more significant achievement than the moon

Stathis Papaioannou

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list