Quote:
Originally Posted by woot
It's true, and it's one of the more unfortunate aspects of it. Obviously I'm biased, but I think that science is where our best and brightest need to be, and often that's where they are, but many prefer to go into medicine, dentistry, business, law, some of the softer but more functional sciences, etc. as that's where the money is.
|
I guess part of the question is whether people know what is good for them or not. There is money in those areas because the market place demands them. Then again, the market place also demands large quantities of high grade but reasonably priced weed.
This is why it is important for government to subsidize some of the science that the market won't recognize as valuable until it bears fruit much later. I have mixed feelings about whether we should subsidize arts and sciences that have no practical application.
Here is a poor example, but some times I think about Michael Quinn who probably knows as much as anyone about LDS History but can't get work because he is an apostate. On the one hand I think "what a waste of knowledge." On the other hand I think "learn to do something else and get a job."
I lean towards supporting these things with my tax dollars, but this necessarily means there is a lot I am supporting that I think has zero value, just so that a few things which I do think have value can also be supported.