[thom_nic]

> There's always the risk that the West might internally reject the scientific revolution.

In the US I am pretty sure we are already on the decline.

I think it has to do with, during the industrial revolution and post-war, huge scientific advancements and tech grew the economy, fed capitalism by means of providing new desirable goods to consumers (e.g. dishwashers, nicer cars, etc.)

I wonder if we've reached a "peak" of consumer comfort where advances in science/ tech/ medicine are no longer frequent/ impactful enough to meaningfully satisfy consumers, (why do we care about exploring Mars?) so it's easy for people to reject it and say "we don't need science."

[AlexTWithBeard]

I feel we're on decline, because "science, bitch" is used to harass people into doing something they don't want or not ready. And people generally don't like to be harassed, they begin to resist no matter how reasonable things you're talking about are.

I wish society could pick its battles more carefully.

[Smithalicious]

I agree, science has become a club to beat people into submission with (justified or not).

[bjelkeman-again]

As a European who have lived in the US, I have been of the opinion that the US have been in decline for several decades. I think there is a combination of over reliance of capitalism to solve problems which seemingly can’t be solved well that way: universal healthcare, environmental management, education, urban planning, crime (prisons) etc, and the culture buying into the “American way” which in fact doesn’t provide the social mobility it claims nor makes the population better off, if you remove the richest from the equation. If I wasn’t so busy with other stuff I would be interested in doing research around this.

[_8091149529]

Agree with sentiments of the parent comment. I believe the prestige and social standing of physics (and, in part, the academia as a whole) is founded in the truly transformational technological advances -- say, the transistor -- made in the past decades.

Problematically, to secure funding today, one is essentially expected to frame every condensed-matter experiment as the next transistor. Not only in grant applications, but increasingly also in the abstract and opening paragraphs of research articles. There's a marked contrast with older research articles in physics, which usually go straight to disseminating the results. (Needless to say that I prefer the old style.)

As a result, a great deal of funding and attention is allocated towards projects that simultaneously 1) Will not improve the quality of life of anyone, even in the long term. 2) Are "de-risked" to such extent that no new scientific insights can come out of them.

[BrandoElFollito]

I studied physics because I liked it and the way it describes our world. I then went for a PhD and slowly realized that physics (except a few areas) is basically dead. Particle physics for instance deal with completely outwordly stuff, akin to planning a family trip to Jupiter. Sure, it may happen someday but there are more present things.

I got my PhD and left academia (because of this and petty politics around photocopier paper costs) and the only part I really miss is the teaching and the bright minds.