Could a similar statement not be made for all the enabling technologies? If all the materials scientists, nanotechnologists, and biotechnologists went fishing as well I suspect the future would look a lot like the present.
No, a similar statement cannot be made because there's a difference between hunting Chimeras and doing research when there's profit to be made (even when gambling with high-risk research). That's the litmus test. If there's a plausible expectation for profit, or even tax-funded / subsidized applications, then that means that goal is not entirely unrealistic in our technological era. Otherwise, try again next century.
How would you get any breakthrough in basic sciences without essentially blindly spending on research, hoping something will come out of it in 50 years or so? That some other people in some other country will base their commercial applications on? Not everything is profitable or useful in time for the next quarter. Basic research is a tide that lifts all boats.
Also, my vacuuming robot is pretty good, I haven't had to manually vacuum in several month and there is virtually no dust. I'd rather have that now than wait for robot researchers to get bored fishing and build something incredibly better.
Exactly what sort of robotics are you railing against? It seems to me that your arguments are essentially the old joke "We're wasting 50% of our money here; if only we knew which 50%". Or, "Things aren't useful, until they are".
MarcusBrutus|12 years ago
UnFleshedOne|12 years ago
Also, my vacuuming robot is pretty good, I haven't had to manually vacuum in several month and there is virtually no dust. I'd rather have that now than wait for robot researchers to get bored fishing and build something incredibly better.
shabble|12 years ago
Exactly what sort of robotics are you railing against? It seems to me that your arguments are essentially the old joke "We're wasting 50% of our money here; if only we knew which 50%". Or, "Things aren't useful, until they are".