I agree that we should invest more into safe drinking water (though lead seems like much more of a problem than catching fire). But I don’t think it would be wise to dedicate 100% of our nation’s resources into the problem.
Some amount of R&D seems like a worthwhile investment, even when other pressing problems exist.
A lot of people say (I have no idea how true this is) that the problem isn't growing enough food, it's getting that food too people. What if we can grow rice or wheat on the moon, or ganymeade, or a spacestation or whatnot and drop it where it needs to go a-la Moon Is A Harsh Mistress style.
R&D is looking forward. Pointing at it and saying "people are hungry" is willfully ignorant of how science has played a roll in feeding more and more people and is a defeatists attitude.
Sounds like a very good principle.
Like, if you can't fix war at the level of horses, bayonets and canons, maybe not go for inventing aircrafts and tanks and machine guns just yet - you'll just get new wars leveraging those improved means, oh wait!
But at least we are pure in our hearts that we didn't mis-allocate resources when people were starving.
That this mindset exists blows my mind.
> Like, if you can't fix war at the level of horses, bayonets and canons, maybe not go for inventing aircrafts and tanks and machine guns just yet
Aside from the practical, problem of "Great way to get killed by people with guns that you don't have".
The underlying philosophy is equally flawed. Its like picking out of the technology bucket only things you don't like.
The same things that made those things possible also made a huge number of other things possible that would otherwise not have existed at all.
Sounds far more climate friendly. Also moving out of stone age only once we've stopped with hunger and war? Sign me in!
>The underlying philosophy is equally flawed. Its like picking out of the technology bucket only things you don't like.
God forbid we're picky with the tecnologies we adopt!
> Sign me in!
Then we would still be in the stone age.
> God forbid we're picky with the tecnologies we adopt!
Be picky all you want. As we progressed certain things simple became viable and just ignoring the problem doesn't make them vanish.
Does it? Such a world wouldn't have increased crop production, and would regularly suffer from otherwise preventable famines.
I imagine far more people would be hungry in the world where we forego all R&D in an effort to solve hunger.
A ton of our advances in improving crop productivity came out of research that wasn't directly related to solving hunger.
The modern internal combustion engine, for example, brought together many technologies and came out of advancement of many different kinds of research and manufacturing changes. If, in the 1500s you had focused all of your R&D efforts on improving food production and distribution, there's a good chance you never invent the ICE.
That's the thing about R&D, the discoveries in some areas often overlap with uses in other areas (sometimes in complex ways that we don't discover for a long time). So if you say: "we'll only do R&D in food production", you might actual end up stifling many technologies that would have massively helped you with food production down the line.
If I were to sum it up less charitably, I'd say that OP is arguing that if he can't walk and chew gum at the same time, humanity can't either.