Hacker News Reader

Interesting doesn’t necessarily mean important. There are an infinite number of potential scientific endeavors, I don’t think it’s unseemly to suggest that a field’s likeliness to improve humanity’s quality of life should be a factor in determining funding.

View on HN

I think any advances in basic science is worthwhile. You can’t predict when or how it will become useful. Quantum mechanics or relativity were probably pretty useless for a few decades after their discovery.

Sure, but we don't have unlimited time and money. Prioritization is obviously a necessity, and therefore I think the OP's point stands. Considering potential tangible rewards shouldn't be seen as a taboo factor in that calculation.

Evolution is search. These projects create demand for high tech manufacturing, this alone is a net positive. The money isn't burned in a pit, it is spent employing people.

[flagged]

Basic research should be funded like defense. Allocate a certain percentage of GDP.

Sure. But we also need a certain base level of research that has zero potential rewards we can imagine now but pushes the boundaries of our knowledge further out. Because a few decades or even centuries later it will become useful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com