How to build science and technology for future, for socialism

[pranabjyoti]

Comrades,
I want discuss a matter here with you. A huge lot of people in the today's world is submerged in poverty and for that, they have forced to quit education to earn their living. But, there are talented people among those people who had very good innovative power and have the capability to contribute for good of mankind.
I want opinions of other comrades regarding that matter. By using the capabilities of those people, perhaps we can get rid of the imperialist control over science and technology today and that will gradually end in the decline of imperialism and capitalism together.

[mel]

Comrades,
I want discuss a matter here with you. A huge lot of people in the today's world is submerged in poverty and for that, they have forced to quit education to earn their living. But, there are talented people among those people who had very good innovative power and have the capability to contribute for good of mankind.
I want opinions of other comrades regarding that matter. By using the capabilities of those people, perhaps we can get rid of the imperialist control over science and technology today and that will gradually end in the decline of imperialism and capitalism together.

The biggest problem with this is that the material resources necessary to pursue scientific and technological research, by and large, need to be purchased from capitalist countries. The technology needed to build new technology would need to be developed independently or purchased.

[pranabjyoti]

I hope you won't forgot that the industrialization of USSR had been done with equipments and technology from imperialist countries. They are capitalist, and they will sell whenever they get the price.

[mel]

I hope you won't forgot that the industrialization of USSR had been done with equipments and technology from imperialist countries. They are capitalist, and they will sell whenever they get the price.

The point is just that areas being bullied by imperialists (and who rely on them for technological advancement) cannot simply pull themselves out of poverty.

[pranabjyoti]

I want to inform you that with little addition and alteration of present day available, not very high level, technologies can give astonishing result. As for example, with little addition and alteration, amount of coal necessary in thermal power generation can be reduced to just 1/3rd of the present level. There are other such examples.
Initially, we may just have to rely on the imperialist to start the process. After the process being started, we can develop our own technologies. The same thing had been done in USSR during its initial stage.

[MarxSchmarx]

Science should follow an open source model in order to develop. In software this is already embraced in places like, e.g., Brazil. I think that other sciences can learn a lot from this. For example, I think with agriculture and, to a lesser extent medicine, there can be a network of researchers and practitioners in the third and first world with very clear and open commitment to disseminating technological breakthroughs rapidly.

Already this is happening in areas like genetics. So far it is largely the elite that work on these problems in traditional science, but if the example of software is any indication it need not be restricted to the elite. Even for something that seems as topdown and resource heavy, as it could possibly get, like chemical engineering, could benefit greatly from open, massive and constant collaboration between medium scale or community scale enterprises across the third world. especially in places like India and China where even though parts are expensive, there is a large educated population and still many relatively small-scale production enterprises. This is also true for things like developing public health strategies against tropical diseases. The ability to rapidly share information makes such south-south collaboration from the bottom up infinitely easier, and I think the potentials are boundlesss.

[pranabjyoti]

Science should follow an open source model in order to develop. In software this is already embraced in places like, e.g., Brazil. I think that other sciences can learn a lot from this. For example, I think with agriculture and, to a lesser extent medicine, there can be a network of researchers and practitioners in the third and first world with very clear and open commitment to disseminating technological breakthroughs rapidly.
Already this is happening in areas like genetics. So far it is largely the elite that work on these problems in traditional science, but if the example of software is any indication it need not be restricted to the elite. Even for something that seems as topdown and resource heavy, as it could possibly get, like chemical engineering, could benefit greatly from open, massive and constant collaboration between medium scale or community scale enterprises across the third world. especially in places like India and China where even though parts are expensive, there is a large educated population and still many relatively small-scale production enterprises. This is also true for things like developing public health strategies against tropical diseases. The ability to rapidly share information makes such south-south collaboration from the bottom up infinitely easier, and I think the potentials are boundlesss.
Well said Comrade, but there is a problem. Funding is necessary to continue research work. So far, the open source model is only successful in the softwire development, because to develop a softwire, you just need a PC and your own brain. But sadly that isn't true for other fields of science. Specially, huge lot of resources are necessary for research and development in the field of engineering and some kind of science.
What I want to propose is that the State (socialist of course), instead of any individual capitalist, should directly contact the inventor and take necessary responsibility for further development of his/her ideas. There is a chance of the inventor him/herself become a capitalist, but that is necessary evil in the initial stages of socialism.
But, so far, I haven't noticed any such kind of effort from any countries, which we know as socialist so far.

[MarxSchmarx]

Well said Comrade, but there is a problem. Funding is necessary to continue research work. So far, the open source model is only successful in the softwire development, because to develop a softwire, you just need a PC and your own brain. But sadly that isn't true for other fields of science. Specially, huge lot of resources are necessary for research and development in the field of engineering and some kind of science.

This is and isn't the case. First of all, the requirement for only a computer and one's brain is true for all sorts of theoretical work, including areas like engineering design, operations research, and statistics.

Second, although we agree it won't work at the scale of the individual in a lot of fields, neither should we be intimidated by the need for enormous funding. For instance, in agriculture, even small scale cooperatives can, in principle, fund their own research into things like biological control. Also, a lot of basic medical research (like testing whether a drug is effective or not on rats) can be done at the scale of small clinics.

I think that an open source model can encourage many such smaller enterprises to pool their resources to effectively make scientific progress.


What I want to propose is that the State (socialist of course), instead of any individual capitalist, should directly contact the inventor and take necessary responsibility for further development of his/her ideas. There is a chance of the inventor him/herself become a capitalist, but that is necessary evil in the initial stages of socialism.
But, so far, I haven't noticed any such kind of effort from any countries, which we know as socialist so far.

Well, one way to think about that is look at professors at government universities and government scientists. In effect, the state contracts them (through grants or salaries) to do research the way AT&T contracts researchers at bell labs in the united states. Such a arrangements could probably work under the early stages of socialism, but in the long term, we need to encourage science that address the needs of ordinary people, and ultimately there is no better way to do this than to get ordinary people, and their institutions (like local clinics) to be the main drivers of scientific development.

[pranabjyoti]

This is and isn't the case. First of all, the requirement for only a computer and one's brain is true for all sorts of theoretical work, including areas like engineering design, operations research, and statistics.
Yes, in case of engineering design, this is true for conventional technologies. But, what can be the case for new technologies. I myself have theoretically developed a technology, by which thermal power can be generated with just 1/3rd amount of coal. I have completed it upto schematic diagram level. But, whenever comes the question of its materialization, there comes prototyping and that have to proven in reality with a real prototype, and that needs funding.

Second, although we agree it won't work at the scale of the individual in a lot of fields, neither should we be intimidated by the need for enormous funding. For instance, in agriculture, even small scale cooperatives can, in principle, fund their own research into things like biological control. Also, a lot of basic medical research (like testing whether a drug is effective or not on rats) can be done at the scale of small clinics.
Yes, there are such field but they are few in comparison to the number of fields, where it can not be done.

I think that an open source model can encourage many such smaller enterprises to pool their resources to effectively make scientific progress.
Yes, but with mutual help to each other and with aid from Govt. universities, that can be much more effective.

Well, one way to think about that is look at professors at government universities and government scientists. In effect, the state contracts them (through grants or salaries) to do research the way AT&T contracts researchers at bell labs in the united states. Such a arrangements could probably work under the early stages of socialism, but in the long term, we need to encourage science that address the needs of ordinary people, and ultimately there is no better way to do this than to get ordinary people, and their institutions (like local clinics) to be the main drivers of scientific development.
I agree with you. What I am talking about is about the initial stages of socialism. For final stage, I hope there would be enough option for everybody to flourish their individual capability to serve the mankind.

[MarxSchmarx]

Yes, in case of engineering design, this is true for conventional technologies. But, what can be the case for new technologies. I myself have theoretically developed a technology, by which thermal power can be generated with just 1/3rd amount of coal. I have completed it upto schematic diagram level. But, whenever comes the question of its materialization, there comes prototyping and that have to proven in reality with a real prototype, and that needs funding.
...
Yes, there are such field but they are few in comparison to the number of fields, where it can not be done.


Both are very fair points. I would highlight that:

(1) the collaborative approach, among small scale operations in the third world, should be promoted where possible,
(2) certainly there are problems, as you note, such as prototyping which simply cannot be wished away and must face strong economic constraints, and
(3) The concentrated nature of R&D capital is its biggest problem.

As regards (3), a case in point is that ideas are only funded if they are profitable. Government funding ameliorates this some, but even then priorities are skewed. For instance, governments can waste millions of dollars on finding a "cure to lung cnacer" before they start going after tobacco companies. So while such results might be better under socialism using a similar mechanism, at the end of the day it is hard to convince most ordinary people that the enormous success of the capitalist system lies in part through the massive state funding it has received.

What remains to be shown is that government or big business, and such institutions alone, can tackle these problems. For some areas, such as power generation or civil engineering, as you note, it is probably exceedingly unlikely that anything short of massive funding can solve the existing problems. So the point is well taken.

And it may be that this is true for the majority of technological fields. Again, however, these are in pricniple surmountable problems. For instance, take the case of developing a superior radio transmitter. It is true that oligopolies like Sony or Siemens have a huge advantage. And very often their products are superior. But when do such technologies fail? Most often, when they are used under less than ideal conditions. For instance, the fickle weather of the high Himalayas make transmitters, designed for broadcast at sea-level in places like Tokyo, quite useless. But this doesn't mean that community radio stations can/t support the efforts of other community stations to modify these technologies to deliver content. To some extent such "bottom up" innovation was what started the industrial revolution.

[pranabjyoti]

Both are very fair points. I would highlight that:
(1) the collaborative approach, among small scale operations in the third world, should be promoted where possible,
(2) certainly there are problems, as you note, such as prototyping which simply cannot be wished away and must face strong economic constraints, and
(3) The concentrated nature of R&D capital is its biggest problem.
Well, in case of a socialist state, in my opinion, the state can be the best collaborator.

As regards (3), a case in point is that ideas are only funded if they are profitable.
My experience so far is that at present, even for a profitable idea, funding for prototyping is very hard to get. I hope you too will agree that a thermal power plant, which can produce same amount of electricity with just 1/3rd amount of coal or other fossil fuel is certainly a profitable idea. Both for the environment and the capitalists. But, even accumulating funding for prototyping this technological idea is so far unsuccessful. No company want to invest in an idea, they just want to license the patent. I WANT TO INFORM YOU THAT BASIC PROCESSES, WHICH COMPRISES THE TECHNOLOGY ARE ALL TESTED AND NOW IN USE. IN FACT, IT IS AN INNOVATIVE COMBINATION OF EXISTING PROCESSES.
In such a scenario, I want to tell that the socialist state can intervene and help. The state can help for initial prototyping and funding further development.

[revolution inaction]

Yes, in case of engineering design, this is true for conventional technologies. But, what can be the case for new technologies. I myself have theoretically developed a technology, by which thermal power can be generated with just 1/3rd amount of coal. I have completed it upto schematic diagram level. But, whenever comes the question of its materialization, there comes prototyping and that have to proven in reality with a real prototype, and that needs funding.


Unfortunately to generate the same amount of power with 1/3 the coal is not possible, and in most cases would mean producing more energy than is actuary contained in the coal.
If we have two power stations A and B each producing the same amount of power, but A uses one third the amount of coal that B uses then that means A is 3 times as efficient as B.
Real coal power stations are 33-48% efficient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_power_station#Efficiency) so to produce the same amount of power with one third the coal would require 99-144% efficiency which is simply not possible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle)

[Yazman]

It sounds like you're taking things way too literally. He's obviously talking about a way to use coal with increased efficiency, and this is of course feasible, particularly as such ideas are already floating around in the discourse.

[pranabjyoti]

Unfortunately to generate the same amount of power with 1/3 the coal is not possible, and in most cases would mean producing more energy than is actuary contained in the coal.
If we have two power stations A and B each producing the same amount of power, but A uses one third the amount of coal that B uses then that means A is 3 times as efficient as B.
Real coal power stations are 33-48% efficient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_power_station#Efficiency) so to produce the same amount of power with one third the coal would require 99-144% efficiency which is simply not possible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle)
Actually, my way is pretty simple. First, vacuum evaporation of water with the help from a vacuum pump, by which we can extract the latent heat of vaporization of water from the atmosphere and then heating the vapor by burning fossil fuel. To make a 300 ºC steam, 2/3rd of the amount heat supplied will be used as latent heat of vaporization. By extracting the latent heat from atmosphere, we can reduce the amount of fossil fuel necessary to 1/3rd of its previous level.
Vacuum evaporation of water is well tested in the experiments of open-cycle OTEC. It has been experimentally shown that to produce a steam flow of 1 kg/sec, we need just 3 kW at the vacuum pump, while the amount of power embedded in the flow is 2.31 MW.

[revolution inaction]

It sounds like you're taking things way too literally.

i do do that some times

Actually, my way is pretty simple. First, vacuum evaporation of water with the help from a vacuum pump, by which we can extract the latent heat of vaporization of water from the atmosphere and then heating the vapor by burning fossil fuel. To make a 300 ºC steam, 2/3rd of the amount heat supplied will be used as latent heat of vaporization. By extracting the latent heat from atmosphere, we can reduce the amount of fossil fuel necessary to 1/3rd of its previous level.


but it doesn't look like this is one of those times.



He's obviously talking about a way to use coal with increased efficiency, and this is of course feasible, particularly as such ideas are already floating around in the discourse.

Increasing the efficiency of power-stations is probably possible, after all newer designs do tend to be better than old ones, but it looks like pranabjyoti just doesn't understand thermodynamics.

Pranabjyoti i'm sorry but now I'v realised that your the poster who was going on about using heat from the atmosphere as a source of power i'm not interested in discussing this anymore until you have gone and learned some physics, your posts on the subject make no sense.

[pranabjyoti]

Increasing the efficiency of power-stations is probably possible, after all newer designs do tend to be better than old ones, but it looks like pranabjyoti just doesn't understand thermodynamics.
I am a student of physics, please don't try to teach my physics. If you think this idea violates 2nd law of thermodynamics, then kindly POINT IT out.

Pranabjyoti i'm sorry but now I'v realised that your the poster who was going on about using heat from the atmosphere as a source of power i'm not interested in discussing this anymore until you have gone and learned some physics, your posts on the subject make no sense.
If you think you have sound knowledge in physics and thermodynamics, then kindly explain me in a little detail that how can a combination of existing processes can violate 2nd law of thermodynamics? IF YOU CAN.

[MarxSchmarx]

My experience so far is that at present, even for a profitable idea, funding for prototyping is very hard to get. I hope you too will agree that a thermal power plant, which can produce same amount of electricity with just 1/3rd amount of coal or other fossil fuel is certainly a profitable idea. Both for the environment and the capitalists. But, even accumulating funding for prototyping this technological idea is so far unsuccessful. No company want to invest in an idea, they just want to license the patent. I WANT TO INFORM YOU THAT BASIC PROCESSES, WHICH COMPRISES THE TECHNOLOGY ARE ALL TESTED AND NOW IN USE. IN FACT, IT IS AN INNOVATIVE COMBINATION OF EXISTING PROCESSES.
In such a scenario, I want to tell that the socialist state can intervene and help. The state can help for initial prototyping and funding further development.

You have a valid point about the short-sightedness of capitalist firms. I am not an expert on the design of power plants so I will defer to you. But it seems the real limitation here is the sheer risk involved in geothermal power. Like, say, tidal power, there are scant cases of successful electricity generation on a large scale that rely on geothermal sources. To be sure, the same could have been said for solar and even nuclear power once upon a time, but in both these cases successful test cases started out on a very small scale. Without such a track record, would it be wise for a socialist state to invest heavily in a theoretically plausible but empirically unsupported large scale engineering project? I for one can understand if, in these cases, there is much skepticism by capitalists or bourgeois states or even socialist states about deciding that considerable sums of money should be committed to something that has little precedent. What are folk's thoughts on the inherent risks of such an undertaking?

[pranabjyoti]

You have a valid point about the short-sightedness of capitalist firms. I am not an expert on the design of power plants so I will defer to you. But it seems the real limitation here is the sheer risk involved in geothermal power. Like, say, tidal power, there are scant cases of successful electricity generation on a large scale that rely on geothermal sources. To be sure, the same could have been said for solar and even nuclear power once upon a time, but in both these cases successful test cases started out on a very small scale. Without such a track record, would it be wise for a socialist state to invest heavily in a theoretically plausible but empirically unsupported large scale engineering project? I for one can understand if, in these cases, there is much skepticism by capitalists or bourgeois states or even socialist states about deciding that considerable sums of money should be committed to something that has little precedent. What are folk's thoughts on the inherent risks of such an undertaking?
At the initial stage, none is talking about a large scale engineering project. But, at least small scale (small for the state but heavy for an individual) prototyping and testing, which the state can do easily. You know that every new invention started as an idea first, which was theoretically feasible. Later, with research and development, it had been turned in products and technologies, on which we can rely. If we fear everything, which is untested, how can we make progress? Progress means entering new territory which is "untested" as you have said. Do you think it is possible to make something new without searching for new, untested ideas? One, which is already tested, can not be taken as "new", I hope you too will agree with that.
So far, billions of dollars and resources had been spent on "thermonuclear fusion", which had yet to give a single fruitful kW yet. I am assuring you that, by spending less 1% of the amount spent on that, we can get much more fruitful results, which can be beneficial for both the depleting fuel reserves and the environment.
Certainly, no sensible man can demand heavy investing and building power plants based on just theory so far. But, will it be so impractical at least demanding for small scale prototyping and testing of the ideas which are theoretically feasible?
Once, I have talked with a Canadian energy scientist regarding making a small scale prototype of idea, his estimation was around $35000 in Canadian funds. I am now having a job of just US$400/month, far far beyond my reach. Some relatives of mine are now immigrant citizen of Canada, they said that even for an average individual Canadian Citizen, this amount is hefty.
I just want to propose that in such scenarios, the state can enter. Will it be too burdensome for the state to sponsor the prototyping and testing?

[Invincible Summer]

The problem with developing technology within capitalism is that due to the economic/political structure, its form will most likely be used to benefit capitalism, as well as be designed with "planned obsolescence." These are all hallmarks of capitalist technology - technology to make a profit. Yes, capitalism can develop great technologies with its resources (that individuals generally do not have), however they will still be in the hands of private ownership, and not exactly benefit the working class.

[MarxSchmarx]

Certainly, no sensible man can demand heavy investing and building power plants based on just theory so far. But, will it be so impractical at least demanding for small scale prototyping and testing of the ideas which are theoretically feasible?Once, I have talked with a Canadian energy scientist regarding making a small scale prototype of idea, his estimation was around $35000 in Canadian funds. I am now having a job of just US$400/month, far far beyond my reach. Some relatives of mine are now immigrant citizen of Canada, they said that even for an average individual Canadian Citizen, this amount is hefty.
I just want to propose that in such scenarios, the state can enter. Will it be too burdensome for the state to sponsor the prototyping and testing?

I don't know how it works where your from, but in my country the government does have small, tiny grants (about 35000 CAD) that they give out to very, very promising projects by ordinary citizens. This can sometimes take the form of secured loans, but generally the government sees it as a trickle of seed money for potentially the next big industrial edge for our country.

Of course it is deeply entangled with a host of capitalist assumptions, but the point is that this is already occurring, to a limited extent, in at least one capitalist country (PS it also helps that it's an OECD country....)

In general, unfortunately you'd have better luck with venture capitalists. There are some bright former engineers among their ranks, as well as loads of lazy rich former engineers. If you have a promising idea, given the volume of crap they fund, you might have better luck in those circles.

[pranabjyoti]

I don't know how it works where your from, but in my country the government does have small, tiny grants (about 35000 CAD) that they give out to very, very promising projects by ordinary citizens. This can sometimes take the form of secured loans, but generally the government sees it as a trickle of seed money for potentially the next big industrial edge for our country.
Of course it is deeply entangled with a host of capitalist assumptions, but the point is that this is already occurring, to a limited extent, in at least one capitalist country (PS it also helps that it's an OECD country....)
In general, unfortunately you'd have better luck with venture capitalists. There are some bright former engineers among their ranks, as well as loads of lazy rich former engineers. If you have a promising idea, given the volume of crap they fund, you might have better luck in those circles.
Actually I am from India. Well, so far from the experience that I have gathered from net. The venture capitalists, at present, like other capitalists don't invest in ideas but on businesses. What they want is not an idea, but a tested, patented solid technology.
Well, there may be engineers, but I have doubt that I personally have the funding to hire them.

[MarxSchmarx]

Actually I am from India. Well, so far from the experience that I have gathered from net. The venture capitalists, at present, like other capitalists don't invest in ideas but on businesses. What they want is not an idea, but a tested, patented solid technology.

As far as venture capitalists are concerned, this is probably true. Many of them invest in small businesses that already have something up and running, for the simple reason that it takes more than good ideas to run a successful business, which in the end is what this is about.

We can talk more later, but you might also consider freelance consulting. I do know of an engineer who works on coal plants who does this. He's not particularly rich, and does pretty mundane stuff. But I think this would be another way to raise your profile and tinker with some of your ideas.

[pranabjyoti]

As far as venture capitalists are concerned, this is probably true. Many of them invest in small businesses that already have something up and running, for the simple reason that it takes more than good ideas to run a successful business, which in the end is what this is about.

We can talk more later, but you might also consider freelance consulting. I do know of an engineer who works on coal plants who does this. He's not particularly rich, and does pretty mundane stuff. But I think this would be another way to raise your profile and tinker with some of your ideas.
Some more suggestion on freelance consulting please. Actually, at present, a positive evaluation report from an expert can do well for me.