How has capitalism impeded Science?

[RadioRaheem84]

What I mean is how has capitalism at this stage of development impeded science from progressing? It seems like technological innovations are still being produced but at the same time it also seems like the goods are not being redistributed fairly and that the profit motive is shifting attention to one profitible project and not to others. For instance there is probably more research and money going into solving the problem for male pattern baldness than world hunger.

Are there any articles or books you guys know of that touch on this?

[Blake's Baby]

Your first paragraph kinda sums it up really. Research is generally targetted towards things that will make money, or otherwise support the status quo (how much is spent on devising new and interesting ways to kill each other?) not towards things that might help humanity (unless that 'help' also comes with a hefty price tag). Even 'pure' research is a money-making endeavour - universities that have prestigious research programmes get more applicants and therefore more money, even if there aren't such obvious commercial benefits to some of the research.

[Green Girl]

What I mean is how has capitalism at this stage of development impeded science from progressing? It seems like technological innovations are still being produced but at the same time it also seems like the goods are not being redistributed fairly and that the profit motive is shifting attention to one profitible project and not to others. For instance there is probably more research and money going into solving the problem for male pattern baldness than world hunger.

Are there any articles or books you guys know of that touch on this?

"In a Monetary Based Economy if there is a problem in society and money cannot be earned by solving it, it won't be solved." - Jacque Fresco

Check out The Venus Project (http://www.thevenusproject.com/) under the links in the Technology tab.

The Venus Project promotes a Resource-based economy which completely eliminates money and everything is done for the benefit of mankind. Science divorced from the profit motive would take a colossal leap forward. Great website with lots of information.

[cyu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2010/10/01/130273644/-inside-job-director-charles-ferguson-taking-aim-at-wall-street

corrupt the study of economics itself. "Very prominent professors of economics, are paid to testify in Congress and argue on behalf of deregulation of the industry. They make millions, in some cases tens of millions of dollars, doing this. And this is usually not disclosed."

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2520079&postcount=5

[RadioRaheem84]

:scared: WOW

[Crabbensmasher]

Yeah, as it's been said already, definitely check out Jacque Fresco's work. It will give some really good insight into this.

From my perspective, capitalism doesn't impede scientific progress in any way; some could even say that it excels the rate of scientific progress. This is because we live in a growth economy, which constantly needs new inventions, technologies, and increasing economic activity to function.

Now, here's where the problem comes in. Even if there is scientific progress, is it a good type of progress? Can we even call it progress?
Most of this "progress" is simply corporations spending millions of dollars on R&D to create more marketable products, or even consumer studies, to help them determine key demographics and so forth. So really, at the end of the day, even if there are significant amounts of resources being put towards scientific progress, can we really say it's worthwhile if it produces, say the "Snuggie 2.0?" or the new "Call of warfare, modern duty 12?". The millions of dollars in R&D are therefore just going towards a cheap toy for sale at a supermarket. You must ask yourself: in a logical, rational society, would resources really be put towards something like that?

[Blake's Baby]

And if that amount of social investment was put into worthwhile stuff, that wouldn't be scientific progress?

There are only two points of comparison; is it more 'progressive' than feudalism was? Yes. It is more 'progressive' than socialism would be? No.

So more progressive than something which used to exist, and less progressive than something than something that doesn't yet exist. So, tell me again how it's progressive, please.

[Willin']

if we would live in a real communistic ideology we would all work together to achieve our goals

Look competition is a dangerous thing,imagine that your liver would say: i want to be the main organ in your body and then your brain would say no i want to be,... you would turn up dead in a few days. And same is with us(humans) instead of working together we compete with each other in a communistic society we would work together

[MarxArchist]

The whole Tesla/JP Morgan thing can branch out into any invention/technology which would threaten the trillions of dollars in profit the big food/water/energy companies make. Most people consider the suppression of such technology to be conspiracy theory but seeing capitalists will go to all out war for such things I wouldn't put it past them to outright suppress any tech which would loosen their grip on humanity.

[Rafiq]

there is no real way of measuring how capitalism has constrained the sciences simply because we only know of the scientific framework we are constrained by.

[tuwix]

What I mean is how has capitalism at this stage of development impeded science from progressing? It seems like technological innovations are still being produced but at the same time it also seems like the goods are not being redistributed fairly and that the profit motive is shifting attention to one profitible project and not to others. For instance there is probably more research and money going into solving the problem for male pattern baldness than world hunger.

Are there any articles or books you guys know of that touch on this?


The whole Zeitgeist Movement (http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/) and Project Venus (http://www.thevenusproject.com/) is all about it.

Briefly, it is not profitable to give on a market the newest inventions because the older ones won't be sold. Besides some inventions (in energy business especially) are blocked because endangers profits.

[rylasasin]

The whole Zeitgeist Movement (http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/) and Project Venus (http://www.thevenusproject.com/) is all about it.


And both of those essentially stole "their" analysis on the matter from Howard Scott's Technocracy Inc.

http://www.technocracy.org/study-guide

[piet11111]

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/02/26/canc-f26.html


In 2008, Genetic Technologies provoked a public outcry when it threatened legal action against the renowned Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute in Melbourne unless it stopped performing the diagnostic test for BRCA1 and BRCA2. The company backed down, but in the wake of the latest ruling could attempt to again enforce its patent. In the US, Myriad uses its patent to ensure that scans are performed only in its laboratories, at a cost of $3,000 each.
The BRCA gene patent became the focus for opposition to the patenting of human genetic material in general. The Australian Senate carried out two inquiries into gene patents beginning in 2009, but ruled out any amendment to the Patent Act to halt gene patents despite their impact on scientific research and the cost of medical procedures.
A Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre submission called for the Senate to “expressly prohibit the grant of patent monopolies.” It explained that the centre’s research into breast and ovarian cancer had been delayed by two years and their costs tripled because Genetic Technologies refused permission to use the patented breast cancer genes.


Gene patenting as if normal patents are not harmful enough now they get to shut down medical research.

[RadioRaheem84]

Is the Zietgeist stuff solid though? It seems like they offer too much of a technocratic solution to problems.

[Crabbensmasher]

Is the Zietgeist stuff solid though? It seems like they offer too much of a technocratic solution to problems.

Well, that's like saying Marx offered too many communist solutions to problems

[Blake's Baby]

Really it isn't, it's more like saying that the Catholic Church offers religious solutions to problems.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It's an interesting parallel. Catholic theology considers papal pronouncements on doctrinal matters to be infallible, obviating the need for philosophical analysis or, heavens forbid, empirical investigation. Technocrats, and the Zeitgeist Movement is one of the most eccentric and harmless manifestations of that ideology (I find groups such as X-Crise and their ideological descendants to be far more sinister), consider scientists and experts to be infallible, even in areas far outside their expertise, obviating the need for democratic procedure and, Ford forbid, progressive politics.

(Not to mention that most scientists are smart enough to not consider themselves infallible demigods.)

In addition to the entire byzantine system of patents, bourgeois governments usually slash funding for the sciences whenever there is a crisis, and certain areas are funded extremely poorly if at all. And whenever funding for the sciences is slashed, the accompanying propaganda usually attacks scientists. Furthermore, bourgeois governments promote all sorts of pseudoscientific and superstitious nonsense, sometimes through official scientific institutions. And in the case of medical sciences, reactionary regulations and "ethics committees" impede scientific procedure.

[T-800]

Your first paragraph kinda sums it up really. Research is generally targetted towards things that will make money, or otherwise support the status quo (how much is spent on devising new and interesting ways to kill each other?)

That may be true but there have been quite a few positive externalities.

(protip: e.g. the Internet)

[Blake's Baby]

Meaning what exactly? One example that's constantly brought up is teflon, as a by product of the space programme, which itself was part of the arms race. So, if we look at the entirety of arms budgets over the last 100 years - not to mention the human cost of two World Wars and the countless lesser wars - in the negative column, and put the internet and teflon in the positive column, it's going to be a long time before the positives outweigh the negatives. I think I'd prefer a situation without the internet and non-stick pans, if that also meant we didn't have a century of war and tens of millions dead.

[T-800]

Meaning what exactly? One example that's constantly brought up is teflon, as a by product of the space programme, which itself was part of the arms race. So, if we look at the entirety of arms budgets over the last 100 years - not to mention the human cost of two World Wars and the countless lesser wars - in the negative column, and put the internet and teflon in the positive column, it's going to be a long time before the positives outweigh the negatives. I think I'd prefer a situation without the internet and non-stick pans, if that also meant we didn't have a century of war and tens of millions dead.

Yeah because just letting the population grow without bound is really great for the planet.

[zoot_allures]

Yeah because just letting the population grow without bound is really great for the planet.
I agree that overpopulation is bad - but you're not suggesting that war and the deaths of tens of millions of people is a good solution to that, are you?

[#FF0000]

Yeah because just letting the population grow without bound is really great for the planet.

hahahahahaha

ohhhh man

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Capitalism hasn't "impeded" science, it's merely meant that science has been an instrument of a particular class. Science has progressed a lot, but the particular discoveries are going to be ones which are more beneficial to wealthy classes. Technological development too is going to fulfill the interests of the wealthier class.

[#FF0000]

Capitalism hasn't "impeded" science, it's merely meant that science has been an instrument of a particular class. Science has progressed a lot, but the particular discoveries are going to be ones which are more beneficial to wealthy classes. Technological development too is going to fulfill the interests of the wealthier class.

Nah I disagree. All scientific discoveries are a net gain, I think, and everyone benefits -- even if those benefits aren't readily apparent.

Capitalism has, however, impeded science. Restrictive copyright laws and patents make things hella difficult to get anywhere with certain research. See, for example, gene patenting.

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah because just letting the population grow without bound is really great for the planet.

Anyone who thinks there are too many people in the world is perfectly at liberty to do the decent thing and kill themselves as an inspiring example. So what's your problem?

[T-800]

Anyone who thinks there are too many people in the world is perfectly at liberty to do the decent thing and kill themselves as an inspiring example. So what's your problem?

The thing is, I see myself as superior to the people who live downtown.

(inb4 racism, this includes the whites too)

They should go first.


I agree that overpopulation is bad - but you're not suggesting that war and the deaths of tens of millions of people is a good solution to that, are you?

I'm not gonna say it's a good or bad solution.

I will say that, with India and Pakistan (and China's) dire water crisis and the nuclear tension in that region, it seems likely that the Earth will eventually choose the "deaths of tens of millions of people" as a solution to the surplus population on its face.

Or actually billions if nuclear winter sets in.

And hey: don't blame me. I don't write the laws of physics or ecology. I don't even enforce them. I just draw people's attention to them.

In a similar manner, you can't blame me that the great mass of humanity is as stupid as it is.

[#FF0000]

The thing is, I see myself as superior to the people who live downtown.

(inb4 racism, this includes the whites too)

They should go first.


Can't handle the edge here o man

EDIT: I think it's really funny that anyone thinks that they are something separate or superior to the rest of humanity as it is, but when that person expresses that dumb idea with 4chan dork language, it's just sublime.

[T-800]

Damn, still two posts away from being able to post links.

I suggest you look into a little paper called "Climatic consequences of regional nuclear conflicts".

The abstract doesn't specifically name any countries but it's clear from the abstract they are talking about South Asia:

"We use a modern climate model and new estimates of smoke generated by fires in contemporary cities to calculate the response of the climate system to a regional nuclear war between emerging third world nuclear powers using 100 Hiroshima-size bombs (less than 0.03% of the explosive yield of the current global nuclear arsenal) on cities in the subtropics."

India and Pakistan are in the subtropics and between them have about 200 kT-range fission devices with no counterforce value; all they're good for is burning down the other side's cities.

This would ostensibly incur nuclear winter because a lot of aerosol is bound up in places like Karachi and New Delhi.

The human species sure is the species that I want to fight for.

[T-800]

EDIT: I think it's really funny that anyone thinks that they are something separate or superior to the rest of humanity as it is, but when that person expresses that dumb idea with 4chan dork language, it's just sublime.

Your signature evokes similar feelings.

[#FF0000]

Your signature evokes similar feelings.

(what feelings pls elucidate)

I don't agree with it, but I will concede that my signature is dumb if you concede that your entire worldview is childish

[T-800]

what feelings pls elucidate

That you are an individual of low class.

The same label you tried to stick me with, remember?

An individual fighting for a classless society who, rather than addressing whether my neo-Malthusian beliefs are borne out by fact, takes a cheap shot at my level of classiness.

All because I committed the horrible crime of using the phrase "inb4".

Interesting...

[#FF0000]

That you are an individual of low class.

Depends on what you mean by "low class" I think.


The same label you tried to stick me with, remember?

No I didn't.


An individual fighting for a classless society who, rather than addressing whether my neo-Malthusian beliefs are borne out by fact, takes a cheap shot at my level of classiness.

No no no I'm not concerned with your "neo-Malthusian" beliefs. I've had a million discussions about Malthusian nonsense before and they bore me to tears. Like I said, I was making fun of your hella childish misanthropy and special snowflake syndrome.


All because I committed the horrible crime of using the phrase "inb4".

Yeah anyone who uses any sort of internet catchphrase (lulz, win/epic win) like that is poison imo.

[T-800]

No no no I'm not concerned with your "neo-Malthusian" beliefs. I've had a million discussions about Malthusian nonsense before and they bore me to tears.

Boredom often seems to be a mask for anxiety in these issues.


Like I said, I was making fun of your hella childish misanthropy and special snowflake syndrome.

What's wrong with misanthropy? Just slapping it with the label "childish" isn't compelling.

And, in any case, there are psychometric data to the effect that I am indeed "a special snowflake".


Yeah anyone who uses any sort of internet catchphrase (lulz, win/epic win) like that is poison imo.

Clearly, socialist revolution is upon us. The people will live in harmony forever and ever.

[#FF0000]

Boredom often seems to be a mask for anxiety in these issues.

It's more like "burn-out" in my case.


What's wrong with misanthropy? Just slapping it with the label "childish" isn't compelling.

Nothing as long as the person expressing it isn't under the supreme delusion that they are something separate or, worse, greater than the people they despise.

Hell, I think it can be refreshing in that case.


And, in any case, there are psychometric data to the effect that I am indeed "a special snowflake".

says the grain of sand to the speck of dust


Clearly, socialist revolution is upon us. The people will live in harmony forever and ever.

if i cant make fun of dummies who think 4chan is cool, then its not my revolution

[Raúl Duke]

I guess it depends on how the word "impede" is used...

In a general sense, no. Science continues and we continue to make new discoveries. Now whether these discoveries are applied or not and to what matter, that's another question. In times of antiquity I heard, although maybe I heard incorrectly, that people have had little inventions similar to practical steam engines and so on yet they were just "curious toys." Under capitalism, they became rather useful machines.

In a more colloquial sense, there are cases of capitalism 'impeding' science although like I mentioned above usually its more of impeding the application and adoptation of certain technologies rather than literally putting a stop to research on something or other.

[Blake's Baby]

...whether these discoveries are applied or not and to what matter, that's another question. In times of antiquity I heard, although maybe I heard incorrectly, that people have had little inventions similar to practical steam engines and so on yet they were just "curious toys." Under capitalism, they became rather useful machines...

That's true, Heron of Alexandria invented a working steam engine in the 2nd century AD. It span on a frame and whistled, to general amusement.

The Roman empire also had waterwheels (invented in Palaestine in the 1st century AD), railways (ore-carts on wooden rails pulled by horses, oxen or slaves), and coal (Pliny the Elder, I think it is, talks about how the British are so poor and uncivilised that instead of burning wood in their fires burn a particular kind of stone).

Waterwheels, railways, coal and steam-engines are pretty much exactly what kicked off the industrial revolution in England in the 1700s. Why not the Roman Empire? They had all the necessary 'bits'.

[Comrade Alex]

Books idk
But from observation you can tell that capitalism has turned science into a business
Given it a profit motive and corrupted many things that can help advance humanity

[Asmo]

Capitalism definitely impedes science. The system keeps the entire continent of Africa in poverty. A billion people are hungry, many to the point of starvation, and have little or no access to higher education, most of which is religious. How many geniuses have been snuffed out before they could leave their mark on the world? Imagine one in seven scientific discoveries poofing out of existence. That's quite a significant hinderance in my esteem.