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 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/2...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.p...79&postcount=5

[RadioRaheem84]

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/201.../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.