The Capacity and Willingness for Scientific Development (1/2)
Pessimistic predictions about scientific and technological progress are not entirely due to humanity’s inability to do it.
At the very least, if all concerns were set aside and billions of people around the world worked together for hundreds of years to build a “planetary accelerator” spanning the equator, that would not be entirely unimaginable; and even if no new discoveries had been made by then, humanity could still turn its gaze to space and build an even larger accelerator. Through long years of steady progress, little by little accumulating resources and ideas, breakthroughs would eventually come.
But the premise behind all of this is that capability is only a necessary condition; there must also be willingness.
Does human civilization today really have the willingness to explore the objective world, at any cost?
Burning money on scientific research is not something that can be done on enthusiasm alone. Those who think otherwise are too naive. They often end up in laboratories and research institutes, exploited by capital to extract value, fed scraps and leftovers on one hand, while receiving verbal praise like “you have made a contribution to all humankind” on the other.
So what does it depend on? In a word: profitability.
When the results of natural science are turned into productive forces, they can lead to more advanced tools of production, better products, and greater profits. That is the inexhaustible driving force behind scientific and technological research.
But under the rules of human society, this driving force will not necessarily continue forever.
Looking at the history of scientific development in human civilization, from ancient times to the present, the scale of research has basically kept expanding. As the ocean of knowledge widens, the boundaries of the unknown become ever broader, and the cost of pushing forward becomes ever more expensive.
The “Large Hadron Collider” could still be sustained by national will, but the hundreds of billions of dollars required for a new generation of accelerators are certainly beyond what mere interest in “exploring nature” can guarantee.
Looking back, in history, certain powerful states did carry out huge research programs that brought no direct return.
Decades ago, during the years when one United Nations was still confronting another country, that country’s “Apollo Program” spent more than tens of billions of dollars, and for the first time in history sent humans beyond Earth to another celestial body, using this epoch-making achievement to display its muscle and strength to the whole world.
The landing site was 380,000 kilometers away, and this astonishing scientific achievement was truly awe-inspiring.
Of course, the cost of hundreds of billions was also fantastically expensive.
The reason such enormous funds were invested without regard for return was that the government of that country, backed by the support of most of the public, was able to act boldly; with the threat posed by that United Nations being loudly amplified, the congressmen could then follow the tide and freely spend the nation’s money.
As for the research成果 from the “Apollo Program” and how much value they created once introduced into the civilian market, opinions vary widely.
Some call it a sure-fire profit, others say it was not even enough to cover costs; it all seems like a muddled accounting mess.
But whether it was worthwhile or not, smart people know the answer well enough.
Since the dissolution of that United Nations, thirty years have passed, and that country has not carried out a single major strategic technology project of the same scale regardless of cost.
If the returns from the “Apollo Program” had far exceeded the investment, how could there be no successors afterward, and no one continuing the effort?
Looking back at the Cold War era, it was probably the golden age of scientific research in the history of human civilization, the period most enthusiastic about science and least concerned with investment and direct output. But with the dissolution of that United Nations, the era of superpower rivalry came to an end. The major powers, and indeed the world as a whole, increasingly became addicted to the easy comfort of feeding on the corpse of that United Nations, and grew less and less interested in basic scientific research that was hugely expensive and whose prospects remained uncertain.
Most researchers, faced with this situation, often lament that people’s hearts are not what they used to be, and even criticize society for its impatience and shortsightedness.
Yet from another angle, if one considers the competition among species in human civilization, choosing to support applied research and using existing basic scientific achievements to obtain short-term returns is also a perfectly normal choice.
Even in the Cold War era, the grand scientific and technological plans of that country and that United Nations were only maintained with basic scientific research because of a confidence in “lasting for all generations,” accumulating as much groundwork as they could for an uncertain future.
By contrast, truly cost-no-object research priorities—whether nuclear programs, computer technology, or satellite launches—were completely built on an applied orientation.
Short-term results that could actually be used, seizing every moment, were the main demand on both sides.
This demand runs counter to the laws of scientific research, and is clearly something forced by the pressure of competition among species.
Whether it is that country, that United Nations, or any other country in the world, if they are imagined as separate primitive human groups, then in order to resist threats and survive in the cruel competition for existence, they will inevitably allocate most of their resources to scientific research that is visible, tangible, and easily transformed into concrete results. Only then can they obtain results as quickly as possible, improve weapons and equipment, and then win in the human form of competition—war.
Under such competitive conditions, forward-looking research is not merely an impractical dragon-slaying technique; at the very least, it is a luxury only the absolutely leading side can afford.
When all groups are using cold weapons, research into firearms is the exclusive privilege of the absolute leader.
But if there is no absolute leader? Competition, the natural selection of the world, begins with no fairness or rules at all. In reality there often is no absolute leader, so all groups can only focus on cold weapons, improving materials and refining designs, so that they can produce slightly more useful swords and blades overnight, for self-preservation and to kill the enemy.
In such an environment, what would happen if any group with bold ideas or long-term vision invested a significant proportion of its resources into developing firearms?
Pessimistic predictions about scientific and technological progress are not entirely due to humanity’s inability to do it.
At the very least, if all concerns were set aside and billions of people around the world worked together for hundreds of years to build a “planetary accelerator” spanning the equator, that would not be entirely unimaginable; and even if no new discoveries had been made by then, humanity could still turn its gaze to space and build an even larger accelerator. Through long years of steady progress, little by little accumulating resources and ideas, breakthroughs would eventually come.
But the premise behind all of this is that capability is only a necessary condition; there must also be willingness.
Does human civilization today really have the willingness to explore the objective world, at any cost?
Burning money on scientific research is not something that can be done on enthusiasm alone. Those who think otherwise are too naive. They often end up in laboratories and research institutes, exploited by capital to extract value, fed scraps and leftovers on one hand, while receiving verbal praise like “you have made a contribution to all humankind” on the other.
So what does it depend on? In a word: profitability.
When the results of natural science are turned into productive forces, they can lead to more advanced tools of production, better products, and greater profits. That is the inexhaustible driving force behind scientific and technological research.
But under the rules of human society, this driving force will not necessarily continue forever.
Looking at the history of scientific development in human civilization, from ancient times to the present, the scale of research has basically kept expanding. As the ocean of knowledge widens, the boundaries of the unknown become ever broader, and the cost of pushing forward becomes ever more expensive.
The “Large Hadron Collider” could still be sustained by national will, but the hundreds of billions of dollars required for a new generation of accelerators are certainly beyond what mere interest in “exploring nature” can guarantee.
Looking back, in history, certain powerful states did carry out huge research programs that brought no direct return.
Decades ago, during the years when one United Nations was still confronting another country, that country’s “Apollo Program” spent more than tens of billions of dollars, and for the first time in history sent humans beyond Earth to another celestial body, using this epoch-making achievement to display its muscle and strength to the whole world.
The landing site was 380,000 kilometers away, and this astonishing scientific achievement was truly awe-inspiring.
Of course, the cost of hundreds of billions was also fantastically expensive.
The reason such enormous funds were invested without regard for return was that the government of that country, backed by the support of most of the public, was able to act boldly; with the threat posed by that United Nations being loudly amplified, the congressmen could then follow the tide and freely spend the nation’s money.
As for the research成果 from the “Apollo Program” and how much value they created once introduced into the civilian market, opinions vary widely.
Some call it a sure-fire profit, others say it was not even enough to cover costs; it all seems like a muddled accounting mess.
But whether it was worthwhile or not, smart people know the answer well enough.
Since the dissolution of that United Nations, thirty years have passed, and that country has not carried out a single major strategic technology project of the same scale regardless of cost.
If the returns from the “Apollo Program” had far exceeded the investment, how could there be no successors afterward, and no one continuing the effort?
Looking back at the Cold War era, it was probably the golden age of scientific research in the history of human civilization, the period most enthusiastic about science and least concerned with investment and direct output. But with the dissolution of that United Nations, the era of superpower rivalry came to an end. The major powers, and indeed the world as a whole, increasingly became addicted to the easy comfort of feeding on the corpse of that United Nations, and grew less and less interested in basic scientific research that was hugely expensive and whose prospects remained uncertain.
Most researchers, faced with this situation, often lament that people’s hearts are not what they used to be, and even criticize society for its impatience and shortsightedness.
Yet from another angle, if one considers the competition among species in human civilization, choosing to support applied research and using existing basic scientific achievements to obtain short-term returns is also a perfectly normal choice.
Even in the Cold War era, the grand scientific and technological plans of that country and that United Nations were only maintained with basic scientific research because of a confidence in “lasting for all generations,” accumulating as much groundwork as they could for an uncertain future.
By contrast, truly cost-no-object research priorities—whether nuclear programs, computer technology, or satellite launches—were completely built on an applied orientation.
Short-term results that could actually be used, seizing every moment, were the main demand on both sides.
This demand runs counter to the laws of scientific research, and is clearly something forced by the pressure of competition among species.
Whether it is that country, that United Nations, or any other country in the world, if they are imagined as separate primitive human groups, then in order to resist threats and survive in the cruel competition for existence, they will inevitably allocate most of their resources to scientific research that is visible, tangible, and easily transformed into concrete results. Only then can they obtain results as quickly as possible, improve weapons and equipment, and then win in the human form of competition—war.
Under such competitive conditions, forward-looking research is not merely an impractical dragon-slaying technique; at the very least, it is a luxury only the absolutely leading side can afford.
When all groups are using cold weapons, research into firearms is the exclusive privilege of the absolute leader.
But if there is no absolute leader? Competition, the natural selection of the world, begins with no fairness or rules at all. In reality there often is no absolute leader, so all groups can only focus on cold weapons, improving materials and refining designs, so that they can produce slightly more useful swords and blades overnight, for self-preservation and to kill the enemy.
In such an environment, what would happen if any group with bold ideas or long-term vision invested a significant proportion of its resources into developing firearms?