re: The fact that we have to have a "March for Science" is frightening

It originated from trump cutting funding of NIH etc to pay for neocon bulshit like walls and missiles.

Tell me which matters more

If I oppose taxpayer funding for science, does that mean I oppose science? What if my dislike of government is greater than my like of science?

Should we have a March for sports because the government doesn't fund it?

That's where it started - everything else in this thread is a circle jerk.

And yes govts should fund science over war

I'm not Dave...I'm the employee of the month (may be lost on most here).

quote:

---

It originated from trump cutting funding of NIH etc to pay for neocon bulshit like walls and missiles.

---

It did. Unfortunately it's been super politicized by both sides to be entirely something else.

Which is incredibly sad because of the importance to public health of the NIH, University/College research, etc. that is all publicly funded and is on the chopping block.

quote:

---

Tell a liberal you are against abortion because you are on the side of science. Looking at the science of reproduction, how can you not conclude that abortion is murder?

A huge inconvenient truth for the pro-abortion crowd.

---

Yep. Once the egg is fertilized, an entirely unique DNA signature is created. That makes it a unique individual, meaning a body separate, though attached, from the mother.

The next time a woman screeches about it being "her body" remind her that abortion doesn't destroy "her" body, just the baby's. I promise the argument will go to a different issue with the quickness.

Here's the issue: from an economic standpoint, national defense is something that cannot exist without taxpayer money. Why? Because it's the most striking example of a public good. Public goods are goods that are non-rival in consumption, which means one person using it cannot restrict another person from doing so. This makes a market for national defense impossible- a firm would not be able to charge all the people who use its service. Taxes solve that issue.

Science, on the other hand, is NOT rival in consumption.

quote:

---

Since when did science become the enemy? When it told us things we didn't want to hear?

---

Because the redneck right is anti-science. They are told it's political, believe the narrative, and are completing a self-fulfilling prophecy by making it political.

quote:

---

Science, on the other hand, is NOT rival in consumption.

---

How many consumers do you know that would pay money to have pygmy rattlesnake population studies done?

Managing natural resources should be partly handled by the market with government oversight

quote:

---

Public health matters less than "muh Mexican wall"

Pls go

---

Please explain to me the characteristics of science that make it non-rival in consumption and non-excludable, the two factors that determine whether a good is public or not.

Shouldn't we monitor whether monies going to "science" are not going to BS things?