I just read a post on io9 that asked a question that irks me to no end regarding money and science. Is it worth spending a crap-ton of money to prove [insert some science-y thing here] right/wrong? That's the question? I never really had a good counter argument that I really liked until I saw a fellow reader's comment back. It went along the lines of "if we can spend crap-tons of money on movies that suck, why not on something more constructive like furthering humanity's knowledge." Booya!
Now, don't get me wrong. I enjoy a beautiful CG romp of mayhem and destruction as much as the next guy, but if the plot is going to be crap it just isn't worth it. This guy listed, among others, Transformers and the Star Wars prequels and I have to agree. Big movies and all the money went into big names and fancy CG. So what do we have? 2-3 hours of cool special effects, bad plot and a coaster (if you bought the movie). I just wish that whoever funded these works of suck would consider sacrificing one movie's budget to fund a science project. (Note: if they already do this, let me know and I'll apologize).
To summarize, it is a ridiculous question to ask when so much money is spent on other less useful things. But it does not have to be just on science either! Sacrifice a movie and feed some people for a month or restore a poisoned water supply or anything like that. I would love to hear about that happening as well. It's just that this article was related to science so that is the first thing I thought about.
1 comment:
Well said, sir. Spending tons of cash on "pure" science or art or social justice will probably never be as popular as watching things blow up. The folks with the money want a return on their investments, dig? Explosions on film make money at the theater. But exploding atoms and shit only gives us more knowledge about the universe in which we live. Not money.
Post a Comment