Comment by paulryanrogers
4 months ago
This seems like a pretty objective view of all sides. What makes you think it's a hit piece?
Must R&D be prioritized over quality of life, environment, and be subsidized by local tax breaks/grants?
4 months ago
This seems like a pretty objective view of all sides. What makes you think it's a hit piece?
Must R&D be prioritized over quality of life, environment, and be subsidized by local tax breaks/grants?
> Must R&D be prioritized over quality of life, environment, and be subsidized by local tax breaks/grants?
Yes, yes and maybe, if it needs to be accelerated.
No part of our modern life would exist without scientific and engineering advancement. Centuries of inventions and discoveries have built on top of each other to give us the very essential (housing, plumbing, food production) that are vast improvements on the original as well as the very boutique (space travel, self-driving cars, AI), the benefits from which are not fully realized yet. Pressing pause on science is guaranteed to cause misery. The last time Europe did that it lead to the Dark and Middle ages, leading to centuries of suffering.
Science is one of those few things that benefits everyone, from the very rich to the very poor. It's how we ensure that life does not remain a zero-sum game, it's how we grow the pie so that everyone can have more. Science is not free: It comes at a cost, but that cost is repaid many times over.
Is it pressing pause on science to say data centers must be built with care and consideration?
I addressed the general point since the question was around whether R&D should be prioritized. Whether data centers are required for R&D (or not) is up for debate. Clearly, science to date has not been impeded by the absence of such data centres. Would their existence accelerate science? I suspect a correlation exists but not a strong one.
_This_ article is objective. The opposition this article is discussing has been whipped into existence by the past year or so of exaggerated hit pieces.