Comment by jerojero
15 hours ago
I was arguing with a Chilean friend who moved a few years ago to the USA. He was telling me how Chile doesn't do good science. I challenged his claim saying Chile actually had great scientists that were severely underfunded (Chile's investment in science and research is ~0.4% of the GDP versus the OECD average of ~2.7%).
I think it's sort of a big consensus with people that have never been involved in science work, in Chile, that science is sort of a "lazy-man" type of work. Chilean universities put a lot of emphasis in foundational science research. It should be the industry, in my opinion, that helps bridge the gaps between foundational research and applied science. But the major industries in Chile don't need to do that, why put money into R&D when you can already be a billion-dollar industry by exporting rocks. Chile's main export is not actually copper, it's rocks that have copper in them. We (I'm Chilean) export the rocks and buy back the copper cables.
Recently the newly elected president criticized foundational research saying it doesn't "turn into jobs" and instead "ends up in an expensive book abandoned in a library". It really reminded me of my friend's words, it's the attitude of someone that doesn't understand the importance of foundational science.
This research is interesting, although the article is quite technical, and I'm very happy to see the involvement of Chilean scientists in it.
That's actually a bit wild that Chile isn't refining or smelting copper.
Is it because there's not the energy capacity to run smelters? I thought Chili had a pretty abundant energy grid (mostly hydro as I recall).
Australia behaves the same way, exports ore to China and buys back the refined products. Both countries have abundant energy (hydro and solar) but have old fashioned mining interests in charge.
Why do the mining interests prefer exporting it to selling to some local processor? you could probably get similar prices and the transport wouldn't be as complex, right?
9 replies →
isn't it literally the same company, Rio Tinto?
> Is it because there's not the energy capacity to run smelters?
Most mines are in the north, but the hydro capacity is far from them in the south. That's one challenge, but to me doesn't explain why. Chile nationalised copper with aims to develop our industry, but then the US decided to sabotage our democracy.
These systems aren't in place by accident. The US doesn't typically purchase roasted coffee beans or chocolate bars from South America either.
Roasted coffee loses flavor after roasting.
Chocolate requires various ingredients to make that changes the characteristics of the chocolate. It also, famously, doesn't ship well.
Copper ingots, however, weigh less than copper ore and if they are actually too low quality they can be resmelted into a more pure level.
The only reason I can think of why you might actually want the ore is you also want and are extracting other secondary minerals.
I had a Chilean coworker who earned his degree in molecular biology while in Chile. He emigrated to the US (sometime in the early-mid 90's) as he claimed there was little opportunity for scientists in Chile. He worked a basic job that paid the bills while he built up a side business exporting appliances secretly stuffed with gun parts. He was able to retire back to Chile on that money.
I am the submitter and I am sorry for leaving out, indeed, dismissing the core contribution of the Chilean anthropologists and geologists. The author wouldn't have approved of my editorialising.
I am only slightly relieved that HN have bubbled up a conversation about the self-reinforcing north-south divide in "cultural wealth" instead of making it even more exploitative than it was
Your friend's contribution to the cultural wealth of Chile is ironic. Maybe (some) Southies now have a better (non-fungible/modular) understanding of precision machining, gun-metallurgy or even biochemistry compared to their NorAm counterparts because of his actions.
You described https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
>As of at least 2023, there is no academic consensus on the effect of resource abundance on economic development[4]
Interesting. Do Japanese, and now Dutch, planners think they are free of the resource blessing?
[4] Alssadek, Marwan; Benhin, James (2023). "Natural resource curse: A literature survey and comparative assessment of regional groupings of oil-rich countries".
>For instance, the oil sector frequently requires technical solutions to improve offshore oil drilling. This might create positive knowledge externalities to support other sectors. If these sectors trade with the oil boom sector in the economy, then learning-by-doing spill-overs in the overall economy are expected. In this scenario, the implications of the Dutch disease would not be evident, and natural resources may in fact be a blessing rather than a curse.
Or if you look at the issue more closely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_theory
the newly elected president criticized foundational research saying it doesn't "turn into jobs" and instead "ends up in an expensive book abandoned in a library".
That isn't the Dutch Disease, it's anti-intellectualism. It is where Pol Pots come from eventually, and it never leads anywhere good.
Or, you know, the Chilean US puppet Augusto Pinochet who killed, jailed, or exiled professors, intellectuals, students etc.
3 replies →
I think some of it ties into incrementalism versus "great man" theory. I believe we dramatically underestimate how much of any new thing is (A) not actually as new as it looks and (B) absolutely required a thousand smaller things like precision screws or pure materials.
> Recently the newly elected president criticized foundational research saying it doesn't "turn into jobs" and instead "ends up in an expensive book abandoned in a library"
Guess what the other far right president of the region says (Argentina's). Makes me sad.
It's the same for the whole region, friend. Shut up and keep mining, harvesting, or raising these cows for the gringos, ain't no need to get clever about it.
Unless the PRC is a gringo now, you should not limit your concern to the US. The easiest propaganda technique - and trivially easy to accomplish with basic agents and existing social platforms - is divide and conquer.
Get people fighting about who is exploiting them, and they cannot unite against anyone exploiting them.
edit: no need to make the thread deeper. I agree with your reply, too. Two things can be correct at once, and usually are.
1 reply →
¿Para que inventar nosotros ? Que ellos ya lo inventan. - A Spanish politician in the first years of XX century to a Spanish inventor working with early radios.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]