What is that make science actually means? As now I’m going through Ibn Khaldun, I get back on to some really basic questions. Should it actually have some objective, other than some natural human curiosity from the researcher? Don’t think the actual answer matches what people usually tell. On our utilitarian times someone has to justify everything, wherever if it to get funds, or just to allocate time to its research. Those fund schemes on themselves, end up imposing a bias on our collective knowledge.
Recently, I
put aside the economics literature, and started reading the history that it is
trying to tell in some apolitical shape.
I can say that
US has become a science-driven society as through the DoD, you could find a path to
justify almost any research, or someone could put this same statement under
some scientific sector bullshit from Economic Development Theory.
It works
for the US, however, that isn’t some stuff that can be exported without the Scientific-Technocratic
DoD apparatus.
Most of
what I see, for the future of a successful China, come from a perspective that the
CCP is trying to create this kind of Scientific-Technocratic apparatus to be
the central state. It’s like if the DoD wouldn’t need to go in the congress sell
some far away war for budget.
I’m yet not
sure if this kind of Scientific-Technocratic structure would be efficient on
its base. The level of oversight in central projects usually isn’t the same in
secondary projects. On the DoD framework it's like if all projects are somewhat “central”. Even if I couldn’t make myself fully clear until
now: It’s a management problem.
How to
create management structures that are able to take small/local questions seriousness,
as much as they take big/national questions? On the military/national/big
questions, the Sovietic Union was very successful, the problem was the other
questions, as the for the US there was DoD money flowing in the lower levels of
society, to allow “market” solutions, Besides that, military institutions tend to be very
efficient in the offer of some hands-on knowledge that is usually called technical
schools (at least in Brazil).
As for
sciences, if you have specific questions, you get specific answers. If those
questions already come from some field issues, and there is already a filter in
the funding allocation process…well you end up with a successful product.
When
countries around the world, and the US itself, tries to copy the DARPA research model, that’s
what they are trying to recreate. China seems to be a step ahead trying to create
some kind of DARPA-like state infrastructure.
Don’t think
China is following some traditional econ manual, most likely they are
rebuilding themselves as a civilization, economic success ends up being just
one of the outcomes. By now, there’s already an entire DoD (thinking on PPP
terms) for the Silicon race. Most of the scientific progress comes from the 0-1 (first
stages) in research, that’s what China is doing by now, after the 0-1 there are usually
only incremental advancements (thinking on the Bell Labs experience).
For the
science, I’m yet not sure if the utilitarian approach is the best, its efficient,
that’s for sure.
A growing number of governments hope to clone America’s DARPA | The Economist
The End of AT&T's Bell Labs and Why Big Companies Can't Birth Big Innovations | TIME.com
