And Rob, there is no need to do further research on how to heat homes more cheaply. We all know what to do, it just requires insulation and good workmanship, not research. Although, in fact, there is ongoing research in home construction all the time. (The insulation of the ice and snow walls of an Inuit's igloo can keep the interior temperature 25 degrees Celsius warmer than outside, using the heat of one candle and a couple of human bodies.) We could build houses like that too, but we choose not to, but not because we don't already know how.
At any point in time, you can look at most scientific research, and if you're in that frame of mind you can declare it pointless. It's a silly exercise.
That's much my point, Robert: the science is already there, but not the will, as I wrote:
"For my bucks, I'd rather see a far wider interest from governments in providing some sort of progress in winter heating systems, for example, which run up horrific bills for many old people - such as myself - and I'm supposed to be living in a place where winters don't exist. In the minds of those who have never wintered here.
The science apparently exists with solar panels, and I'd imagine enough energy would be stored from the sunny winter days to make up for the just-above-freezing nights (which often do dip well below). Replying that one could always buy and have them installed is just being glib: that requires capital expenditure that many can't meet at the time in their llves when cold can equate with death. Further, in the apartment situation, such expenses are even more difficult to agree because of different ownerships with different agendas: summer birds don't give a fuck about winter residents; there are problems enough agreeing security doors at the common entrances. These problems can only be resolved by governmental regulations governing construction laws, so that when a place is bought it comes with those things built into the system. When you are earning enough to buy property you can afford the relatively tiny percentage it costs extra to have heating systems, but when you retire the money ain't often there."
And that's where I feel governments should step in and make the bloody architects/builders apply and comply, by law, to better practice. It stretches into illegal building on protected sites (Israel has plenty of external examples to quote in its defence of building where it should not!), of local mayors ending up in jail because of corruption in holiday resorts for granting perm¡ts for, or not preventing, such building - same difference - and the snail-pace of demolitions where such orders are in place, the slowness hoping for different election results to make it all go away... so yeah, enough science is there; it's the application of what we already have that's the problem, and that's human nature, in the shape of greed, at work.
I still think we have more than enough ability/science to make Earth a far better place; if we want to support more, which in general I think we all do, let's pour the pennies available into where it helps people most - starting, say, with medicine and better (read cheaper, too) meds that are not quasi-placebos doing little more than increasing the overall cost of social care.
"And in any case, the money that is funnelled into science is spent on salaries and buying equipment from suppliers, all of which spending IS the economy, the way we measure things in the national income accounts."
Of course, but that doesn't justify pointlesss objectives: if the dosh is going to flow anyhow, at least point it to where it's going to do something positive, not just line pockets and feed egos. And let's not forget: science is a broad definition; my arrows are aimed at the fantasy projects, not the worthwhile, and I think folks generally know the difference.
Rob
