[mindslight]

> Do you support "advancement" at all or any cost?

Obviously nobody supports any specific thing at any cost, yet you are still asking this question rhetorically. The implication is the inverse whereby the cost is already too high - without actually substantiating this argument.

Thus the main part of my comment asking what you're actually seeing this cost in terms of, which you didn't respond to. Focusing on merely the monetary cost would be utterly fallacious in the context of this spendthrift administration.

[s1artibartfast]

I think you are misreading intent. I am not implying the opposite, but establishing foundation.

As mentioned above, I am not talking about the motives of this administration, which you keep coming back to as if it is relevant.

I'm discussing cost in terms of money.

[mindslight]

So, foundation - as a libertarian I learned a long time ago that one has to be very careful to not let one's ideals be selectively used in service of justifying the actions of entrenched power. This is all too easy to do with lofty ideals of individual freedom, by framing authoritarian control as freedom for some powerful actor (ie de facto government).

Or for a financial example closer to the subject - if I'm incensed by the overgrown and out of control NSA/DEA/ATF, extrapolate to harping on the need for less government in general, but then my arguments get taken up and only used to attack less hardened public-good-providing agencies like NPS and USPS - I haven't actually succeeded at my original goal! Rather my ideals have been abused to by people who don't actually care about my ideals, aren't looking to increase individual liberty, and merely want to destroy NPS and USPS - likely to focus on growing the type of agencies that I originally started off against!

As such, the motives of people actually carrying out the actions are highly relevant, and this is exactly why I keep coming back to discussing these motives. If the reasoning here is actually about money, we would expect to see reductions in costs across the board, perhaps some unevenness based on priorities, but still with the biggest cuts being on the biggest expenditures. However instead, we see $5T in new debt (monetary inflation), and increased wasteful spending on many things. Their goals are clearly not about fiscal responsibility.

So then if we're espousing an ideal of fiscal responsibility, it behooves us to condemn and distance ourselves from this administration. First, because they're burning the credibility of our lofty ideal rather than using it to create reasonable solutions in good faith. Second, because if they're cutting things based on a different metric than efficiently spending public funds, it actually means that public funds are then being spent less efficiently - so we're actually going backwards.

[s1artibartfast]

Im still not interested in discussing the administration, but the actual state of funded research in absence of the administration, its motives, and actions.

It seems you only want to talk about trump and their goal. If you see it as impossible to separate the topic from politics, even after sufficient disclaimers, then there isnt anything to discuss.

[mindslight]

I don't see the point of criticizing our research institutions at a time when such criticism is just being used as justification for attacking them to make them worse. Spend time and energy teasing out extremely nuanced points just so the nuance can be ignored and add to the destructive rallying cries? What do you see as the point?

[s1artibartfast]

I don't think our conversation is being used as justification by the trump administration to inform their policy decisions. I think nuanced points are the interesting ones to think, discuss, and clarify, so that is what I want to do.

I dont see some obscure and transient conversation in a forum backwater as meaningful political action. There are no stakes.

To the extent there are policy implications, I would like to define a preferred policy position on a specific issue. I already know my position on $5T of additional debt. What is the point of talking about it?

[mindslight]

It's not a matter of the administration itself reading message board comments to feel justified. That's a straw man.

Rather it's about people reading each others' opinions and continuing to placate themselves with thoughts that these actions are anything resembling reform or serving the general interests of our country.

Policy positions don't exist in isolation - their actual effects depend on other policies. Even if everything you yourself advocate for would work well together, this does not mean all of your desired policies will be taken up as a whole (similar dynamic of my comment two back). Furthermore the specifics of a big-name policy depend on the people implementing those policies, which is why I keep coming back to the motivations of the current gang.

Cut funding to scientific research by half, with the goal that private industry will take up topics adjacent to it (semiconductors, computing, drug research, etc), while significantly shrinking the tax/inflation burden by generally downsizing the government? Maybe plausible. Cut funding to scientific research by half indiscriminately while stifling domestic industry with hefty import taxes and raising taxflation? Once again, it doesn't seem like the goal is reform to further our national interests - regardless of one's political framework.

But even modulo other policies, what do you see as the point of say coming up with the perfect nuanced plan how to reform the public system of scientific funding? The system of last year no longer exists. Today's system won't exist in a few months. Maybe we can talk about how best to pick up the pieces and rebuild when the butchers are gone, but even just thinking we know where the bottom will be is hopeful.