Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday January 19 2020, @12:41AM   Printer-friendly
from the lern-ur-science-fm-Twitter dept.

The U.S. share of global science and technology activity has shrunk in some areas even as absolute activity has continued to grow, as China and other Asian countries have invested in science and engineering education and increased their research spending.

That's one of the main takeaways of the "State of U.S. Science and Engineering" 2020 report, published by the National Science Board Wednesday. The report has historically been published every other year, but starting with this year's edition, the NSB is transitioning its format from a single report published every two years to a series of shorter reports issued more frequently.

"While the U.S. remains a leading player, other countries have seen the benefits of investing in research and education and are following our example," said Julia Phillips, chair of the NSB Science and Engineering Policy Committee. "While China is not the only story, its dramatic annual rate of R&D [research and development] growth is impressive. Other countries have seen the benefits of investing in research, and China is on a path to shortly become the world's largest R&D performer.

National Science Board report finds US dominance in science is slipping
State of U.S. Science and Engineering - 2020 report


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 19 2020, @03:58PM (6 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 19 2020, @03:58PM (#945332) Journal

    China might have had a nice period of 30 years where religion was all-but-banned

    Other than Communism.

  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Sunday January 19 2020, @09:28PM (5 children)

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 19 2020, @09:28PM (#945469) Journal

    The set of things that stupid people deem religions is quite large. Thank you for your contribution to the list though.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 20 2020, @04:19PM (4 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 20 2020, @04:19PM (#945866) Journal
      Point is the "nice period of 30 years where religion was all-but-banned" period wasn't - in more ways than one.
      • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday January 20 2020, @04:23PM (3 children)

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 20 2020, @04:23PM (#945869) Journal

        It's a dumb point based on a dumb interpretation of a dumb theory of ideology. Within those confines, though, it does technically qualify as a point, so there's that.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 20 2020, @07:10PM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 20 2020, @07:10PM (#945924) Journal
          Not my interpretation or ideology both which are still idolized by considerable parts of the world. As a result, I don't buy that the "dumbness" of the point is dumb.
          • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday January 20 2020, @08:11PM (1 child)

            by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 20 2020, @08:11PM (#945939) Journal

            The comparison of ideology to religion is inherently vacuous, almost whenever it's made. All people everywhere believe at least some incorrect things through bad information, bad deductions, social conventions, occasionally literal delusions, often under the umbrella of common sense. Religion distinguishes itself, not through ferver or wrongness, but by the umbrella of understanding that dictates the belief.

            Particularly distinguishing for religion against other ways of getting things wrong: a fundamental tie to an unprovable supernatural element, an implicit moral value tied to belief as an end to itself, and sometimes a claim to final and unquestionable moral authority that can never be questioned derived from the supernatural component.

            People, largely assholes with no moral structure at all, will just toss anyone who fervently believes anything on any moral grounds into that group because they can't or won't separate making moral inferences from claiming final authority, and glibly ignore the other two characteristics. It's not just communism that gets this lazy-ass treatment.

            Now if you wanted to argue that the CCP was a cult, you'd have an easier time of it.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 20 2020, @11:28PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 20 2020, @11:28PM (#946062) Journal

              The comparison of ideology to religion is inherently vacuous, almost whenever it's made. All people everywhere believe at least some incorrect things through bad information, bad deductions, social conventions, occasionally literal delusions, often under the umbrella of common sense. Religion distinguishes itself, not through ferver or wrongness, but by the umbrella of understanding that dictates the belief.

              "Vacuous" says the man who just supported that claim with a meager observation that people believe things.

              Particularly distinguishing for religion against other ways of getting things wrong: a fundamental tie to an unprovable supernatural element, an implicit moral value tied to belief as an end to itself, and sometimes a claim to final and unquestionable moral authority that can never be questioned derived from the supernatural component.

              People, largely assholes with no moral structure at all, will just toss anyone who fervently believes anything on any moral grounds into that group because they can't or won't separate making moral inferences from claiming final authority, and glibly ignore the other two characteristics. It's not just communism that gets this lazy-ass treatment.

              The obvious rebuttal here is that first, Communism places a supernatural importance on the value of labor and attributes a supernatural power of obstruction to the various, mostly imaginary enemies of Communist progress like counterrevolutionaries, Capitalists, reactionaries, etc. For an example of the first, Karl Marx claimed the supremacy of labor ("labour theory of value") in economics even to the point of claiming they should be receiving reward for all future use of the products of their labor. This mystical value of labor could not be annulled even by generous wages, the product shifting to other hands, or deliberate action of the workers themselves.

              For example of the second, upon the successful establishment of the USSR virtually all industrial and agricultural efforts were put into the hands of worker groups. When this started to fail, the government started demanding [wikipedia.org] retaliation against perceived enemies:

              "Comrades! The insurrection of five kulak districts should be pitilessly suppressed. The interests of the whole revolution require this because 'the last decisive battle' with the kulaks is now under way everywhere. An example must be demonstrated.

              Hang (absolutely hang, in full view of the people) no fewer than one hundred known kulaks, filthy rich men, bloodsuckers.
              Publish their names.
              Seize all grain from them.
              Designate hostages - in accordance with yesterday's telegram.

              Do it in such a fashion, that for hundreds of verst around the people see, tremble, know, shout: "strangling (is done) and will continue for the bloodsucking kulaks".

              Telegraph the receipt and the implementation. Yours, Lenin.

              P.S. Find more reliable people"

              The point here is not the well-known brutality of the regime, but the certainty that 100 kulaks (basically, relatively wealthy peasants who owned their own farm land) could be found to blame for it.

              Second, there is the social observance of Communism, including the repurposing of religious buildings as museums for Communism. All that changed was the target of worship.

              Now if you wanted to argue that the CCP was a cult, you'd have an easier time of it.

              Cults are a subcategory of religion, by connotation considered to be unusually wrong or extreme. The nightmarish habit of most Communist governments to arbitrarily turn directions and destroy hapless people who got in the way would validate the definition of cult, but it doesn't make them not a religion.