Deminishing returns and research: Should we focus on modernizing (Pro) or research (Con)?
Debate Rounds (3)
Research has exploded creating a whole new world in the last few decades. Society is enjoying the benefits of new technology, but do we really want more? No!
1) research provides newly developed technologies that are taking interest away from things such as modernizing housing, infrastructure, and providing economic stability
2) research produces things that are exclusive to the wealthy, further dividing the rich from the poor contributing to increased competition built from the segregation of rich and poor. This competition has become fierce and is no longer a matter of good nature.
3) The growth of technology due to research is advancing so quickly people feel inferior when they cannot operate a new technology or one they have never heard of before.
Pro says that research is diverting our attention away from necessary things such as modernizing infrastructure, housing, etc. While this statement is not completely incorrect, what my opponent says about it being less necessary is something I do not agree upon. My opponent says that "research produces things that are exclusive to the wealthy". I counter this. Let us take the simplest of examples - smartphones. Android, for example came up as a product of extensive research into mobile operating systems. And I am from a country where there are cheap smartphones, for people with all kinds of budgets.
All the research going on in the world is not necessarily for products/technology that are "meant" for the rich classes. Let us talk about the medical industry. Research is yielding new drugs for treatment of various ailments, and that is something everyone has access to. True, a poor man cannot afford radiation therapy, but there is ample research going on, to provide affordable cancer treatment drugs. Research does not necessarily focus on one class of the society. A majority of the research projects in the world focus on products that will be useful to everyone. The problem is that the research which involves expensive products turns out to be cooler than everything else and hits the news, and hence creates a mentality that research focuses only on the rich classes.
My opponent says, "technology is advancing so quickly that people feel inferior when they cannot operate a new technology". Look at the sales records of the products you are talking about, and you will find your statement to be not completely true.
I hope that my arguments sufficiently disprove those of my opponent. Looking forward to my opponent's arguments.
Research is important for civil advancement, however I argue that we have come across a time where the return for effort is so diminished that we should take the time to place our efforts to modernize the entire civilized world. To help make my point as clear as possible consider an example, that many readers can attest to in their own lives. At super markets a consumer may purchase a DVD for $10, the same movie in Blue Ray will cost about $23. That is more than double the price for a marginal increase in viewing experience quality. I am arguing that the extra $13 spent for the upgraded quality should be placed into purchasing 2 of the DVD quality movies allowing twice the people to own the product. The point is a larger return will be observed when funding is spent on modernization instead of research.
Con's argument indicates awareness that drug companies spend huge amounts of money on research. It is important to know that modern medicine places emphasis on preventive medicine not responsive medicine. Several diseases not acquired through lifestyle choices deserve more research than lifestyle acquired disease. It is much cheaper to educate healthy lifestyle choices rather risk funding the development of another medicine. A large amount of research money is spent on blood pressure, anxiety, and depression medication all of which have other forms of treatment. I argue that even a large amount of drug research has hit a point of diminished return and the money could be spent more wisely on modernizing.
The last argument discussed details the psychological harm cause by inferiority suffered by those who cannot use new technology. Con's side refuted my argument stating that new technology sales are up. I agree that many sales are up. However, I did not mention any specific products yielding the refute damaged. To counter this refute all we need to think about are cigarette sales. Cigarette sales have existed in the economy producing many jobs and satisfying many uninformed consumers. As consumers have become more informed that the products are bad ( or in our case the funding used to produce them mean the sacrifice of modernization) the sales have declined. This example demonstrates why sales cannot always be used as a measuring stick.
I await the next round.
Thank you Voters for voting and any comments.
rajagopal23295 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.