Should the U.S. use government funding and university contracts for technological advancement?
Debate Rounds (3)
For those who use current technology and smart devices, you would not have your iPhone, Siri, GPS, Android phones, tablets or Email/Internet if it wasn't for government spending. In the medical field, this includes advanced prosthetics, the Humane Genome Project, HIV/AIDs treatments, and MRI scanners.
You can only generate so much funds or incentive for the public or private sector because of the amount of funding, personal interest, or economic risk.
Source for Technologies: http://www.industryweek.com...
Sources (For people who like cited information)
http://thinkprogress.org...) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) This is avoidable and cost inefficient, compared to the funding that would go towards universities towards developing technology. Not once in my arguments were the mention of decreasing military spending, but to reallocate spending within the military (which includes R&D and cost effective purchases) which make better use of the tax payers dollars.
"If the people of America want to put more money towards technological advancement, then they will do so with a company that specializes in making new technology for the benefits of the people. "
As economics and history have proven, this is ineffective because the public does not have enough financial backing or outspoken public interest for a company to begin doing so except as a side project or for profit. A great example is the pharmaceutical industry. Despite public outcry and it actually being better for the business reputation, such revolution must be forced or beneficial to those contributing the funds. There is no greater incentive for the U.S. Government to invest in advancing technology because the military demos and gets it first and the rest will follow. This includes politicians having their hands on the final product to manipulate and price via economics and politics.
"Assuming the government was in dire need of technological advancement (which it is not) then they would levy taxes for it."
As said before, there are already enough funds in the military budget for this contracts, the problem lays with price gouging and which technologies to prioritize. Not to mention, the current tread and priority of our government is clean energy and energy sustainability: is this not a dire issue in need of technological advancement? Many politicians and citizens would agree that it is. (http://www.pennenergy.com...)
"You also mention some of that money for school, but it is not money that schools need, it's a better education system."
Which also costs money. Even in public education, reform has been ineffective or has been to costly to implement (http://www.myajc.com...). Military contracts do no have to be limited to universities, as proving funding for those children to have engineering and otherwise technologically supporting skill sets would encourage youths to go to college and be properly educated, which leads to more college students, which in turn results in more qualified professionals that the country can use to speed up development. There are also many benefits in being a veteran and non-combat positions in the military for those who are educated well. So in turn, contributing to technological advancement would also increase job opportunities as there would be more of a demand for highly educated professionals in both the military, public, and private sector. Demand for engineers has been high, while demand has been low, and this actually does provide an incentive across the board to fill that void (http://www.diversitycareers.com...).
And finally, funding towards universities can be in many forms. Contracts were one of my core points, but this also includes grants (http://www.collegegrant.net...), contests (https://www.challenge.gov...), and most importantly STEM programs (http://www.ed.gov...). These solutions already exists and there is time and less reform needed to implement these. Although my original debate uses the contracts as a sure way to finance innovative technological advancements, the issue is not so black and white. Just because funding by the military is being utilized in a difference sense does not mean we are lessening protection or taking money away from the budget. Price gouging plays a large role in our military budget and by being smarter with our spending will not only protect our troops with superior and higher quality equipment, but also possibly increase technology related job demands and potentially benefit our economy as a whole.
"Even in public education, reform has been ineffective or has been too costly to implement"
Which was what I meant by common core. Assuming you gave more money to the schools, how long would it actually take to implement these new reforms to educate people for these technology related jobs, and how many people would lose their jobs because they no longer qualify? I understand that you have good intentions for America, but think of what happens when technology advances to the point where it has weapons that could destroy entire countries. Of course, America would be the only country to have it and all the other nations would live in fear of America. Humans live on the intent to screw each other over, and who's to say this new technology might not be used for crime In the USA? Over the course of time, technology has led to the simplification of life. Today, we are very dependent on things like antibiotics, phones (911 purposes & contact), and the computer. Advancing technology will make life simpler, and humans will become more dependent on technology, which in the future, might lead to lowering the creativity and innovation of the people (As proven with calculators making math simpler) But most of all, who's to say what that money will actually do, and whether or not real progress will be made. Along with that, on the assumption that you want to "Better the lives" of the general public, healthcare will get better, and you know what that means, more children. America can only support so much people, and crops do not grow instantly with technology or without.
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.