Forum Home
PC World Chat
 
Thread ID: 66404 2006-02-21 19:22:00 Oh no our OECD ranking is only 22 sam m (517) PC World Chat
Post ID Timestamp Content User
432655 2006-02-23 22:11:00 Some funding will have to be cut back if we need to get ahead in science/technology. We can look at it when we have more money.

Just like a student cuts back on things while learning, so should the country.Why should science/technology take preference over other income generating industries?

Let those industries develop at their own pace. If we're not marvelous in those areas, why should money be poured into them? Let's concentrate on industries we're best at.
Greg (193)
432656 2006-02-23 22:19:00 If its income generating why should it be funded ?!?

Direct investment in R&D is needed.
KiwiTT_NZ (233)
432657 2006-02-23 22:23:00 1) If its income generating why should it be funded ?!?

2) Direct investment in R&D is needed.

1) To capitalise on it's growth.

2) Can't argue with that.
Greg (193)
432658 2006-02-23 22:31:00 2) Can't argue with that. :thumbs: KiwiTT_NZ (233)
432659 2006-02-23 23:36:00 :thumbs:But I bet I'd beat you at any RTS game that I have in my collection! :p :) Greg (193)
432660 2006-02-23 23:47:00 .......Why should science/technology take preference over other income generating industries?...........


Because, potentially, the product outcomes could be be much higher added value with far, far less environmental impact as compared to traditional agricultural commodities or tourism.

Think about Swiss precision manufacture. Switzerland, has of course had a balance in agriculture, tourism, and precision for generations.
Terry Porritt (14)
432661 2006-02-23 23:51:00 But I bet I'd beat you at any RTS game that I have in my collection! :p :)In my games, I invest heavily in Tech and low in the arts, my troops are usually more advanced and slaughter most of the other civs watching their theatres and praying to their gods. KiwiTT_NZ (233)
432662 2006-02-23 23:57:00 Because, potentially, the product outcomes could be be much higher added value with far, far less environmental impact as compared to traditional agricultural commodities or tourism.
Sure about that, or is that just an opinion? Science/technology surely uses at least some resouces, eg electricity, which of course has a lot of debate about it's sources and it's renewability.

Whereas forestry is renewable and contributes to our environment's health.

Apart from the fart debate, most animal farming is seen to be a positive to environmental issues, isn't it?

Ok, I know all my above is a weak argument, but I reckon we'd be a third-world nation if it weren't for the huge efforts that our countrymen put into traditional industries.
Greg (193)
432663 2006-02-24 00:41:00 Farming degrades the environment, effluent and nitrate run offs ruining water ways and ground water, farts, lowering of water tables, destruction of the bush, destruction of high country native grasses and plants.
Farming burn off practices.
Some bore water is now undrinkable because of nitrates.

The list of negatives for farming as is large and endless.

Pine forestry does nothing for the environment that planting native trees could not do a hundred times better, and the value of the logs exported is pathetic, no added value at all.
After logging over see the acres of gorse that appears in some or many areas, in the Wellington region anyway.
Our beautiful Akatarawa Valley is rapidly being taken over by self-seeded Radiata pines from private plantations, so are the edges of parts of the Tararua Forest Park, in fact self seeded pines are a menace everywhere, Pinus Contorta is a particular menace in Tongariro National Park, Waikato and other areas.

I could go on and on................:)
Terry Porritt (14)
432664 2006-02-24 00:48:00 I can't be bothered reading everything in this thread, it's been thrashed over enough times.

Terry Porrit is right. Read what he says and think. No more needs to be said. You can all go back to work :D
mark c (247)
1 2 3 4 5