Technology R&D Needs Unification

This seems to be a frantic debate, as we each have responded with only a few hours left. Sadly, I do not have as good an excuse as you, as I have just been occupying myself with other things lately. But moving on to my final round. .. >>Capitalism is one of the founding principles of America. The idea that any man can rise to fame and fortune if he works hard enough, that is capitalism. << I knew that I would have to face this type of challenge when I proposed this. Yes, any man can rise to fame and fortune in a capitalist system. But what good will it do when we have no oil, and our alternative energy methods are hopelessly unprepared? Or when a new disease hits, and we have no adequate means of defending ourselves from it? >>What will happen to America's famous "little guy"? The man that comes up with a brilliant idea, works hard for it, and makes it rich, he will no longer exist. << Indeed, he will not exist. Instead, he will have shared the brilliant concept with the world's brightest minds, who will augment and improve it out of recognition. An electrical engineer who designs a new hearing aid for nerve-deaf people might be helped by a tissue engineer who figures out how to graft it into skin cells instead of wearing it. Such an invention is more important than individual wealth. You are correct in your assessment of the human running of such an immensely powerful corporation. However, who is it to say that a computer cannot take a risk? Certainly one could program an instruction of (potential payoff)/(potential financial loss) > 50% or some similar formula, to allow the computer program to make business risk. If an idea has any merit, it stands the same chance of being followed up on as any idea today. I could go further into a computerized management, but I think that the idea speaks for itself. No corruption (in the human context), instantaneous decisions, incredible depth of knowledge to call upon when making choices, etc. This is probably the only way to run such a massively powerful company as what I propose. >>Who has the power to make Apple and Microsoft managers work peacefully together? << The managers wouldn't be working together. The debate is titled :Technology R&D Needs Unification. Research and Development teams are the only ones who would work together. From what I have observed, research is research, and most researchers and scientists are motivated by discovery. Furthermore, I never said that every single scientist around the world would have to move to the U. S. Unification of research would only entail the universal spread of all results of any and every experiment, and cooperation in any aspect of developing a product. Perhaps having a dispersed company could even benefit progress, as different environments could have different impacts on thinking. >>"trusts have made products cheaper, have reduced prices; but if the price of oil, for instance, were reduced to one cent a barrel, it would not right the wrong done to people of this country by the trusts which have destroyed legitimate competition and driven honest men from legitimate business enterprise". -Representative William Mason<< lol you do quote a lot. But once again, you criticize my resolution based on ECONOMIC concerns. In a nod to your style, I shall quote myself from last round. "You might respond back with concerns based on economics. But we NEED to start working now on the tools that will save our race from extinction. " I knew that your response would make use of the obvious difficulties and dangers inherent to creating a unified company. Once again, I say that this is not important. This debate is not a "Technology R&D Unification is feasible right now" or "We Must create the most powerful monopoly ever to destroy price reliability". It is that mankind must work together to create advanced technology through the spread of all knowledge and technical ability. This is an argument of maiming one person to save the lives of a hundred thousand. Yes, there will be a shift in our way of business. This shift will lead to the most revolutionary technological advancements in the history of mankind. >>At its most basic, the Manhattan Project was driven by competition. .. << I knew this would come up. Yes, America started the project because we heard rumors of Hitler working on the Bomb as well. But the point of my using this flawed example was to show that, using a massive amalgamate of resources, we created a radical shift in power production. If Germany and Japan were enemies considered to be competitors, could not extinction be considered the ultimate enemy, and therefore, the ultimate competitor? Should not we focus our efforts on prolonging human life instead of being forced to constantly find new ways to extinguish it? Besides, would you not agree that, had U. S. , Germany, and Japanese scientists been working together from the start, atomic power would have been produced much sooner? And with a much more peaceful purpose in mind? >>usually, if a businessman does that before he is extremely successful, he will be eaten by the other businesses. << That is why a unified technology company is necessary: to rid the world of that type of thinking and expectation. Within the unified company, business will be eliminated, so that the only motivator should be curiosity and a moral conscience. Humanity is nearing the limit of its expansion. We need to develop new methods of doing everything: transportation, heat, refrigeration, housing, medicine, spaceflight, etc. This list can continue forever. What cannot continue, however, is the secretive nature of research that is forced upon us by the constraints of a capitalist system. My opponent has not disproved, let alone mention, the fact that more people working on a problem yield better results, faster. Obviously, if everyone has access to the same knowledge, the odds greatly improve that at least one person will have an idea to improve it. Furthermore, with competition eliminated, the unified company could devote much more time and money into less conventional methods than competitive companies could. While this seems counter intuitive, consider that a company who does not fear losing money can spend much more time in a far-fetched line of scientific inquiry than could a small, competitive company. I have shown the benefit of having a unified technology R&D. I have also defeated my worthy opponent's attacks on its creation. For his final round, my opponent must show that the sharing of ideas and knowledge would not benefit humankind. Obviously, this is not so.