There's an old saying: if you're so smart, why are you so poor?
This sound like a call to bring back aristocracy. Meritocracy rewards actual contribution as opposed to potential contribution. Even if your IQ is 160, if what you contribute to society has minimal tangible benefit, maybe you shouldn't be given a mansion and butler.
Not to mention the practical problems of who decides who and what constitutes genius and who pays for the patronage.
The benefits of fundamental research are apparent to me. And I would also argue that much fundamental research does have obvious tangible benefits with organizations already in place to pursue them. Take Bell Labs as just one example. My claim is that we already have mechanisms - imperfect as they are - to compensate those who wish perform it. Imposing a new layer of bureaucracy to decide who is worthy and who is not of receiving public money seems, at best, wasteful and highly to open to abuse.
I disagree the premise of the article - It seems to me that more individuals than ever who choose to devote their careers to basic research are able to do so while also living a comfortable lifestyle.
> Meritocracy rewards actual contribution as opposed to potential contribution.
the word "meritocracy" has an interesting backstory that you might find interesting (tl;dr the creator of the word intended for it to be used as satire). relevant link: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment
This sound like a call to bring back aristocracy. Meritocracy rewards actual contribution as opposed to potential contribution. Even if your IQ is 160, if what you contribute to society has minimal tangible benefit, maybe you shouldn't be given a mansion and butler.
Not to mention the practical problems of who decides who and what constitutes genius and who pays for the patronage.
Just a thought.