In a way, this is a follow up on the previous post.It has been 50 years since the launch of Sputnik (Oct. 4, 1957), the Russian satellite and the first satellite to orbit earth on its geocentric orbit. The presence of the satellite in the sky, which seemed to Americans as a defeat, did not only push the US to compete more vigorously in its space race against then communist Russia but also perpetuated science education in the US. The US government, in the National Defense Education Act of 1958, contributed federal funds of more than one billion dollars to schools public and private to promote science and mathematics mainly. And at that time, the science and math fields expanded and improved greatly.
The problem nowadays is that many Americans feel that the US is losing its edge in technological breakthroughs to countries such as Korea, and Italy.
What do you propose that the US do in order to revive its science education and science research fields? Should the US just flood the schools with money again?
9 comments:
Why does the US have to revive its "science education and science research fields"? A cold war is still a war, and still not as fun as being at peace. Why don't we instead focus on diplomacy and gain the trust of other countries (ok, maybe not north korea) by sharing what we know so that when they inevitably become capable of killing us with nuclear weapons or space ships or a star wars program or whatever, they won't want to. I think that losing our edge in technological breakthroughs is, in the long run, a good thing.
...for everyone.
Well, not every technological breakthroughs result in weapons.
Even if it's not weaponry, if it's like a new tractor or something, it's still something we'd just hold over other countries heads, which would just annoy them and satiate our egos in the short term, just like a military advance would.
So what, Benji? Pardon my rudeness, but isn't that what our market economy is all about--competition? If the other countries don't like our satiated egos, they can just make products that are better than ours.
I agree with Michael Kuo that through competition, we could make one of the best damn tractors ever.
How bout more fuel efficient and more environmental friendly cars? I hear automobile companies withhold features and release them a little at a time in the future so that they won't lose their "edge" the following year, or something.
I'm not saying that competition is bad. There's always gonna be competition. What I mean is that I don't want the world revolving around countries proving who's better until one goes bankrupt. I don't want to see teachers focusing on teaching kids with the goal to beat someone else in a product war. We can make good tractors and ICBM's without the propaganda, brainwashing, and paranoia that characterized the cold war.
...and i really should spellcheck my posts before submitting them.
Post a Comment