Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US destroying its reputation as a scientific leader – European science diplomat

sciencebusiness.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 194 posts

Re: US destroying its reputation as a scientific leader – European science diplomat

#171

Post by JumpCrisscross »

embedding-shape wrote: post #170
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, today Russia is trying to expand, which they've done before, like most countries in the world. Not sure what makes them special in that regard Sure. Correct. Wishing for the failure of the Pax Americana is cheering on the return of wars of conquest. First and foremost by the great powers. Russia isn't special. It was–like every other ordinary country–previously restrained. Dissolving the rules that restrained…

> Sure. Correct. Wishing for the failure of the Pax Americana is cheering on the return of wars of conquest. First and foremost by the great powers. So because someone doesn't want the US as a world police, means they want some other country as world police? Can't people just wish/want no one to be world police? I never understood the lack of nuance in American politics and in lots of conversations with Americans. Ju…

> Can't people just wish/want no one to be world police?

Yes. This is what happens. Which means various powers fight to establish spheres of influence, regionally and globally.

> Just because you don't like A, doesn't mean you suddenly love B

No. You can hate both. But sometimes, rejecting A implicitly means causing B. In this case, rejecting a world police means–ceteris paribus–incentivizing realpolitik.

(It doesn't mean the only options are America as world cop or anarchy. But rejecting the former without anything to fall back on is embracing the latter.)

> What is your goal with doing that, some sort of gotcha?

Describing reality around power vacuums. Releasing Pax Americana creates a power vacuum everywhere at the same time. (It also releases America from its rules-based obligations, though these pretty much became guidelines after each of the Iraq War, annexation of Crimea and China being China in Tibet and the South China Sea.)

Re: US destroying its reputation as a scientific leader – European science diplomat

#172

Post by AndrewKemendo »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #169
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a flawed question. The concept that living in a hegemony is acceptable is incoherent.

> The concept that living in a hegemony is acceptable is incoherent Wishing upon a star that humans were better is not a solution. Revoking the Pax Americana frees America to pursue more wars of conquest. Not fewer. It's a revocation of the rules-based international order that America (and the former Soviet Union) put in place following WWII. It similarly frees every other wannabe global and regional hegemony to asse…

Humans rejected that and now we’re headed into a global ochlocracy

Hope you folks are ready (you’re not)

Re: US destroying its reputation as a scientific leader – European science diplomat

#173

Post by spwa4 »

thisisit wrote: post #63

It is pretty much clear that the current WH has decided science has a bias against them and wants to curb it. There is no reason apart from that. People still bring in bad faith arguments about private companies funding research or replication crisis. Sure these are big issues in current scientific research. There is no denying that. While there might be an intuitive sense of less public research means money saved, t…

> .. the current WH has decided science has a bias against them and wants to curb it ...

The US spent ~1 trillion dollars on science in 2024, 2025 will be maybe 10% less.

The EU spent ~460 billion dollars on science in 2024 ... and 2025 will be 10 to 20% less.

So the problem I have here is simple. I mostly agree with you. But European governments, despite having more money to spend, spent less on science, and are taking back grants faster than Trump. Per-capita or per-GDP-dollar they spent 3 to 4 times less than the US on science. In absolute terms, they spent less than half the US spent.

EU politicians (and diplomats) are doing worse than Trump on this issue, not better.

This is the part that's always forgotten. Everyone's gleefully saying that this Trump White House is going to finally, after decades, reverse the EU to US brain drain!

Then you look at the facts ... and no, it's not. In fact it may accelerate under Trump. What the EU is doing to science funding is worse than what Trump is doing.

I mean, I get it. Trump is worse than Biden. Or, to put it a different way: the US is so far ahead of the EU in science that the major idiotic stumble Trump is turning out to be ... just doesn't matter. But yeah, bring back Biden!

If getting a science grant for X is 5 years of effort in the EU, it's about 2 years of effort in the US. Sure, it used to be 1.8 years and that sucks. But there is still a very large difference and obviously the expected outcome here, if we're being honest, is that the US ... will easily remain far ahead in science to the EU.

Re: US destroying its reputation as a scientific leader – European science diplomat

#174

Post by JumpCrisscross »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #172
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The concept that living in a hegemony is acceptable is incoherent Wishing upon a star that humans were better is not a solution. Revoking the Pax Americana frees America to pursue more wars of conquest. Not fewer. It's a revocation of the rules-based international order that America (and the former Soviet Union) put in place following WWII. It similarly frees every other wannabe global and regional hegemony to asse…

Humans rejected that and now we’re headed into a global ochlocracy Hope you folks are ready (you’re not)

> Hope you folks are ready (you’re not)

I'm American. Why would the largest military on the planet not be ready for rule by might? Revoking Pax Americana (and the rules-based international order it was built on, aspirational as it may have often been) just means our elites can go back to 19th-century rules.

Re: US destroying its reputation as a scientific leader – European science diplomat

#175

Post by embedding-shape »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #171
embedding-shape wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure. Correct. Wishing for the failure of the Pax Americana is cheering on the return of wars of conquest. First and foremost by the great powers. So because someone doesn't want the US as a world police, means they want some other country as world police? Can't people just wish/want no one to be world police? I never understood the lack of nuance in American politics and in lots of conversations with Americans. Ju…

> Can't people just wish/want no one to be world police? Yes. This is what happens. Which means various powers fight to establish spheres of influence, regionally and globally. > Just because you don't like A, doesn't mean you suddenly love B No. You can hate both. But sometimes, rejecting A implicitly means causing B. In this case, rejecting a world police means– ceteris paribus –incentivizing realpolitik . (It does…

> No. You can hate both. But sometimes, rejecting A implicitly means causing B. In this case, rejecting a world police means–ceteris paribus–incentivizing realpolitik.

Yeah, I think this is the core of our disagreement. Maybe my view of the world isn't US-centric enough, but I don't believe rejecting the US's Pax Americana somehow means I'm implicitly causing China or Russia to suddenly want their own version of Pax Americana played out. But I do know this is a really common view in the US, so I won't really attempt to convince you otherwise, I think it's at this point we just agree to disagree.

Re: US destroying its reputation as a scientific leader – European science diplomat

#177

Post by thisisit »

spwa4 wrote: post #173
thisisit wrote: post #63

It is pretty much clear that the current WH has decided science has a bias against them and wants to curb it. There is no reason apart from that. People still bring in bad faith arguments about private companies funding research or replication crisis. Sure these are big issues in current scientific research. There is no denying that. While there might be an intuitive sense of less public research means money saved, t…

> .. the current WH has decided science has a bias against them and wants to curb it ... The US spent ~1 trillion dollars on science in 2024, 2025 will be maybe 10% less. The EU spent ~460 billion dollars on science in 2024 ... and 2025 will be 10 to 20% less. So the problem I have here is simple. I mostly agree with you. But European governments, despite having more money to spend, spent less on science, and are tak…

A long whataboutism and defending points which were never made.

"What about EU? European governments, despite having more money to spend, spent less on science, and are taking back grants faster than Trump." where have we seen this? Oh yes, the RW who talk about EU "offloading" science to US.

I understand this makes for good TV content where the focus is to shift goalposts to new topic.

I didn't make the points about brain drain or whether US will remain ahead. I only pointed out is that the real reason WH is doing this and those on the right gleefully clapping along. People defend this in bad faith. There is no way to know if this is going to be net positive. Numbers look fine on paper but the cost of say private biased research unchallenged by neutral public research might erase the gain. I am fine if I am proven wrong in 4 years and things remain unchanged.

But yeah, Biden something something and Trump something something.

Re: US destroying its reputation as a scientific leader – European science diplomat

#178

Post by mdhb »

jvanderbot wrote: post #46
wozer wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US doesn't have any partners anymore, except for some small countries like Hungary and Israel.

I think you'd be surprised how much intel sharing and cooperation happens behind the political curtains.

A number of European countries have PUBLICLY come out to say they are suspending cooperation on a number of different fronts. You can only imagine what it’s like in private.

Re: US destroying its reputation as a scientific leader – European science diplomat

#179

Post by mdhb »

robswc wrote: post #85
zeroCalories wrote: post #39

I always feel weird reading statements from the EU regarding this relationship. There's always talk of the U.S abandoning it's position, guilt tripping, etc. but very little about what the EU plans to do in retaliation. Cut off the U.S from the research? Retaliatory tariffs? Why is the U.S leaving NATO a concern for the EU, but not a concern for the U.S? The fact that these are not the top talking points makes me thi…

Personally, as someone that has heard non-stop about how horrible the US is from Europeans ever since I was on the internet, I don't give statements from EU officials much weight. It isn't anything new. I have family that has migrated _from_ Europe to the US, they still seem to hold this attitude that they know what is best for the US. They come live here for a higher quality of life and income, then go vacation in E…

You have to be a special kind of ignorant to try and say it’s a higher quality of life with a straight face. On essentially zero of any of the metrics which are specifically designed to measure exactly this does the US come out on top. Thats just a jingoistic nonsense you heard somewhere and decided to repeat it like it was a fact.

Re: US destroying its reputation as a scientific leader – European science diplomat

#180

Post by JumpCrisscross »

embedding-shape wrote: post #175
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can't people just wish/want no one to be world police? Yes. This is what happens. Which means various powers fight to establish spheres of influence, regionally and globally. > Just because you don't like A, doesn't mean you suddenly love B No. You can hate both. But sometimes, rejecting A implicitly means causing B. In this case, rejecting a world police means– ceteris paribus –incentivizing realpolitik . (It does…

> No. You can hate both. But sometimes, rejecting A implicitly means causing B. In this case, rejecting a world police means–ceteris paribus–incentivizing realpolitik. Yeah, I think this is the core of our disagreement. Maybe my view of the world isn't US-centric enough, but I don't believe rejecting the US's Pax Americana somehow means I'm implicitly causing China or Russia to suddenly want their own version of Pax…

> I don't believe rejecting the US's Pax Americana somehow means I'm implicitly causing China or Russia to suddenly want their own version of Pax Americana played out

They don’t. The Pax is expensive to maintain. They want their spheres of influence. Same as America’s elites. Same as India’s, Iran’s, Israel’s, Turkey’s, et cetera.

There is no indication Russia or China want to be world cops. But they—and many others, including America—do want to dominate their neighbours in ways that are restricted by the rules-based international order.

> I don't believe rejecting the US's Pax Americana somehow means I'm implicitly causing

Unless you’re voting in a small handful of European countries, you probably aren’t causing or restraining much in this theatre. (I’m in a single-party state in America. I’m not influencing this through my vote either.)

Post reply on HN