Similar Posts

5 Comments

  1. Most people will say let’s focus on predator free nz first. I say stuff that let’s do both.

  2. This sincere but unfocused screed sadly reveals how little understanding most people have about how real innovation happens.

    You can’t just offer a prize and imagine people are going to pull together some dream team and work potentially for years for free for a prize you promise you will crowd source the money for. Making such offers is kind of naive.

    Like anything, success in innovation requires teams, and teams of teams, and sponsors with very deep pockets. Which is why the X Pize and others like it are only entered and won by large corporations. Hence why not many of the prizes or winning submissions have purely social ends.

    Maybe Blue Sky isn’t your strong suit. Scale back your ambitions friend. Try taking something very small, but very important, like how to feed a family of 4 for less than $50 a week, and solve that. Stop trying to save the world in your head. Instead, solve one fundamental, universal problem, then roll that out in your neighbourhood; it will spread like wildfire.

    If we on the Left spent less time daydreaming of a better tomorrow, and more time actually feeding, housing and educating ordinary Workers, we would soon have an invincible tidal wave of newly woke Socialists, ready for political change. Instead, we have idle talk, a Culture of Complaint, and castles in the air.

    Maybe it’s time to take a cold shower and re-evaluate everything, ’cause what we’re doin’ now sure as hell ain’t workin’.

    1. Faark no. And please let me explain so no one gets salty.

      If you’ve got the secrete sauce, and that secrete sauce gives you a shot at a million dollars. Just take it.

      A lot of people think that stability is a secure $50,000 salary year on year out. Then they’ll go out and borrow 5 or 10 times that amount and pay it back over time for no real gain so after a life time of paying debt you finally get back to zero before you realise what real freedom is about. So you believe this is safe because there’s zero risk.

      So let’s calculate quickly your down side risk if you left your job to pursue your passion. So what’s less than $50k? It’s $40k, or $30k so your down side risk is fifty thousand dollars. So the real down side is likely only very small because your likely to earn some where around $50k even if you left your job and got a new one.

      So that’s the down side but the upside is all the money in the world. It’s literally infinite. So even if you have a small chance of earning all the money in the world your down side is very minimal and your upside is huge.

      So in this scenario where you’ve got a salary of $50k people tend to anchor themselves to that number and take on liabilities that this number can pay for, and that to me is more risky. And this is why risk is subjective and not a 2 dimensional risk reward as if small dollar figures are less risky because its subjective to your own personal situation so in the scenario you think it’s not risky but it is because you’re taking on more and more liabilities so you can’t asses risk objectively. So in that jobs example we looked at down side and upside risk, but if you have lots of liabilities you can’t asses that objectively.

      In terms of science and innovation if you put your self in a situation where you have zero down side risk and repeating it and infinite amount of times then your potential upside is infinite.

      So you have to step outside yourself and asses yourself objectively and work towards that situation. It’s difficult to do but it’s something that just has to be done, otherwise you’ll always remain in a situation where you can’t asses risk objectively.

      So if you can calculate risk and reward correctly, and do it an infinite amount of times and do that well you will become successful.

  3. I like the passion here, and the desire for more funding for big projects that will help biodiversity in NZ. There are a couple of points that need mentioning…

    I am a conservation genomics researcher, now with a permanent research/teaching job.

    No scientist in the world can clone a chicken with current technology. This is despite having a sequenced genome, and live cells, and eggs by the billions, and laboratories specialising in chicken physiology and reproduction. Birds are actually incredibly hard to work with, and while de-extinction may happen in my lifetime, it’s going to be on mammals well before a bird gets a look in.

    Furthermore, one bird does not a species make. We have critically endangered birds now that have so small a gene pool they may go extinct despite having lots of birds all of whom are well looked after. This is called an extinction vortex whereby small populations lose genetic variation, become less fit, loose numbers, and then this spirals down. De-extinction needs to make many highly diverse birds – each costing hundreds of millions (if the technology existed which it currently doesn’t). Your estimates of 10 million for a viable population of any of these birds hugely underestimates the cost of many of the parameters of this research.

    I am not all doom and gloom, and I believe that we should be moving towards big ideas in conservation, but the way to do this is long term funding increases in science funding for the environment. DOC have been criminally underfunded by the National Party for almost a decade, and science and innovation funding have similarly consistently lagged well behind Australia. There are minimal funding options for postdoctoral research in New Zealand, few permanent research jobs at the end of it, and minimal funding for the research when you do get the permanent job.

    The next big step is lots of little steps, and these involve increasing the investment in science and conservation funding – giving scientists the freedom that some of this research will be dead ends, and that is fine because if you knew it would work it wouldn’t be called science. Putting some (small) amounts of money as prizes to accomplish giant tasks is not the solution. This is misconstruing science as a business or marketing exercise, a simple answer to a complex question, which unfortunately won’t work.

    Prizes work for design competitions when the science is done. Having jobs and long term funding works for increasing science. The solution is giving scientists enough funding to stay in NZ and pursue their ideas – many of us dedicate our lives to conserving our toanga, and many more would be able to do so if they didn’t have to leave science in order to afford food and shelter!

    1. My experience with engineering students is that if you give them any increase in budget they will still spend it all on beer 😀

      On a serious note Australia does have a huge capability in the space market with all the knowledge and industry to go seriously at it but no government support beyond minor investments. Wouldn’t mind a joint AU/NZ space agency to advance both of our capabilities (peacefully). The CSIRO has significant involvement in NASA programs, the volunteer Australian Space Research Institute (ASRI) also exists as well as a number of programs in academia. The fact Australia in 2018 doesn’t have a dedicated stand alone space agency and New Zealand does ruins a lot of egos.

      Now that New Zealand has developed a space agency of her own the benefits of an ANZ collaboration puts New Zealand in the drivers seat. Our space industry is more interested in agri tech at this stage according to Shawn Ovis who is outstanding in his field.

      There are people who think a space industry is a wast of money and they’re wrong. Keeping skills relevant and cutting edge will help economies of scale in solving the big problems.

Comments are closed.