Tech
There should be some advantages to researching multiple technologies.
First, to use a loose analogy, impregnating nine women doesn't make a baby in one month as opposed to one women being pregnant for nine months.
Research in divergant areas can be mutually supportive or enabling.
Information can be lost. It has a physical location, either in a person, paper or device.
Simply knowing that something is possible can speed or redirect efforts. So if you know someone else has done something, half of your battle is won.
There must be some economic need for a technology, electric batteries and steam engins were discovered more than a thousand years ago, but there were social and economic constraints that never allowed them to develop into wide use.
A 'high tech' item does not necessarily cost more than a low tech item to produce, the difference is really the knowledge incorporated into the item. In economics, one of the major flaws if to rely on 'inputs' to determine the value and success of outputs. An M16 actully costs less to produce in terms of material, energy and labor than the brownbess, but if the world operated the way computer games are designed it would take an entire factory one year to make a brownbess and two years to make one M16.
Not every branch is from the same tree. Not all developments are inerdependent, especially social, phylisophical and political changes. There should be more than one tree in the forest.
Stephen R. Donaldson propsed a whole different approch to technologica development in his 'Gap Cycle' series (a wonderful SF series based loosly on the Neublung) where the Amnion based their whole technology on biology. In some ways similer to the 'Well World' intellegent micro parasites who were conquoring the universe.
One thing I might suggest, in a practical vein, is that research be tied to a specific laboratory. Multiple labs working on a project might get you multiple paths to that end point but will also duplicate some work and experience friction. Again, getting more pregnant shouldn't get you a result faster.
Money and resources are not the only consideration, the freedoms and incentives of a democratic market economy with a strong legal tradition based upon the value of the individual made the US a tremendous innovator and implementor of technology. The result of the communitarian systems was stagnation, evenywhen they had or stole technology it failed to propagate into their systems effectively. (when I visited Russia in 1995, store clerks almost universally used abbacus's, even when their calculators had batteries).
There should be some advantages to researching multiple technologies.
First, to use a loose analogy, impregnating nine women doesn't make a baby in one month as opposed to one women being pregnant for nine months.
Research in divergant areas can be mutually supportive or enabling.
Information can be lost. It has a physical location, either in a person, paper or device.
Simply knowing that something is possible can speed or redirect efforts. So if you know someone else has done something, half of your battle is won.
There must be some economic need for a technology, electric batteries and steam engins were discovered more than a thousand years ago, but there were social and economic constraints that never allowed them to develop into wide use.
A 'high tech' item does not necessarily cost more than a low tech item to produce, the difference is really the knowledge incorporated into the item. In economics, one of the major flaws if to rely on 'inputs' to determine the value and success of outputs. An M16 actully costs less to produce in terms of material, energy and labor than the brownbess, but if the world operated the way computer games are designed it would take an entire factory one year to make a brownbess and two years to make one M16.
Not every branch is from the same tree. Not all developments are inerdependent, especially social, phylisophical and political changes. There should be more than one tree in the forest.
Stephen R. Donaldson propsed a whole different approch to technologica development in his 'Gap Cycle' series (a wonderful SF series based loosly on the Neublung) where the Amnion based their whole technology on biology. In some ways similer to the 'Well World' intellegent micro parasites who were conquoring the universe.
One thing I might suggest, in a practical vein, is that research be tied to a specific laboratory. Multiple labs working on a project might get you multiple paths to that end point but will also duplicate some work and experience friction. Again, getting more pregnant shouldn't get you a result faster.
Money and resources are not the only consideration, the freedoms and incentives of a democratic market economy with a strong legal tradition based upon the value of the individual made the US a tremendous innovator and implementor of technology. The result of the communitarian systems was stagnation, evenywhen they had or stole technology it failed to propagate into their systems effectively. (when I visited Russia in 1995, store clerks almost universally used abbacus's, even when their calculators had batteries).
Comment