People that 'collect money' are the basis of all civilization. Any government that interferes with that process collapses in a very short while. There are no socialist or communist success stories and never have been.
It might be nice if everyone shared equally and worked equally like bee or ant colonies but bees and ants don't build transistors or the tools to build the tools to build the tools to build transistors. Money and the exchange of it does that.
signed/Capitalist Pig
Some indigenous cultures/first peoples managed without money. Then again, they also realized that they could not over fish, hunt, etc., and still have stocks left over for the next generation. In other words, they were/are interested in taking only what they need rather than hoarding it all for profit.
I know that some current indigenous cultures ask "Is it good for our generation and will it be good for seven generations to come?" when making important decisions.
Funny thing with that. I read a study a while back that said that it takes seven generations for any particular family to raise their income tier by one level.
Fiat is not sustainable, either. There is no real value there, and as I see it, the current situation in the US is not that much different than what existed before the fall of history's empires.
I would say that people collecting money as the basis of all civilization has arisen from those that sought to be king of the hill and those who believed that they were worthy of being king of the hill. In other words, the power seekers who's sole purpose to seek that power is for their own personal gain. Maybe a bit more strongly put - the bullies. The trouble with that is that those that are bullied get tired of being bullied.
Had me up until then. I have a very thin view of 'established science', seen too much proven information get replaced over time.
That is the nature of science, though, isn't it? It learn, explains things to the best of its ability at the time, then learns more, explains things again to the best of its ability at the time and repeats the process. No scientist with any integrity will tell you that all is known that there is to know. I am not necessarily fond of it either, especially the situation in medical science, but it is the way things are in the scientific world.
When we start demanding perfection in the scientific world, or anywhere, for that matter, that is when we set ourselves up for failure - IMO.
I understand the need for shrimp on a treadmill but still see the scientists unable to explain the reasons for the research as destroying funds for basic research for everyone else.
So we should set up committees to determine what is necessary to research and then throw out everything else? Insights sometimes come about by accident or from unrelated topics that may show similar patterns. Putting things together in ways that others do not necessarily see sometimes has benefits.
We already have vetting processes that decide what research is funded.
Then again, we come to that common denominator - money - and where the "value" lies.
As for the present administration, I do see a war on 'climate science' but I also read everything the so called 'climate scientists' say. There is a very large charge of 'sketchy' there for headline grabbing and selling clicks (the 97% of climate scientists was a good one until it got drilled down on). When larger number of 'assumptions' are required for a 'posit' then it's best to set aside whatever conclusions are 'accepted' until the data pans out. The NADW springs to mind. I would think a permanent temp sampling of the gradients of this massive water movement would be integral in climate modeling and refreshes.
Changes to higher temps could not be argued as being normal since the arctic origins are a given. It's already linked to (and I'm just dropping a Wiki-name here) Heinrich events and the last Ice Age. Yes I don't see or hear anything making headlines for (and definitely not against) global warming.
As I see it, there comes a time when trends become important. There are no exact answers, at least with the current state of technology in the world. We have to pay attention to the trend. If we need those exact and perfect answers (especially within a chaotic system like climate and the weather) before we take action to quell a growing trend, then we risk the possibility of setting things up for failure and researching things to an nth degree while the lab crumbles around the researchers.
You seem science oriented. So I'll say have a look at this -
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/decoding-the-weather-machine