[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: ?!? A New and Separate Palaeontological Community



----------------------------------------
> From: wdm1949@hotmail.com
> To: dwdreisigmeyer@gmail.com
> Subject: RE: ?!? A New and Separate Palaeontological Community
> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 08:34:27 -0600
>
> First off David, I do thank you for taking the time to reply to my monologue. 
> It's something my own
> family would throw back at me and they are very successful business people 
> AND they think palaeontology is a worthless pursuit not worthy of heavy 
> financing. My family and I have of course, always been at odds.
>
> So this needs a careful reply.
>
> You are correct of course. This is indeed a preposterous suggestion of mine 
> to come up with a way to
> bring financial wealth into an historical science such as palaeontology. But 
> I'm going to sight other
> reasons why this is so and I don't find I'm too far off the mark by 
> suggesting such :
>
> 1. Its never been done before so it MUST FAIL by all accounts
> 2. If it was even remotely possible it would have been done by now
> 3. Neo-classical theory points to the assumption that this is a very bad idea 
> so lets not entertain any part
> of it
> 4. It is a very big unknown and therefore should never be attempted.
> 5. Little has changed in the way we've always done things so what's the point 
> in adapting to new situations
> anyways ??
> 6. I am very comfortable. Too bad about those other graduates still 
> desparately looking for
> resaerch positions but .. not my problem.
>
> My observation here is that what I'm reading is largely "Fear Factor" with 
> something so utterly different
> it should be shut away under lock and key and never have its merits examined.
>
> I am certainly not alone in having irrational fears over this concept. I do 
> lay awake nights with real sweat
> coming from my brow. This is brought about by the fact that I don't know the 
> future of this because I certainly don't know everything and am constantly 
> worried that I have left out something major. I have brought in other people 
> from outside disciplines that know a hell of a lot more about parts of this 
> idea than
> I will ever know. And I'm more secure in that knowledge.
>
> But you should not bring morality into this. This idea is completely amoral. 
> It has nothing to do with morality. In science, is a person's worth based 
> upon the number and quality of papers they produce ?? Is a person's worth 
> based upon expertise ?? If you can separate a persons worth from this .. you 
> can separate a person's worth from $$$$. This is a strawman arguement.
>
> What happens when people stop believing in a "ponzi scheme" ?? It collapses. 
> So long as people believe in its value it can and will continue. As I pointed 
> out .. Attitude is everything.
>
> You seem to be asking me for an ironclad gaurantee that this will work before 
> you can believe or support the idea. Since the real world doesn't recognise 
> this concept, I have to answer NO .. because everything about it is a risk.
>
> Goverments do play their role. I'm not advocating that they shouldn't. I'm 
> advocating adding another dimension to enhance funding to the science.
>
> As I said in my monologue, "profits" are a loose end that are part of the 
> FUNDING SITEs "NOT" the RESEARCH SITES. I make that distinction quite clearly.
>
> Ideally, once the infrastructure is completed .. whoever owns it [hopefully 
> one of us] should give it over
> by creating a $ billion SVP run exclusively by the SVP membership as a public 
> charity. Then it will have all
> been worth it.
>
> But .. I do understand the enormous risks here of the concept falling into 
> the hands of one individual or family with no real interest in this 
> historical science. I don't think that that should stop us from trying.
>
> We should avoid giving into irrational fears. We're better than that.
>
>
> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 07:47:21 -0400
> From: dwdreisigmeyer@gmail.com
> To: wdm1949@hotmail.com; turtlecroc@yahoo.com; dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: ?!? A New and Separate Palaeontological Community
> This, unfortunately, needs a reply since neoclassical economics is a myth. 
> But people typically don't understand the underlying mathematical axioms that 
> allow the structure to be built:
> 1) People are rational - they always make the 'best' decision
> 2) People know everything about everything
> 3) People can predict the future with utter clarity
> At face value these are preposterous beliefs. As an example of how these 
> work, you can go to the T-mobile website and order all of the phones there 
> from the one that you would least like, to the one that you would most like. 
> Not only that, you wouldn't even need to visit the website since you already 
> know every detail about every cell phone ever made - as well as every detail 
> about every cell phone that is going to be made. And, you can instantaneously 
> decide which is the best phone for you.
> We can make additional statements about neoclassical economics:
> 1) Morality starts and ends with money
> 2) You are worth as a human only what you are worth financially
> Government is not a "legalized Ponzi scheme" but rather is one of the key 
> inventions of civilizations. Looking at Sumeria, prior to bureaucracy no one 
> was able to hold together more than one city when a ruler died. Everything 
> was based on a forceful personality and when that personality died so did 
> everything else because there was no mechanism for continuity between 
> generations. Bureaucracy changed that by providing a structure that could be 
> passed between a ruler and (typically) their son.
> But let us say that our current government is a Ponzi scheme. The simple 
> answer to this is: "That's the point." We invest in the future as a nation 
> (e.g., public schools) and we provide insurance as a nation (e.g., Social 
> Security).
> As for the Federal Reserve, there is no need to have anything backing it. The 
> reason our money has value is because you need to pay taxes and the taxing 
> agent only accepts US dollars. Also, the US has a sovereign currency so it 
> can never "run out" of money because it can simply print more. There is the 
> risk of inflation by overprinting money but this can be mitigated by 
> increasing or decreasing taxes and/or the rate of new money creation. It is 
> certainly a better way than using a gold standard. This latter point is 
> particularly relevant due to the "financialization" of everything from 
> copper, to aluminum, to grain. Anyone familiar with the Gould gold-cornering 
> scandal will be aware of this.
> Now onto the details of the proposal. Let's look at the "Food Industry". 
> First, there would be no food industry except for infrastructure: roads, 
> power grid, etc. And these are/were provided by government. We were born 
> embedded in a society that previously decided to invest to build these social 
> structures. All of the items that are hidden from the end consumer at the 
> local franchise carry externalities whos' benefit accrues to the individual 
> producer but whos' true costs are socialized, e.g., antibiotics in drinking 
> water, dangers of homogenized food sources, etc.
> Ask yourself: would there be an auto industry or a movie industry without 
> socialized roads. Most of the research in thermodynamics (required for an 
> auto engine) was conducted for the benefit of national armies or done by 
> independently wealthy aristocrats. If you were not independently wealthy you 
> most likely needed to find an aristocrat to "condescend" to your position and 
> support you. The social structure was different then, were the wealthy had a 
> self-imposed requirement to do such condescension. That is not the case 
> currently nor is it ever mentioned in the current proposal. Rather, 
> everything is about financializing paleontology. And Nicephore Niepce was 
> born into an independently weathy family and served in the French army.
> And that's the real rub: basic scientific research is very risky and has 
> historically been carried out by government. Man on the moon - government. 
> Super glue - government. Microwave oven - quantum mechanics = government. 
> Ford didn't carry out basic research.
> There is no reason to expect anything different from this proposal. Why use 
> any money for research? That only cuts into the profit of the owner and 
> profit is the only motivation they would have under this scheme. There would 
> be the additional motivations to minimize the costs and socialize as many as 
> possible. Strip mine a dig site to extract only the specimens that will make 
> the most profit, don't worry about collecting any information that won't make 
> a profit, leave a pool of toxic waste behind after this mining expedition. 
> Even the author realizes this:
> "Even in private hand we would seek laws and controls to safeguard all 
> research institutions and their collections."
> The argument presented here was rather difficult to follow and somewhat 
> disjoint. But it is typical of all calls to "privatize everything". It begins 
> with "self evident facts" that are false and uses these to create an argument 
> that, while seeming reasonable, has no real reflection of the actual world. 
> Then throw in some irrelevant examples to "prove" the case. If shown 
> empirical evidence that contradicts the argument ignore it. That's one thing 
> that economics is very good at. Ignore anything in the real world that 
> contradicts your a priori determined outcome; if the real world doesn't 
> conform to your theory, then reality must be wrong.
>
> On 3/23/14, 10:10 AM, dale mcinnes wrote:
> Uh .. no.
> The gist here is whether [mass production/ distribution/ differentiation/ 
> diversification]
> as derived from industry could be applicable to a science such as 
> palaeontology.
> I say this because the auto, motion picture and restaurant industries are not 
> "pyramid schemes".
> They absolutely work for the benefit of mankind [pollution and health 
> concerns notwithstanding].
> Palaeontology IS CURRENTLY deriving its funding from a "legalized ponzi 
> scheme" which gov't
> certainly is [which is why palaeontology is currently in bad shape, 
> funding-wise].
> The U.S. Federal Reserve is still printing out money with little to back it. 
> So the question is
> not which is more corrupt [government or industry] but which, corrupt or not, 
> would bring us the
> better deal.
> Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:41:32 -0700
> From: turtlecroc@yahoo.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: ?!? A New and Separate Palaeontological Community
> Er, so you're suggesting we turn vertebrate paleontology into some
> sort of pyramid scheme..? (sorry, I find it hard to read lengthy
> emails punctuated entirely with " .. ")
> ------------------------------
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 12:46 PM CDT dale mcinnes wrote:
> It's baaaaaaaaaaaaccckkkk !!!
> Hey DMLers .. [ long .. longer .. longest]
> I did promise to return to this thread didn't I ..
> Sorry for the imposition but .. it's necessary [I find ..]
> I would like us to re-review the seed of an idea ..that I believe .. would 
> take us squarely into a new type of 21st C mode of operation here in 
> palaeontology.
> So I'm going to attempt to bury this seed a little deeper in the hopes that 
> something .. a little shoot .. will sprout this time around .. in our 
> subconscious. I could be wrong .. but bare with me .. this goes a little 
> deeper than the last couple of threads.I'm about to present a monologue on a 
> topic that has absolutely nothingwhatsoever to do with dinosaur palaeontology 
> .. BUT .. has the potential to turn this entire science completely on its 
> head.
> You might just consider this a head's up .. if nothing more.
> Now .. I know .. that in past threads .. this has elicited quite an emotional 
> response.I am totally at fault with that. So .. at the extreme risk of 
> eliciting a no holds barred flame fest .. again .. I am going to re-open this 
> somewhat touchy subject.I need to nail this to the ground for 
> everybody.Probably not a good way to start the New Year off .. but start it I 
> will.
> Once again .. this has to do with opening THE MOST important window we can 
> open in this science .. if we have the strength of courage to do so. I'm of 
> course .. talking about that bugaboo .. FUNDING !!!
> I find it somewhat discouraging .. even disheartening .. at what we're NOT 
> doing with our science and it occurred to me that perhaps .. a better way of 
> launching this .. in the near future .. is to break away completely from 
> gov't palaeontology and commence designing and ultimately building a radical 
> and completely new and quite separate palaeontological community.This would 
> not just involve dinosaur palaeontology but all fields pertaining to the 
> science while .. simultaneously .. discarding a lot of our 160 years of 
> accumulated baggage.
> But first .. it is more important at this juncture to FULLY UNDERSTAND why 
> this field is so impoverished. If we don't recognize this as a problem .. 
> then we're never going to find a solution to our financial woes.
> So .. we 1st have to recognize .. we have a problem.
> No one .. ever was so misquided .. as to enter this field for the $$$$. 
> That's a given. We're in this field because of our love of evolutionary 
> history .. the science .. the art.I say $$$$ is a bugaboo because we have an 
> aversion to it. We don't like to discuss it. We don'tfeel it has anything 
> whatsoever to do with palaeontology or our reasons for entering the 
> science.It's almost as if we feel that because some of us are not 
> auto-mechanically inclined .. we shouldn't discuss the need for field 
> vehicles despite the fact that they've revolutionized our ability to do field 
> work.
> So .. I need to make what may sound to most of you as treasonous [once again] 
> .. the acsertion that we need to design .. build .. and operate our future 
> institutions on a "FOR PROFIT" basis as our PRIME MOTIVE [if it does not 
> interfere with our projection of public science based education]. And it 
> shouldn't. Most will consider this contradictory. I will attempt to show that 
> there is absolutely no such contradiction .. that it is only percieved as a 
> contradiction .. that any contradiction is pure myth.
> How do we do that ??
> Because this is in plain text .. I will forego any pretty pictures/ graphs. I 
> implore you to use your imagination.I want you to imagine a multi-layered 
> pyramid with a very simplistic stratigraphic sequence.
> Also .. imagine that there are only 2 types of individuals in this field [the 
> Diggers and the dental Pickers]. The Diggers are the one's in search of a 
> CAUSE but are still plowing through the SYMPTOMS to get to it. The Pickers 
> have already located their CAUSE and are now dissecting it in the field. 
> You'll understand once we get into this.
> One other thing.
> I want you to understand the difference between a SYMPTOM and a CAUSE .. 
> because when it comes to FUNDING .. I feel .. many really don't .. and this 
> can ultimately become very misleading.
> Now .. I do take an enormous liberty here by asking a simple question of all 
> of you and provide my own answeras if speaking for everybody. We have to 
> start somewhere .. so .. bare with me ..
> Q : What exactly is it that we are trying to achieve in this field ??
> A : HD [Hi-Definition] = HR [Hi-Resolution] of the fossil record.
> So lets place RESOLUTION at the top of the pyramid. That's our ultimate goal. 
> It's a little like asking why .. instead of 50-60 partial T.rex specimens .. 
> we don't have 5-600 partial specimens to play with. More to the point .. what 
> would it take to increase the world's fossil collections some 10-fold in as 
> little as 10 years ?? It's an oversimplification ..I know .. but .. it sets 
> the tone for the next question.
> Q : Why don't we have this RESOLUTION ??
> If we want to find any answer .. we have to "dig" for it and hope there's 
> another layer under and supporting that question. We're still "Diggers" here. 
> So lets dig down to that next layer for that answer.
> A : We don't possess the RESOURCES to achieve this level of RESOLUTION ..
> So lets place RESOURCES as the 2nd layer of that pyramid .. under the term 
> RESOLUTION. And further .. what do we mean by RESOURCES ?? In order to attain 
> this magnitude of RESOURCES .. we would need to construct
> institutions at the rate of one per week over the next 10 years .. minimum. 
> We would also have to fully equip them. We would also have to set aside some 
> 40 years worth of budgets to run them. Sound easy so far ?? Now comes the 
> tough part. We would also have to fully staff them with trained personel. 
> There are none .. at least not that many. So pocket-universities/ colleges 
> would have to be constructed as teaching fascilities devoted to 
> multi-palaeontological fields within each array of institutes.
> Now .. before anybody believes I've gone off the deep end with this .. I'll 
> fully admit that we are looking at well in excess of$ billions .. easily. 
> This does not even remotely bother me .. as I will explain later. It does 
> however .. indicate why no one ever thinks about this .. not even for 5 
> minutes. I do. I think about this 24/7 .. probably because I recognize its 
> feasibility.
> I am not frightened by large numbers.
> Now this begs the question.
> Q : Why don't we have those RESOURCES ??
> Well .. we're still "Diggers". Lets see if there's another layer to this 
> pyramid. So dig for that answer. It won't come any other way.
> A : We lack $$$$ [MONEY] to purchase those RESOURCES.
> So what have we learned that we didn't already know ?? What we actually 
> learned is really quite subtle. We've learned that the lack of RESOLUTION in 
> the fossil record is a SYMPTOM of a lack of RESOURCES which in itself is 
> SYMPTOMATIC of a lack of $$$$. The trick here is to NOT concentrate efforts 
> on SYMPTOMS. That is a waste of time. SYMPTOMS almost always disappear when 
> the root CAUSE of a problem is located and understood. It is at this juncture 
> that I hear the clatter of so many shovels being thrown to the ground. It's 
> back to our existing programs. When opening a new vista [window] on 
> palaeontology .. most workers find themselves somewhat stranded and usually 
> alone. Its quite natural. If it does hold promise .. great .. everyone will 
> be part of it. If it doesn't .. then only one of us has blown a career.
> It is what it is.
> So now .. we cross a great threshold.
> For palaeontologists .. the $$$$ layer is the "ironstone" layer. Shovels 
> bend. Picks bounce off.Chisels break. Field workers break down and cry in 
> frustration sending them back to their former institutions. It has always 
> been for all of us .. an intense headache. We need to think through this .. 
> explosives .. brute force ..
> Now supposing .. just supposing .. that this layer was never really a CAUSE 
> for concern .. but a SYMPTOM instead. That would be crossing quite a 
> threshold .. wouldn't it ?? Imagine never having to worry unjustly about it 
> .. ever!! We need to find that next layer. Our Diggers are back. Is there 
> really anything more crucial than $$$$ ??
> Did we leave something out of the equation more valuable than MONEY ?? I 
> think we did.
> And this is our problem.
> Q : Why don't we possess a $ multi-billion Fund ??
> A : As incredible as this sounds .. our field has existed for over 150 years 
> without an .. INFRASTRUCTURE !!!
> This is the 4th layer to our pyramid.
> Definition of an INFRASTRUCTURE :
> A financial INFRASTRUCTURE is a mechanism tuned to an industry [or science] 
> that is designed for the sole purpose of creating internal revenue for that 
> industry. Each INFRASTRUCTURE is totally unique to each industry and allows 
> that industry a fair leeway of independant operation from gov't. Few $ 
> multi-billion industries can operate without one. It is at the very core of 
> their structure which allows them to make prodigious amounts of $$$$. It's 
> the core difference between $ multi-million businesses and those who achieve 
> in the $ billions.
> So .. for the 1st time in our history .. we now realise that the lack of 
> MONETARY Funding in our field turns out to be a SYMPTOM of a far more serious 
> .. deeper rooted problem.
> We have never possessed and continue to this day to operate without an 
> INFRASTRUCTURE.
> O.K. So what are the examples ?? How does the lack of an INFRASTRUCTURE 
> possibly affect us ??
> Lets take for example 3 completely non-related leading industries.
> 1. Automobile Industry
> 2. Motion Picture Industry
> 3. Food Industry
> I will now attempt to convince you of the need to design and construct 
> palaeontological institutes based exclusively or near exclusively on the "FOR 
> PROFIT" and "PROFIT" alone motive. NOT research .. NOT field collections .. 
> NOT labs .. NOT anything that would be construed as very basic to our 
> science. You'll see how this not only does NOT INTERFERE with research 
> programs but .. on the contrary .. actually ENHANCES research programs.
> For this .. we're going to require real world examples.
> You'll discover .. as I have .. that we are all on the wrong side of the 
> fence.
> It's about time we crossed over.
> 1. The Automotive Industry
> Before Henry Ford walked into the industry .. it was sailing along nicely for 
> .. I believe .. some 17 years. Auto industries in those heady times were 
> being assembled at the rate of 50 per year. Over 500 auto industries once 
> existed in America. At the time .. no one thought anything of it. It was pure 
> capitalism. Some actually made a living from it. Most required part-time jobs 
> to see them through. Not unlike todays museum programs .. these autmotive 
> programs were 2-man .. 3-man programs existing out of their respective 
> garages [auto institutes] built as extensions to their homes. These programs 
> all possessed their very own and separate if meagre budgets. The more massive 
> programs were probably on ranches/ farms where entire barns may have been set 
> aside for 5-10 man programs consisting of farmers and ranchers.
> The people in these particular programs saw the automotive industry as an 
> artistic/ mechanized science research concept .. not unlike present day 
> palaeontology. The very idea of being involved in this endeavour strictly for 
> profit .. was probably quite laughable.
> It was the science. It was the art that absobed them. They also had a 
> tendency to build one of a kind [not unlike travelling museum exhibits 
> today]. Again .. no one thought anything of it. They were certainly not going 
> to have anything but a minimal impact on the world around them.
> And herein lay the problem.
> As the industry matured .. automobiles became complicated and more expensive 
> to build. The customer base was shrinking precipitously to those wealthier 
> individuals who could afford to pay more. Gov't subsidies and takeover wasn't 
> very far off. From our perspective today .. we would conclude that the 1st 
> experimental 17 years of the auto industry .. were impoverished years.
> Enter Henry Ford.
> With the backing of wealthy business people .. the Ford Motor Co. became a 
> reality. It would continue to produce 1-of-a-kind automobiles.
> The brilliance of Henry Ford was that he recognised that the automotive 
> industry was still without an INFRASTRUCTURE .. including his own company. 
> Now .. he did introduce "mass production".. yes .. but it wouldn't have 
> worked however .. without an INFRASTRUCTURE.
> There is nothing really "new" under the sun. What Ford did was implement the 
> tools like [mass production/ mass distribution/ mass differentiation (not so 
> much) / mass diversification] and merely introduce them to the auto industry.
> These tools had already been applied to many industries over millenia. It's 
> just that nobody ever thought that they could be successfully applied to this 
> type of industry. If it could be applied to this type of industry .. then it 
> could probably be applied to any industry [or science].
> In the auto industry .. the introduction of an INFRASTRUCTURE .. was through 
> "mass distribution". What I mean by this .. is that Ford "split" the concept 
> of car manufacturing. He began assembling "dealerships". The dealerships 
> served as the financial workhorse for his fledgling company. They represented 
> the showrooms. They showcased the end result of all the research and 
> manufacturing.
> This is what brought in the $$$$.
> This is what defined the INFRASTRUCTURE for the auto industry.
> IT IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO UNDERSTAND THIS !!!
> All research and manufacturing was designed for efficiency .. not profit.
> The dealerships on the other hand .. were. They were all show .. all glamour 
> .. all sales and marketing. The dealerships became the INFRASTRUCTURE 
> completely separated from the actual ongoing research. Ford started off with 
> a few $ million. Within 5 years .. the company had accumulated 7,000 
> dealerships and pulled .. very quickly .. into the fledgling industry .. 
> todays' equivalent of $ 100 billion.
> THIS IS THE KEY !!!
> Two separate entities under control of a single concept with little overlap 
> between them.
> If a dealership goes under .. it doesn't affect the industry as a whole.
> Nobody cares.
> 2. Motion Picture Industry
> Here again .. same concept .. different venue. The INFRASTRUCTURE is part of 
> a split concept. The studios .. making of a film .. research carried out .. 
> professional field staffT for on location shooting .. computer buffs .. this 
> is the Art and Science of the industry.
> The 1,000s of theatres form the distribution centres [dealerships or 
> showrooms] of the film industry. It is these centres that actually bring in 
> the $$$$. They are separate from the rest. If a theatre goes "belly-up" .. it 
> doesn't affect the industry because a theatre belongs to the marketing and 
> sales outlet.
> Nobody cares.
> 3. Food Industry
> Here again .. the differences are only to be found in the types of venue. 
> Burger King has 1,000s of outlets. These outlets serve as their 
> INFRASTRUCTURE. The slaughtering plants .. packaging .. raising of animal 
> products .. all this .. is never displayed to the public. Only the final 
> product which is bought at the outlet is where the real $$$$ is exchanged.
> If an "independent" outlet goes under .. there is always another to take its 
> place.
> Nobody cares.
> So .. how do we create an INFRASTRUCTURE for palaeontology ?? For that matter 
> .. what exactly would suffice for an INFRASTRUCTURE in our science in the 1st 
> place ?? In our field .. an INFRASTRUCTURE is what pulls in the customers .. 
> the exhibits !! Because we can already recognise precisely what our 
> infrastructure is composed of .. we now have the insight needed to "split" 
> the field into 2 separate entities. We need to concentrate on developing 
> exhibit institutes whose only purpose is to [highlight/ showroom] the 
> research findings of our field. This in turn provides the $$$$ for the true 
> research institutes that are designed NOT for profit but .. for scientific 
> efficiency in the areas of [specimen storage/ prep labs/ collections/ 
> research] .. just never for sales .. marketing .. $$$$.
> The research institutes have absolutely nothing to do with business.The 
> [P.R.I.s] Palaeontological Research Institutes themselves would require a 
> radical new re-design. It's already worked out. That will be for a future 
> thread entirely.
> So .. each exhibit institute would act like a (P.R.F.S.) .. Palaeontologibal 
> Research Funding Site.
> AND THIS IS IMPORTANT !!!
> It is the "SITE" that brings in the revenue .. not simply what's standing on 
> it. It doesn't matter what's actually standing on each site .. only that it 
> brings revenue into the science. I say "exhibit institutes" because it is 
> what we are more familiar with and is directly related to our science.
> The 2nd reason is that we should be wide open to any and all possible ways to 
> milk as much funding from these sites as we can possibly imagine. These are 
> NOT RESEARCH SITES but FUNDING SITES for the science.
> I CANNOT OVEREMPHASIZE THIS !!!
> Once our 1st exhibit institute is constructed .. we are away. The goal here 
> .. then .. would be to enhance the "funding rate of each site" by 
> introduction of "mass differentiation" (to triple the funding rate) while at 
> the same time honing the tool of mass distribution with extreme predjudice 
> for these institutes.
> "Mass Diversification" is a different matter which would seek to increase the 
> "funding rate" another 10-fold on each established funding site. This is a 
> whole different kettle-of-fish and would require the operation of a 
> "Superstructure" with the underpinnings of a successful "Infrastructure" to 
> launch it. Not for this thread. So don't even ask. Just ignore it for now.
> So .. to continue with the original thread ..If some 200 exhibit institutes 
> were constructed throughout North America and 13 went "Chapter 11" .. would 
> we care ?? That is the concern of the business end only. Exhibit institutes 
> go up .. exhibit institutes come down. Nature of the beast. No gov't net 
> under us .. just our neural net. It would be work and a lot of panic .. but 
> .. would gather us a large factor of independence.
> I say no more.
> AAAAAAHH .. but all this begs a bigger question .. doesn't it ??
> What good is an INFRASTRUCTURE .. if we don't actually control it completely 
> ??
> Q : Why don't we have an INFRASTRUCTURE in place ??
> A : Lack of OWNERSHIP
> OWNERSHIP serves as the 5th layer of our pyramid. In order to accomplish this 
> .. we would have to break some rather strong taboos .. and this won't be 
> easy. Public ownership is one thing. Private .. quite another matter. Even in 
> private hands .. we would seek laws and controls to safeguard all research 
> institutes and their collections. The exhibit institutes .. another matter 
> completely. While scientific integrity is still extremely important within 
> the confines of an exhibit institute .. the marketing and sales is a looser 
> end.
> It may well be the nature of the beast .. but ..
> AND THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ..
> it would be OUR BEAST !!!
> If the lack of an INFRASTRUCTURE is symptomatic of a lack of OWNERSHIP .. 
> then how exactly do we get around to owning 1 or more institutes ?? For that 
> matter .. what does it mean to .. OWN an institute ??
> BRACE FOR IMPACT !!!
> The answer is to ** FRANCHISE THE SCIENCE **.
> Sentimental fluff aside .. it's the ONLY WAY to go BIG !!! Take FULL 
> advantage and ADAPT to these new concepts. Why not be the 1st out of the gate 
> .. for once .. rather than constantly bringing up the rear ?? Those in the 
> rear almost always have to split $$$$ crumbs and we've been in the rear now 
> .. for nearly 2 centuries. A franchise isn't just building one institute 
> after another. It is NOT that simplified. It requires breaking long 
> established taboos. For instance [this is a real oversimplification of the 
> process but .. it'll serve the purpose that I'm about to expound upon].
> We'll take an imaginary exhibit-institute that will cost .. say .. $ 10 
> million to build.
> Using simple math .. how much $$$$ would the gov't have to raise .. if the 
> taxpayer wanted to have 10 more built in a particular Eastern State ?? This 
> will seem redundant but .. nevertheless .. just follow me on this one.
> A : It's the cost of the 1st institute [$ 10 million] X the number [10] to be 
> built = $ 100 million.
> Q : Suppose the U.S. gov't wanted to build 100 of these institutes throughout 
> the nation
> A : Again .. it's the cost of the 1st institute [$ 10 million] X the number 
> [100] to be built = $ 1 billion
> would have to be raised.
> NO PALAEONTOLOGICAL FRANCHISE would or could ever work this way.
> In fact .. NO FRANCHISE .. works this way.
> If .. in our future franchise .. [10] institutes were to be constructed .. 
> how much would we .. in palaeontology .. have to raise ??
> A : It's the costs of the 1st institute [$ 10 million] "divided" by the 
> number [10] to be built =
> $ 1 million. per institute would have to be raised to build all 10 of them 
> [it's quite counter-intuitve
> for a very basic reason].
> Q : And what if we choose to construct 100 institutes ??
> A : Costs inherent in the 1st institute [$ 10 million] "divided" by the 
> number [100] to be built = $ 100,000.
> per institute would have to be raised in order to build at least 100 of them.
> The point is this ..
> It is not a question of $$$$.
> It is a question of MANAGEMENT of an INFRASTRUCTURE.
> In this science .. it's not that we have poor management of funds .. but 
> rather .. zero management. We never had it at any time in our history because 
> the science itself was never at any time under our complete control. State 
> and Federal gov'ts. design institutes as 1-of-a-kind. So .. they have to 
> raise $ 10 million for each type.
> FRANCHISES on the other hand design a single "FLAGSHIP" institute designed 
> exclusively to be MASS-PRODUCED/ MASS-DISTRIBUTED .. thus never raising more 
> $$$$ than necessary to build just the 1st one. All the other collective 
> institutes are absolutely FREE .. ZERO costs to us .. provided .. we do our 
> homework .. by making the "FLAGSHIP" as profitable as possible .. since it's 
> the one that will ultimately be mass produced. It's strictly a MANAGEMENT 
> decision on how much we want each institute to cost us. The smaller the 
> number [of institutes] we construct .. the higher their initial costs to us.
> So .. after the 1st one .. who pays for all the others ??
> Well .. we sure as hell don't.
> If we do our homework efficiently enough .. the "FLAGSHIP" should pull in 
> enough customers [voluntary taxpayers] to pay for a 2nd one over time. Two 
> then pays for 4 .. Four for 8 .. Eight for 16.
> You get the drift ..
> The total number of institutes can not exceed our total base customer support 
> in any one demographic area. What determines the holding capacity of each 
> institute in each pop. centre is .. DESIGN EFFICIENCY. This takes a lot of 
> skill to work out. Does it take a pop. centre of 5 million or 1 million 
> customers to profitably support 1 institute ?? It took me years to get it to 
> the dynamics of a 1 million base centre [on paper]. It also required the 
> introduction of an extraordinary idea to be coupled with this concept. I 
> designed it in 1979 but never completely realised its full potential until 
> just very recently.
> Further .. it is our customers .. and our customers alone .. that always 
> raise the capital. We simply MANAGE it .. spending it where needed.
> Discipline would certainly be required here. What kind of discipline ?? The 
> discipline NOT TO INTERFERE with the $$$$ brought into the exhibit 
> institutes. This $$$$ should be spent primarily on an aggressive expansion of 
> the [P.R.F.S.s]. As these expand across North America .. the FUNDING for 
> palaeontology RISES EXPONENTIALLY. Sure .. we will find it difficult to wait 
> 4-5 years .. but we've already blown the past 150 .. so what's 4 or 5 ??
> Again .. as the funding of the exhibit institutes increase as a whole .. one 
> could always siphon off .. say .. 10 % to the research component as well. But 
> maintenance and operations costs to cover the exhibit institutes MUST BE the 
> 1st priority. The 2nd priority is expansion [differentiation and 
> distribution] with 10% going to research.
> Funding to research is gradually ENHANCED.
> Basically .. we're talking about setting up an old fashion FISSION REACTION. 
> Welcome to the Atomic Age of 21st C Palaeontological Financing.
> Now .. why should this work ??
> Our current funding into palaeontology is from the U.S. gov't and gov't of 
> Canada. What we seem to have lost track of .. is a group that makes 5 times 
> what the U.S. gov't makes. In fact .. 1/5 of what this group makes .. 
> completely underwrites the entire U.S. gov't. They're called the "American 
> Taxpayer".
> We have an aversion to asking them to "voluntarily" underwrite us ?!? Maybe 
> we're on the wrong side .. asking all the wrong people ?!?
> More than likely .. we have also never really understood the real costs .. to 
> us .. inherent in setting up institutes.
> O.K. ..
> This is going to be really touchy .. very delicate to handle .. and 
> unfortunately somewhat personal. I wish it didn't have to be but .. I know 
> its probably going to come across that way. I really don't know how else to 
> handle this .. so .. here goes.
> Apologises to everyone concerned in advance.
> I call this "BUNKERING" or the "BUNKER MENTALITY"
> When the ancient Egyptians designed their sarcophagus' .. they built 
> underground burial chambers to hold them. Think of these burial chambers as 
> research programs and the saurcophagus' as the itinerant collections.
> I'm using an analogy here.
> Over top all of this .. was built a 10 million ton stone pyramid. Think of 
> the pyramid as a political BUNKER [institute building] designed to stand the 
> test of time .. representing the gov't that built it .. a costly undertaking 
> .. an ediface to political ego.
> While the ancient Egyptians gave up "bunkering" .. the museum world did not. 
> The buildings have become as priceless as what they encompass. This "bunker 
> mentality" is precisely what stands in our way of low maintenance .. low 
> construction costs .. making this whole thing somewhat unfeasible. The way 
> museums are constructed has been established nearly unchanged for well over 2 
> centuries.
> Today .. if one were to duplicate the construction of the Tyrrell museum in 
> Alberta .. I can't for the life of me imagine doing it for less than $ 100 
> million. That is a $ 100 million institute covering some 120,000 sq.ft.
> Where am I going with this ??
> Some might think .. for what I'm about to say that .. I'm about to purchase a 
> 1-way ticket straight to Hell ..
> I have been there before. However .. since I've already bought my ticket ..
> I have been watching with some interest .. over the past 2 years .. of a 
> group in Northern Alberta .. that put together some $25 million and even got 
> the gov't to top it up with another $ 10 million. What this group has just 
> accomplished is the construction of a $ 35 million .. 40,000 sq.ft. 
> institute. Based loosely on this .. their construction costs work out to 
> approximately $ 875.oo per sq.ft. Their institute .. I believe .. stands over 
> 30' in height .. judging from what I can see of their artistic renditions. 
> The RTMP has a similar height .. which is standard for the construction 
> industry. This is .. however .. another bunkerized museum. The people 
> involved had worked very long and hard to accomplish this feat.
> Kudos to them.
> But the world is about to change .. at least for palaeontological funding.
> Hopefully .. their type institute was the last of an old breed .. an old way 
> of doing things.
> Today .. sitting down with architects and a construction company .. we 
> realised that we could probably get the construction costs down to $ 15.oo 
> sq.ft. by simply [counterintuitively] going big .. very big. It would be 
> possible to build a 1 million sq.ft. institute .. not for $ 15 million .. but 
> for as little as 1/5 of that amount .. IF .. it were further enhanced as an 
> "array".
> I'll explain this in a later thread.
> For $ 35 million .. it would have been possible to commence construction of 
> 12 [1 million sq.ft.] institutes across North America .. and these institutes 
> would today be serving as the building blocks of our very 1st 
> palaeontological INFRASTRUCTURE.
> Such continued missed oportunities.
> Again .. my apologises for being so blunt.
> It is what it is.
> Haven't gone into any detail as yet. That'll be another thread if we can 
> launch one of these. $3 million is still a shit pile of $$$$ to raise from a 
> standing position .. even for a 1 million sq.ft. institute standing nearly 
> 150' in height. In sheer size .. this partially represents an institute some 
> 60 times the size of the new Northern Alberta institute .. 20 times the size 
> of the RTMP .. and at a tiny .. tiny fraction of their costs.
> To be fair .. this Alberta group had completely opposite goals to what I'm 
> proposing .. and they still accomplished them. I have little doubt of their 
> future success in this endeavour. This tells me at the very least that .. 
> there is $$$$ out there .. lots of it.
> Finally .. all we've been doing is Digging through SYMPTOMS. We need to get 
> to the real cause of our impoverishment.
> Q : Why don't we have any OWNERSHIP of such institutes today ??
> A : ATTITUDE .. the 6th and final layer of our pyramid.
> An ATTITUDE towards funding change means nothing less than taking complete 
> responsibility for the funding of our science. They say ATTITUDE is 
> absolutely free and one of the hardest things of all to acquire. I've been 
> through the mud to know how true that is. Time to throw down the shovel. We 
> have no further need to Dig. As Pickers .. we now have our quarry. We have 
> travelled down this pyramid only to discover the real reason for our 
> science's funding impoverishment.
> This is only the starting point.
> Now .. we have to climb back up and eliminate the SYMPTOMS as we go.
> That is for a much later thread AND it's where all the details are.
> To summerise : RESOLUTION
> RESOURCES
> MONEY [$$$$]
> INFRASTRUCTURE
> OWNERSHIP
> ATTITUDE
> I won't be back on the computer for a couple days. Got too much to do. So 
> take your time if you want to respond. I'm always looking for any new twist 
> or new perspectives .. even at this late date. There's always time for 
> retrospection. I'll try and answer what I can. No flaming labels please. If 
> you feel you must .. "imperial-capitalist-running-pig-dog" is fine.
> I leave you with this :
> "If we don't find the courage and initiative within ourselves to do this .. 
> someone else .. outside palaeontology .. inevitably .. will do it for us .. 
> and ..CONTROL ALL OUR POTENTIAL FUTURE FUNDING".
> So .. am I crazy ??
> Was Ford crazy when he introduced a new way of independent funding to the 
> auto industry ??
> Think deeply upon this.
> Thanks for bearing with me.
> dale
>
> --
> League Cup Champions!
> MNC 3 - 1 SUN