Thursday, June 19, 2008

The Rich Genius Society

Last month Justin sent me an article about Samir Patel, the “Dan Marino of spelling”, who never won the National Spelling Bee despite coming close on a number of occasions. Now Samir is 14, and he appears to be moderately interested in what life has to offer beyond reading the dictionary. This is a humdrum article, but what caught Justin’s eye, and mine, was this passage at the end.

The first few weeks of the spring semester, his government professor, Lou Bradizza, didn't know Samir was so young until he saw the boy walking out of class one day…If Samir were 18, he'd stand among the brightest in the school, Bradizza says, and the fact that he's 14 gives him "potential to be a real star."

"He told me he wanted to get into the [technical] field, but I'm hoping to change his mind. I think a really bright kid like that should be steered into the humanities. If you look around the country, you'll notice our planes are well maintained and fly and don't normally crash, our doctors are competent and we've made big strides in computer technology. But my view is when you have an extremely talented person, the last thing we need is one more computer programmer. The fact that I am thinking this way about him is an indication of how much promise I see in him."

Although it bothers me, I’ll choose to ignore the mildly racist overtones of “Professor” Bradizza thinking so highly of Samir that he might be able to succeed as something other than a computer programmer. What bothers me more is this ridiculous (and sadly, all-too-common) disregard for science.

We all think and say dumb things sometimes, but I can hardly imagine saying something more fucking stupid than the above quote. Has the good professor has ever stopped to wonder how the hell we were able to make planes that don’t crash, or why his “computer technology” improves in capability and accessibility every year? While this guy might be perfectly happy with his current ability to fly without dying and then stream porn on his laptop after landing, it’s assuredly not the right long-term view for the rest of us. America no longer has a natural resource advantage. We certainly don’t have a low-cost labor advantage. Our only potential advantage is technological innovation, and, as such, it needs to be pursued full force.

I say this without an ounce of self-propaganda. I work in finance, after all. I am useless. And I also have no idea if Samir Patel will be able to make a meaningful contribution to technological innovation. I’m unconvinced that being able to spell words nobody ever uses translates into “talented medical researcher”. But if Samir is indeed a talented medical researcher, but also a superb scholar of Matisse, suffice it to say we’re probably a little bit better off if he gets into medical research. And please don’t be offended if you did a 500-page thesis on Matisse. Even though you're not multiplying the GDP, I still think you’re a swell person.

Now, how do we actually pursue innovation “full force”? Well, I’m glad I asked myself that question. The ideal situation would be something like the space race of the 1960s, which used large federal investments to dramatically increase the science and engineering workforce, and ultimately contributed to major innovations in the subsequent decades. Unfortunately, nobody seems too interested anymore in using fluid dynamics to defeat commies and then indirectly boost our GDP. So I thought of something else, an elegant, low-cost solution to the American brain drain. I call it the “Rich Genius Society”.

The “Rich Genius Society” will consist of 500 of the world’s most talented scientists, research doctors, engineers, physicists, etc. It’s a misconception that people in those fields are just pure dorks who love textbooks and only need a little money to support their Dungeons and Dragons and LARP habits. They want a LOT of money to support those habits. That’s why this isn’t going to be the Genius Society. It’s going to be the Rich Genius Society. They’ll all be on 3-year contracts at a minimum guaranteed salary of $5 million per year, tax free. That’s right kids – tax free.

A member of the Rich Genius Society can pick any university, research lab or corporation in the country to be headquartered out of. Actually they can work out of their own basements if they want. If you’re international (as most of the society will be), we give you 10 green cards to bring over your family and loved ones. If no one loves you, you can sell those green cards on the black market to a non-terrorist, and make a killing.

The whole goal here is to create a lottery system, sort of like drug dealing. Only a select few people become wealthy as drug dealers, yet lots of people deal drugs. That’s in part due to lack of other viable job opportunities, but it’s also because of the visibility and massive cash generation of the select people at the top. My mission is to reconstruct science in the mold of drug dealing. What that means, then, is that we need to fire up the national propaganda machine to make these people stars as well. We’ll have a massive ad campaign showing Rich Geniuses with hot female and male models, swimming through a giant pool of $100 bills. We’ll get them access to the high life, exclusive parties, courtside seats, private jets, plastic surgery. Maybe they don’t want that. Maybe they want to orbit the Earth or have a one-on-one dinner with George Lucas. Frankly, I don’t know what these people want. Neither do you. But we’ll ask, and then make that happen. And then, more importantly, tell everyone we made that happen. Science can be something aspirational for materialistic people; we have to stop thinking of it as something for nut jobs who don’t value money, status or perks.

My plan is relatively cheap, I estimate this can be accomplished on a budget of about $5 billion a year, peanuts to the American government. Obviously I have high expectations of the 500 Rich Geniuses, but the real value is in the effect it has on future generations. In 15-20 years, we should really start seeing the impact, as more and more people enter the American scientific community, whether they’re born here or abroad. In 40 years, we will have asserted ourselves as the world leader in basic science, engineering, medicine and alternative energy. GDP will be up massively, we’ll be politically stronger, safer and richer.

This is gonna work. I only need like 200 billion dollars and 40 years to make it happen. But it’s gonna work, trust me.

17 comments:

madphoenix50 said...

On that budget it would be easier to kidnap and force them to work 16 hour days.

Hill. said...

drug dealing isn't rampant because of the minor promise of enormous wealth; it's because it's is an easy way to make fast money with relatively little investment. give me 15 minutes, 100 bucks, and a source and i can turn a drug profit with the best. the reason that's easy to do that is because illegal drugs are expensive-- every go-between reaps the rewards. you want science to make those great leaps and bounds? make organic chemistry illegal.

Hill. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hill. said...

also, what's up with the first part of the professor's quote? if the kid was 18 he'd be "teh smartist kid evar" but because he's only 14, he "shows some promise." shouldn't it be the other way around?

i f*$%ing love matisse.

Juka said...

This is a fantastic idea - worthy of the "genius" tag. The problem with kidnapping these folk is (1) identifying them and (2) forced labor does not lead to innovation. Lavish wealth and prestige does, so long as we make sure they don't get lazy. Also, the trickle-down effects are not captured if being good at science just gets you kidnapped.

As for drug dealing, wasn't it Gladwell or the Freakonomics guy or someone like that who wrote about the incentives to stay in a bad business? The vast majority of people in a drug organization have horrible lives. They make virtually nothing, but are shot at and arrested all the time. The reason they stay in it is because of the role model of the successful drug lord. If you had 15 minutes, 100 bucks, and a source, you'd just be shot dead tomorrow for infringing on another drug dealer's turf. That is not a good business model.

But you know what is a good business model? Science, that's what.

Hill. said...

^ tony stark would disagree with point number 2.

and on a serious note, i don't believe you actually think that all the drug running "turf" is already taken, do you? sure, the place where i live now is taken, but down the street a couple blocks? not yet...

it's not the successful drug lord. it's a way to make a quick buck and the reliability of business--addiction.

Anonymous said...

can email me the text of the deleted comment?

Juka said...

To be fair, I don't know that much about drug dealing, so maybe d. is right. My intuition tells me that street corners where you can conduct profitable business ARE all taken - why wouldn't the market be saturated? The reason there are such elaborate drug-dealing organizations is that there are only certain areas where it's profitable to set up shop, and suppliers are carefully guarded. To put it in business terms, most suppliers probably have exclusive licenses/deals with their distributors. I can't imagine that a distributor allows their supplier to supply their competitors.

I mean, sure, you could probably go make one sale of crack somewhere, and make some small margin, but that isn't the goal. You don't have the contacts to get wholesale rates, nor the desire to buy in such quantities. And, if you're underselling established dealers, you're going to take some heat when they find out some new kid is selling at a below-market rate.

The spot down the block might be free, but I don't think Johnny CrackDealer is going to study his contract, realize that he has no right to that corner, and welcome you into the 'hood.

Eric Ma said...

Science! We need to re-focus on the Rich Genius Society!

Also, the Freakonomics chapter someone referenced is called "Why Do Drug Dealers Still Live With Their Moms?" Interesting stuff if you're curious about the economics of drug dealing.

But Rich Genius Society. That's where my head is at.

Anonymous said...

i would want each and everyone of your scientists to have taken a philosophy or bioethics class ... that amount of 'transformational wealth' would only be corrupting.

heman said...

Isn't this what Google already does?

- Hemanshu

SC said...

This piece made me think that since the cold war we haven't had any major engineering innovations that are not IT oriented. I'm not saying the internet and all our telecom gadgetry is not a giant leap for mankind, I'm just saying that the planes of today vs the planes of 30 years ago, not all that different. And then there was the Concord's failed business dynamics.

I would refocus this rich genius society to the more equipment intensive fields of research such as aeronautics and ocean engineering vs. pure science or technology, and include a couple of PE guys to make sure we dont repeat the Concord and (possibly have an offchance opening for me!)

Nice work Eric!

totoro said...

I won't argue the details of the Society but the idea of trying to transform scientific research into a sexy and lucrative profession makes a lot of sense. Can we really make scientists like rock stars? If so, certainly a lot more people would want to get in on that.

As it is right now, research already does a decent job of selecting for smart, motivated, innovative people through the competitive nature of obtaining funding. However, the main problem is that the current system only hits the subset of such people that put a LOT more value on their interest in science than on material gains. There are undoubtedly a large number of people who would be able to provide great advances, but the investment of time and the opportunity cost to get them there is way too high, so they go elsewhere.

I think the fundamental issue with making science lucrative is that research does not fund itself. Unlike being a movie star, professional athlete, hedge fund manager, or drug dealer, there are not a lot (or a few very wealthy) consumers who will pay for your immediate output. Over a long period of time your discoveries may become something that they'd pay for but right now early research is mostly government funded, which means the money is politically influenced.

The Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigators are probably the closest thing to what you describe here (though obviously much less money). I think a real Rich Genius Society would probably have to be funded by a private agency to separate it from the politics that federal funding would involve.

Eric Ma said...

that's exactly it, i totally agree - only massive public funding (or, as you suggest, a supremely wealthy private foundation) could fund what i'm imagining, because private industry needs to see quick returns.

and i totally agree that what's holding my idea back is the political struggle involved. that's why i need to be president, and then we need to abolish congress, so i can become a complete dictator. it's all good though, i promise to abandon my dictatorship after i implement this plan.

Juka said...

If you make it as dictator-for-eternity, I have some other ideas as well.

Hill. said...

@justin: i agree with what you say. but man, johnny crackdealer didn't have a chance at scoring a noble profession. the minute his parents named him it was over. what kind of a name is johnny?

@amy: ethical behavior doesn't come from ethics classes

@totoro: way to take this topic by the horns and make it seem something more than implausible. seriously. nice analysis.

@eric: i can't wait for wine country.

Juka said...

The real reason I support this idea is that Eric has promised me a Rich Genius Society grant, without having to produce anything, as soon as he becomes dictator. Only temporary dictator, of course.