Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ScagWhistle t1_isv0pvf wrote

Reply to comment by Bewaretheicespiders in Phantom Forests: Why Ambitious Tree Planting Projects Are Failing by filosoful

But that would require the scientists to be in charge of the government... which is a brilliant idea.

87

Bewaretheicespiders t1_isv7mff wrote

No no no. Have the government pay the private enterprise for results. Dont pay for planting a tree, pay for a tree actually growing there. And dont give 1 contract, give 2-3 competing contract.

Its the same issue for roads, they pay to pave a road and it barely last because they pay for the road to be paved, and not for the road to last.

40

Prince_Ire t1_isvemuz wrote

Turns out, paying for the lowest bidder doesn't necessarily mean you get quality results.

27

hatchway t1_isw14n0 wrote

In project management we have a principle that you can generally only prioritize one out of speed, quality, or budget. A good, experienced project team can get you two of them, while a miracle can get you all three.

7

[deleted] t1_iswsvd9 wrote

[removed]

3

hatchway t1_isyo60y wrote

Correct! I figure I can accelerate one without risking the others. Accelerating two strongly risks the third.

I'm fairly handy with tools, materials, and software so DIY is my version of "cheap and quality". Still can't be too slow, though, or it risks household tension from too many unfinished tasks (lol)

1

[deleted] t1_isyuzs3 wrote

[removed]

2

hatchway t1_isz2obr wrote

Good rule of thumb. I buy nicer stuff when I can, because a nice pair of pliers or garden trowel (for example) will likely outlive me, while a cheap one will need to be replaced every 2-5 years.

1

Bomamanylor t1_isxamra wrote

Procurement attorney here. This is so incredibly true that the government has to actively encourage contracting officers not to issue LPTA (lowest price technically acceptable) solicitations. It was a whole initiative a few years ago.

These contracts can work, and better than running it in-house (using gov’t employees), but you really have to write your contracts carefully.

2

Firebrand-Xana t1_isxukqe wrote

Why would the government want results? All it wants is a problem people are willing to spend cash on. Then it waits for its failed project to fail, and asks for cash again.

−2

Adam_is_Nutz t1_isvqp88 wrote

As a scientist, trust me, you don't want that

19

PO0tyTng t1_isw2c8r wrote

Scientists should absolutely dictate policy. Science is the culmination of trial and error.

You sir, need to reconsider your viewpoint. I say this as a scientist.

−5

Glass_Front t1_isw9kjy wrote

There's a difference between scientists and science dictating policy, and scientists being in control of the government. As much as I love science, it and statecraft are two very different fields, and someone being good at the former in no way means they will be good at the latter.

6

CriticalUnit t1_iswpjii wrote

> statecraft

I think you're mixing up international diplomacy vs domestic policy.

You don't need statecraft for policy, just the majority of votes.

1

Firebrand-Xana t1_isxveh6 wrote

We should get scientists to move near areas that require an informed populace to vote on stuff. The populace will be more informed, and less sane.

1

ddrcrono t1_isvxjdr wrote

Just have the contracts written out where the pay / incentives are over a longer term rather than being a lump sum. 95% of humanity's problems are that the terms we think in and our focus is too narrow / short-term like we're still living in the jungle and have 45 year life spans or something.

4

German_Not_German t1_isvw4x4 wrote

Oh my sweet summer child you are not familiar with academia at all. It makes the political scene look sane.

3

Koda_20 t1_isvwo34 wrote

An ironically this seems to be what half of Reddit thinks LOL

1