They work on what society rewards them to work on. Attach massive guaranteed funding to companies that solve this problems and it will attract smart people competing for it.
That's a spin, and a bad one. First, it isn't society that rewards them, it's private companies and investment bankers. Second, you limit reward to monetary compensation. Third, people are not forced to take the best paying jobs. Doing so is selfish, which is the GP's point.
> That's a spin, and a bad one. First, it isn't society that rewards them, it's private companies and investment bankers
That is society. Private companies make money by making products/services for society. Investment bankers are investing your money, public retirement money, etc. Society generally doesn’t want its retirement money in funds with negative returns.
Pretending that what people pay for is not by and large what people are supporting is completely out of touch with reality. This is just classic stated preferences vs revealed preferences. People claim they want to solve world hunger and climate change; but when it comes to what they actually do with their money, they spend it on nicer houses, iphones, cars, and retirement.
> Third, people are not forced to take the best paying jobs. Doing so is selfish, which is the GP's point.
That’s a bullshit position to take unless you know what the person does with the money. A Googler who pulls down 400k a year and gives away 200k of it to effective charities is much better than someone who works for some pet project NGO.
They work on what society rewards them to work on. Attach massive guaranteed funding to companies that solve this problems and it will attract smart people competing for it.