RE: ?!? A New and Separate Palaeontological Community

[dale mcinnes <wdm1949@hotmail.com>]

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 
>