The two types of projects don't compete for the same pool of money. There's some overlap, but there's some funding that goes to specific goals on their merits, and then there's some funding that could be pulled in if the project captures someone's interest (including public). As for buying human time, happily that often comes with a big discount for work on cool stuff (a fact routinely abused by businesses in some sectors, such as game development or entertainment in general).
There's also an extra discount for trustworthiness - it's much harder to fake results when the evaluation criteria include whether or not it's the cool stuff that was promised.
Finite time and money doesn't mean there is competition in real practice. If you think canceling one automatically means more support for another, you have a broken model of reality.
If I save $5 on beer, that doesn't mean the nature conservancy budget gets more funding. It will almost assuredly stay in my bank account or get spent on chips.
> If you think canceling one automatically means more support for another
I don’t, neither do I think competition means a close system. But it’s definitely a system where parties influence each others.
Your beer does not share any goal with mammoth, but other environmental projects does. Let’s say you want to invest 5€ to fight climate change. During your search of projets to support, you might encounter the cool-mammoth one. Now there’s competition for those 5€.
That is a hypothetical concern, not a statement about reality. It is easy to construct "just so" stories for anything, but that doesn't mean they are true or meaningful.
I dont want to sound harsh but I see this type of thought quite often. I think it is a major irrational distortion to conflate possibility and theory for reality.
It is unclear if money targeted for environmental work has ever gone to mammoths, or ever will. Why should the mere possibility dictate anything or drive any action?
Im saying "just so" stories should not be a valid basis for concern.
Branding isn't evidence that proposals are in competition for funding opposed to additive.
The only evidence is your "just so" story, and even that doesn't mean it is meaningful.
It strikes me similar to a runaway precautionary principle or concern trolling. It doesnt matter if you can imagine a scenario where something bad happens. What really matters is if that bad scenario actually happens, and how often.
