somebody wrote:
> Jokes aside, doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that almost 10 billion
> dollars is being spent on an experiment that will have absolutely zero
> practical benefit to mankind (even if it's spectacularly successful beyond
> imagination)?

How do you know that? It's examining the same sorts of questions about 
the universe that relativity and quantum mechanics examined. You don't 
think lasers, semiconductors, and computers were of benefit to humanity?

> I'd even be tempted to say 10 billion
> dollars in the next 10 years spent on fighting aging could have the
> potential to add 10 years to the lifespan of our species, to my and your
> life. 

I'm not sure of that. What would you spend 10 billion dollars on to be 
*sure* to answer a question of aging, or cancer cures? Or would you just 
spend it in the hopes that maybe you'll find something out that's useful?

Of course, the other problem is that the people with money already spend 
it on things like cancer cures, because the result *will* be profitable. 
It's useful to pay for fundamental research where the initial results 
won't be profitable to anyone, but where future developments will help 
mankind, because otherwise the initial results don't get created.

> what the discovery of the top quark did
> for humanity? What remotely practical consequence did it have? 

A better understanding of quantum chromodynamics, which might yield 
reliable nuclear-quantum computers in the future?

> What remotely practical consequence *could* it have? 

Infinite free energy for the taking?

> High energy physics operates in a
> domain that has no connection whatsoever with anything applicable to
> everyday life. 

Funny enough, people doing the experiments actually disagree. :-)

The funny thing about basic research is you never know what it might 
lead to.

 > It's the same kind of meaningless pursuit as analyzing the
> makeup of a galaxy 5 billion light years away. There can be no application
> whatsover, even in one's wildest dreams.

So, you'd rather wait for the asteroid to actually hit the earth before 
you start building telescopes capable of seeing it coming?

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message