"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:48db0962$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > When budgets are made, for better or worse, spending on science is often
> > taken as a unit. Yes, in that sense, if particle physics gets a
> > disproportionately large sum, you can bet condensed matter will get
less.

> Yes, and my question remains: Why don't you consider an alternative
> solution that makes the pie bigger?

That's much harder than to better divide an existing pie. Pies don't grow on
trees.

> > It's humanity's failing, since as far as I can see from the responses
from
> > this group, people don't know what's good for them. I'm sure many of
you,

> they misled society (without giving citations). You're simply dumping on
> a group that happened to be efficient, rather than be proactive and try
> to find ways to assist the groups *you're* more interested in.

Education and discussion is one way to raise awareness.

> > and possibly I, will develop a form of life threatening cancer at one
point
> > in the near future, within a few years or a decade. It's a certainity
given
> > a large enough population. Would you rather have all those universities
> > spend their research budgets on an academic endavour that will benefit
not a
> > single human being, or one that could benefit many?

> We've been through this ad nauseum. I simply do not share your
> pessimism about the value of the results (even practical outcomes)
> coming out of the LHC. Because of that, your argument does not inspire
> sympathy.

Optimism, unfortunately, doesn't put food on the table, or cure ailments.
How exactly do you personally think you will benefit from LHC (maybe beyond
reading an interesting article in Popular Science at some point)? If people
don't ask themselves similar questions, they do not know or care about their
own well-being. We don't properly exercise our selfishness, if you will.

> > The very essence of existence goes through health. I cannot think of a
> > single reason why medical research should not top all lists when it
comes to
> > resource allocations.

> Perhaps because byproducts of other research can help medicine?

Not always. And there's always economics. HEP is an immensely wasteful way
for its byproducts to help medicine, if even possible.

> >> Also, comparing it with the amount of money the US spends on annually
> >> on some research is disingenuous. It's not as if we build an LHC every
> >> year.

> > We build one every decade or two.

> And they all cost $10 billion?

No,of course not. Next one will cost more.

> I do find this whole discussion amusing given that Congress is
> considering a $700 Billion bailout for Wall Street. LHC is tiny on that
> scale.

True. On the other hand, that $700 billion will merely exchange hands (or be
printed), it doesn't represent actual consumption of resources. You can
waste money without wasting resources (or the opposite, you can make money
without increasing value) - our monetary system is truly odd that way. The
most important resources being "wasted" at LHC are brainpower and time, and
then services, raw materials and energy.

> And then implying others over here simply have mixed priorities will
> win you no sympathy. You're implying that you're trying to create a
> discussion and make people more aware of the issue, yet your tactics go
> quite counter to that goal. You've asked on numerous occasions for
> possible useful benefits to humanity that the LHC may have, yet you
> didn't bother citing *specific* benefits of neglected research on cancer
> or aging.

I don't see why I have to. Medical research has proven itself over the years
as benefiting humanity. I don't think anyone here can honestly question if
medicine is a worthy science to spend money on. And even if one believes
medical research budgets are saturated (!), surely the 40 million or so
uninsured in America, or the 14 million who died in Africa from AIDS alone
since 2000 would have appreciate a little money spent on their health care
needs.

Post a reply to this message