"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
news:op.uh3glnkgc3xi7v@news.povray.org...
> And lo on Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:26:08 +0100, somebody <x### [at] ycom> did spake,

> > They will have better technology than us.

> Um no they won't because they'd have spent the previous 100 years just
> developing the stuff we could have. Think of how much time was spent
> playing catch-up during the Dark Ages and think where'd we be now if we'd
> been able to continue building on those principles during that time.

Nowhere did I mention stopping all development in its tracks. If anything,
we should develop technology that benefits us (I've been mentioning medical,
but computer, solid state, conndensed matter, robotics... etc too have
immediate benefits) at a much faster rate and minimize spending on
technologies or sciences with no foreseeable benefit, like cosmology, HEP,
manned space exploration.

> > You hopless romantics are completely missing the trees for the forest.
> > While thinking about a future billion years from now (!??), you miss
> > what we could be doing for ourselves and for our fellow people. Africa
> > is at most 10 hours away, not a billion years. And I am sure there's
> > suffering right at your
> > doorstep too.

> On this point I do agree with you. I will however be laughing my arse off
> if an LHC spin-off develops a super-cheap energy source which allows the
> nations of the world to stop fighting over oil and get on with raising the
> standard of living for the poorer nations.

So will I. But freak occurances can happen anytime. You can come upon that
source as you are cursing after stubbing your toe on the coffee table. I
won't count on either.

> The difficulty is you seem to be suggesting that we only do projects when
> we know exactly

Not exactly, but reasonably sure that it may have applications. And
prioritize with benefits to humans in mind.

> what the return is going to be and sadly the universe
> scoffs at such plans - have the government encourage banks to give
> mortgages to the poor,  grow crops for biofuels, encourage capatialism in
> China. In each of these cases we thought we knew exactly what the return
> would be. Do you need me to list the results we got?

True, but they were not totally unpredictable either. Even I had thought
ethanol from corn was a dumbass idea. In matters involving humans, though,
it's often the case that you see a train barreling down to a bridge that's
washed away, but cannot do anything. With China or mortgages, for instance,
it's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Luckily, science is a
little more predictable in terms of RoI.

Post a reply to this message