somebody wrote:
>> 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.

	I'd argue the opposite. When people are being even more wasteful with 
money than the physicists, it's easier to argue that some of their money 
should be diverted to <insert cause>.

	Now your argument is "Take money from them because it's easier"?

> 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

	Why on Earth should I be thinking of personal benefits?

	If the benefits arrive hundreds of years later, the money may have been 
really well spent.

>> 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.

	And not always is medical research fruitful.

>> 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

	Now you're shifting your argument to resources and missing the point. 
If they have $700 billion, ask them to reduce it to $690 billion and put 
$10 billion more in medical research.

	It seems a lot of people are upset at a number of proposals that either 
Bush or Congress on the whole rejected in the last few years (e.g. the 
"small" amount needed to make all children insured) because they were 
deemed too expensive (yet much, much smaller than $700 billion). If the 
politicians really wanted them, this is the best opportunity they'll 
have to get them.

 > most important resources being "wasted" at LHC are brainpower and 
  > time, and then services, raw materials and energy.

	As for resources, I don't see how you can easily shift those to medical 
research. Brain power? You want the physicists to become medical 
researchers? What "time" have they been deprived of? Ditto for raw 
materials and energy. Do we now not have enough materials to build a 
medical center?

> 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

	Specific areas may, some others may not. Just as with physics. Physics 
research has been immensely useful. But some subprojects may not have 
been. I'd been letting the LHC vs medical research/cancer/aging aspect 
slide (i.e. comparing one project to a whole industry), but the real 
comparison in that case would be physics vs medical research.

> 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.

	Woah! I thought you wanted to limit this to science (hence the whole 
restricting to the science research pie and take money from physicists 
angle). Now you're talking about taking money away from science! If 
you're willing to discuss that, then go back to the government waste and 
deal with that.

	I still don't get it. 28 billion in this country annually alone for 
medical research. And I later found out that does *not* include money 
used to come up with actual medicines. The pharmaceutical industry 
spends a comparable amount on that. You said earlier that you wanted 
medical research to always get the largest slice of that pie.

	What makes you think they don't? I honestly don't know, but have *you* 
researched into it?

	Let me ask you a question:

	How much money *does* medical research have to get annually for you to 
say it's OK to spend $10 billion for the LHC? Assuming, of course, the 
current amount of wealth in the world is the same (no inflation games, 
sudden oil discoveries, etc).

	Look, if you simply think the LHC's not worth $10 billion - 
*regardless* of how much other areas of science get, that's fine with 
me, because it is an opinion, and not a fact. Getting upset that others 
don't see it your way seems silly.

	

-- 
AAAAA - American Association Against Acronym Abuse


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message