somebody wrote:
> Fine. But if you are intellectually honest, you will also be able to say "I
> have no reason to believe that finding the top quark will have *any*
> practical applications, and thus won't take it as an assumption" (people in

	I *am* being intellectually honest. I've already said earlier that I 
have no reason to believe throwing $100 billion at cancer research will 
bring us an iota closer to curing it. If I had good reason to think so, 
then it wouldn't be research.

>> Besides, why limit to 100 years? What if it provides benefits 300 years
>> from now?
> 
> Who (currently alive) need care about 300 years from now? You simply don't
> make dubious investments for what might or might not happen in 300 years,
> wasting present resources in the process.
> 
> There's a sharp diminishing of value towards the end of one's lifespan. Even
> 100 years is an overly generous period. Would you rather win $1 billion in
> the lottery 2 minutes before you die, or $1000 now?

	I already pointed out to you that I don't view (any) science as an 
investment that is supposed to give material returns. The return you get 
is knowledge. Everything else (technology, etc) is a side effect not 
related to the goal.

	Given that, your question makes little sense.

-- 
AAAAA - American Association Against Acronym Abuse


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

Post a reply to this message