|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:33:21 +0100, Stephen <mcavoys_AT_aolDOT.com>
did spake, saying:
> "scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>> > To keep things in perspective, the total annual funding for
>> > cancer research in USA for the four most common cancers is around a
>> > billion dollars.
>>
>> What a waste, it would save far more lives if spent intelligently in
>> poorer countries.
>
> But then the spivs and speculators would not benefit. Have some sense of
> what is important and to whom. ;)
Exactly. What are you going to get out of the poor countries - nothing,
just a thank you very much and a step closer to world peace. Much better
off ploughing money into things rich people want like cancer cures, laser
eye surgery, and breast implants that feel just like the real thing;
besides some of these benefits are bound to trickle down to the level
where the poor people can afford them too.
[how my mind connects] How long did it take manufacturers to start
producing flesh-coloured sticking plasters that weren't just for white
people?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody <x### [at] ycom> 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)?
Yeah, they will try colliding a few hadrons, search for the Higgs boson,
and after that they will just shut down the whole thing when it's done.
You must be joking. Do you *seriously* think that they would spend that
much money and not have long-term plans of hundreds if not thousands of
different experiments of different fields of quantum mechanics, which
hopefully will help us understand better how the physical world works,
with the ultimate goal of developing new technology which will make
everyone's lives easier? Do you seriously think that investors would spend
that much money on something with no prospects of benefiting mankind?
I find it rather ironic that you are writing this on a computer and
clearly haven't even stopped to think how exactly science and technology
was developed so much that you are able to write that on a computer for
people around the world to see.
Just as one example: Exactly how do you think they discovered the
properties of semiconductors and transistors?
How do you think the world would be today if they had simply thought
"this is a useless waste of money, let's use the money on something
more useful"?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:38:26 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake, saying:
> Just as one example: Exactly how do you think they discovered the
> properties of semiconductors and transistors?
Looked down the back of the sofa? Maybe the discoverers tripped over it
while routing through the attic; it's amazing what you can find up there
sometimes.
> How do you think the world would be today if they had simply thought
> "this is a useless waste of money, let's use the money on something
> more useful"?
<connection to internet lost>
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:36:11 -0600, 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)?
You're forgetting the LHC Computing Grid that they developed to be able to
process and distrbute the pentabytes of information that will be generated
at a rate of about a gigabyte per second. CERN was also where the
fountations of the WWW was first developed.
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/09/04/the-lhc-will-revolutionize-physics-can-it-revolutionize-the-internet-too/
Brendan
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
48da09d1@news.povray.org...
> Jokes aside, doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that almost 10
> billion ...
The fool looks at the finger that points to the moon |-D
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:36:11 -0600, somebody wrote:
> 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
Prove it will have no practical benefit to mankind.
Very often, when it comes to experiments like this, the development of
technology to do the experiments has application outside of the field
it's being used in. Going to the moon had no practical benefit to
mankind, except of course that it enabled us to develop technology that's
now being used to do medical research that couldn't be done in Earth's
gravity.....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
somebody wrote:
| Jokes aside, doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that almost 10
billion
Please don't feed the troll
- --
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkjab0sACgkQ0+/LI0EN4LyuZQCfdeiC+NSJMtCFitWHdCsAN0ms
PmQAn3xJONLbm61Tph0yZvWSfGnc+uGP
=KAAx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Doctor John" <joh### [at] homecom> wrote
> somebody wrote:
> | Jokes aside, doesn't anybody else find it ridiculous that almost 10
> billion
> Please don't feed the troll
There have been many more responses than I expected and can individually
answer, so I will follow up the most thoughtful of the responses above, and
summarize my answers:
* I challenge anyone to provide a single practical application that the
discovery of the top quark (mass) has enabled.
* I challenge anyone to provide a single practical application that the
discovery of the top quark (mass) may one day enable. Top quark was
discovered more than a decade ago at Fermilab, an older generation collider
than LHC.
* Side effects and peripheral benefits does not justify an endavour of this
magnitude. If you are going to suggest grid computing as a benefit, why not
suggest pouring all 10 billion dollars into it? That would give much bigger
and surer yields.
* Moon program (or in general, manned space exploration programs) are/were
huge wastes of funds as well. If there were any merits to it, we would have
visited the moon in the last 40 years. It was one-upmanship, clear and
simple. Post-facto justifications, "space-age-technology" hype as a result
is NASA trying to save face.
* I'm not a science luddite. Far from it. However, not all science is equal,
economically and ethically speaking. There are points where the law of
diminishing returns makes certain pursuits - how shall I put it tactfully -
stupid. Science without regard to the human factor is just stamp collecting.
* Sure, most of mathematics is theoretical, but it's much, much cheaper to
do mathematics, and one can pursue _many_ branches for a fraction of the
cost. LHC is akin to spending 10 billion dollars to find the 10 billionth
prime. Sure, an impressive feat on paper, but a _singular_ feat, and with no
feasible practicle applications.
* Laymen are, unfortunately, impossibly confused about the depth and breadth
of physics and media and publicists prey on this. HEP (high energy physics)
is a deep, deep end, far removed from mostly applied branches of physcis
such as quantum optics, quantum computing, condensed matter, solid state...
etc. I would much welcome a 10 billion dollars investment in any or all of
those fields, that have proven or at least feasible returns on investment.
* Some of you claim "yes, but what if we scoffed at this or that research in
the past..." To those, I remind you of Sagan's (yes, I'm aware of the irony,
as I believe much of cosmology to be a waste of resources too) quote
(paraphrased) : "They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein. But they
also laughed at Bozo the Clown". In other words, just because we benefited
from expensive experiments in the past (though not many, if at all, at this
magnitude), we cannot assume any expensive experiment is worthwhile. Each
case needs to be investigated for its own merits.
* And it's not true that we did not foresee any practical applications for
the major breakthroughs in the past. It's a romatic myth that scientists are
always working against the grain and that science is completely an
unpredicable and wild pursuit.
* Having said that, there have been many dead ends in science too. History
tends to push them under the rug. Spending has been limited, though. As the
frontiers are pushed, ever more expensive experiments are needed.
* Hence my question, what possible practical expectation is there from this
experiment? Feel free to ask around. No honest scientist will give you an
answer.
* Finally, is anyone as naive to think that LHC will be the final experiment
that explains everything? We have all the way to go to Planck energy (well,
yes and no, there are suggestions we need not, which is a good thing, as we
possibly cannot, but my general point is valid): LHC will at best answer
some questions and posit some even finer ones. Do we then build a 10
trillion dollar collider? What about 10 zillion? Where do you draw the line
in such a singleminded pursuit? For if you believe a line needs to be drawn,
"where" is a valid question. If not, well, even if you don't closely follow
high energy physics, you surely can agree on probabilistic grounds that it
would be a fantastic coincidence for you and I to witness the end of
physics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"John VanSickle" <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:48da29f3$1@news.povray.org...
> 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)?
> Most of what government does nowadays is of no practical benefit to
> mankind, so the CERN deal really isn't that unusual.
True, true. But shouldn't we expect better from scientists? Granted, no
individual physicist is going to turn down an opportunity to take part in
such an experiment, individual scientists are motivated by the same selfish
interests as the rest of us. But science, as an institution, needs to
develop a conscience, a scale of proportion, and prioritization.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|