3 ms·

forgive my naiveté.. but can someone explain to me why we are spending SO much $ and neurons on such projects rather than our impending ecological doom? Honest

forgive my naiveté.. but can someone explain to me why we are spending SO much $ and neurons on such projects rather than our impending ecological doom? Honestly i dont care if super symmetry or multi-universe exists. It's becoming as absurd as ...almost as religion itself. Enough is enough. The hard problems to really solve are all around us now and in the very near future ( as it always has been ) .. The joke will be on us when some scientists in his cave screams AHA i've found "IT"! and sadly discovers that no one is left in existence to even hear it. But different strokes for diff folks no?

visakanv 12y ago
Sure, I'll give it a shot. 1: It's not that much $ and neurons, actually. We spend far more marketing lipstick and selling mobile games. If your priority is to reduce wasted spending, there are far worse candidates. 2: Original science and research has consistently yielded some of the biggest game-changers in technology (and subsequently, human well-being) than anything else. Libraries, electricity, the Internet, all of those felt like frivolous indulgences when they were starting out. 3: Projects like these are exploratory, which makes them inspiring. People are curious and eager to learn. This puts a pressure on the educational pipeline. People become scientists to learn answers to these questions. They use these skillsets for other things as well. I recommend listening to Neil Tyson talking about space: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUbOjZWjTLU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUbOjZWjTLU I agree that our impending ecological doom is an issue. If you want to get into the psychology of it- people simply don't feel the pinch yet. It seems vague, distant, something we can't do very much about. It's the same reason people tend to be bad at planning for their retirements. That said, the world is a better place with the LHC than not. There are far worse things we spend our $ and neurons on that we ought to cull first!
- artur_makly 12y ago
  thanks for those points. "impending ecological doom is an issue" - best case a rounding statistical error - that will pass, no big woop. - Worst case. jokes on us. yes some serious culling is needed but on both sides of the spectrum. We must be very careful how our tiny scientific community applies itself these days too. I just watched the video, Tyson makes some nice points. I agree that we should invest in dreaming about tomorrow... but i feel that tomorrow's science and today's scientific neurons should be applied more pragmatically. ( perhaps since ive just become a dad..our PRESENT reality just got way way bigger) I'd rather hear 2-yrs from now about a new unlimited energy source with 0 emissions than us landing on Jupiter's moon. "Jesus is coming..look busy people".
  - visakanv 12y ago
    Congrats on becoming a dad! I'm totally with you on energy sources. We need advancements, pronto. It's happening, but it could come sooner. That said, I don't know about trying to force/cajole scientists to doing what we think is best... it might really just be best for everyone to do what they're most passionate about. I'm not sure. I'm sure there are others who have thought very deeply about how to allocate humanity's limited resources... I'm often thinking that we need a bigger scientific community ASAP
300bps 12y ago
but can someone explain to me why we are spending SO much $ and neurons on such projects rather than our impending ecological doom I'm a naturally skeptical person so when I see even the proponents of anthropogenic global warming theory going about their lives business as usual it really raises alarm bells with me. You're bringing up a problem with spending time/money on the LHC - I'll give you something simpler. Every year there are 150,000,000 Christmas lights sold. Think about that for a second. We're supposedly on the way to our (as you say) ecological doom and we still insist on this tradition. If you want to reduce humanity's carbon footprint I'm not sure there is lower hanging fruit than stopping the manufacture and powering of hundreds of millions of Christmas lights every year. So when I see everyone doing things like this - basically fiddling while Rome burns - I'm skeptical that anyone really believes in AGW. It doesn't affect my actions mind you because I'm also naturally a conservationist. I think it is only logical to preserve finite resources.
- DanBC 12y ago
  > I'm a naturally skeptical person so when I see even the proponents of anthropogenic global warming theory going about their lives business as usual it really raises alarm bells with me. I'm always confused why sceptics are sceptical of anthropogenic climate change, but not of the acres of bullshit coming from the denialists. Especially when a lot of it is trivially easy to see as bullshit.
  - 300bps 12y ago
    Perhaps you didn't read my comment before you downvoted it and replied to it?
    - DanBC 12y ago
      I didn't downvote you.

visakanv 12y ago

Sure, I'll give it a shot. 1: It's not that much $ and neurons, actually. We spend far more marketing lipstick and selling mobile games. If your priority is to reduce wasted spending, there are far worse candidates. 2: Original science and research has consistently yielded some of the biggest game-changers in technology (and subsequently, human well-being) than anything else. Libraries, electricity, the Internet, all of those felt like frivolous indulgences when they were starting out. 3: Projects like these are exploratory, which makes them inspiring. People are curious and eager to learn. This puts a pressure on the educational pipeline. People become scientists to learn answers to these questions. They use these skillsets for other things as well. I recommend listening to Neil Tyson talking about space: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUbOjZWjTLU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUbOjZWjTLU I agree that our impending ecological doom is an issue. If you want to get into the psychology of it- people simply don't feel the pinch yet. It seems vague, distant, something we can't do very much about. It's the same reason people tend to be bad at planning for their retirements. That said, the world is a better place with the LHC than not. There are far worse things we spend our $ and neurons on that we ought to cull first!

artur_makly 12y ago
thanks for those points. "impending ecological doom is an issue" - best case a rounding statistical error - that will pass, no big woop. - Worst case. jokes on us. yes some serious culling is needed but on both sides of the spectrum. We must be very careful how our tiny scientific community applies itself these days too. I just watched the video, Tyson makes some nice points. I agree that we should invest in dreaming about tomorrow... but i feel that tomorrow's science and today's scientific neurons should be applied more pragmatically. ( perhaps since ive just become a dad..our PRESENT reality just got way way bigger) I'd rather hear 2-yrs from now about a new unlimited energy source with 0 emissions than us landing on Jupiter's moon. "Jesus is coming..look busy people".
- visakanv 12y ago
  Congrats on becoming a dad! I'm totally with you on energy sources. We need advancements, pronto. It's happening, but it could come sooner. That said, I don't know about trying to force/cajole scientists to doing what we think is best... it might really just be best for everyone to do what they're most passionate about. I'm not sure. I'm sure there are others who have thought very deeply about how to allocate humanity's limited resources... I'm often thinking that we need a bigger scientific community ASAP

300bps 12y ago

but can someone explain to me why we are spending SO much $ and neurons on such projects rather than our impending ecological doom I'm a naturally skeptical person so when I see even the proponents of anthropogenic global warming theory going about their lives business as usual it really raises alarm bells with me. You're bringing up a problem with spending time/money on the LHC - I'll give you something simpler. Every year there are 150,000,000 Christmas lights sold. Think about that for a second. We're supposedly on the way to our (as you say) ecological doom and we still insist on this tradition. If you want to reduce humanity's carbon footprint I'm not sure there is lower hanging fruit than stopping the manufacture and powering of hundreds of millions of Christmas lights every year. So when I see everyone doing things like this - basically fiddling while Rome burns - I'm skeptical that anyone really believes in AGW. It doesn't affect my actions mind you because I'm also naturally a conservationist. I think it is only logical to preserve finite resources.

DanBC 12y ago
> I'm a naturally skeptical person so when I see even the proponents of anthropogenic global warming theory going about their lives business as usual it really raises alarm bells with me. I'm always confused why sceptics are sceptical of anthropogenic climate change, but not of the acres of bullshit coming from the denialists. Especially when a lot of it is trivially easy to see as bullshit.
- 300bps 12y ago
  Perhaps you didn't read my comment before you downvoted it and replied to it?
  - DanBC 12y ago
    I didn't downvote you.