Let me define Grand Unification as I use it so there aren't semantical arguments. Some would term this the Theory of Everything, however I'm not very satisfied with that particular phrasing. A) The combination of Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force into one overarching set of mathematical equations and theorems. and/or B) The combination of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into a single theory that describes both the macro and submicro universes using the same principles. When Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism it started this overwhelming trend of trying to find the lowest common denominator in physics. For the past 80 years scientists have been trying to devise a way to fit everything under one umbrella. It seems strange now that we've come so close that one might question it. We have M-Theory after all and if CERN can pull gravitons and sparticles out of the LHC then it goes a long ways towards supporting it. What happens if they don't though? Do we continue giving credence to string theory? Do we continue to spend valuable man-hours postulating a theory that is unprovable yet undeniable and offers no predictive power? More importantly do we continue the search for the mystical holy grail of physics, Grand Unification? We have two entirely different systems. One is a top-down approach in which our universe started from the big bang and has expanded into the vastness of reality. Strong Nuclear Force and Weak Nuclear Force have no meaning in this system. That is to say that we can calculate everything we can know about classical systems without them (Much as Einstein did with GR). The other is a bottom-up approach in which matter is a culmination of particles that are pieced together to form everything. In this system Gravity is a non-factor. We insist that there has to be just one rule-set that defines both of these systems. I ask why? They are two opposite approaches to defining reality. Are they mutually exclusive? I don't think so. In Computer Science, mathematics, economics, biology and virtually every other science there are multiple solutions and tools used to come to conclusions. While they might be related, it's fallacy to insist that they have to fall into one well defined structure. It feels as though we've been swept up into a theory of elegance. Our concepts must be elegant otherwise they're wrong. Elegance for the sake of Elegance. I say who cares about elegance as long as what we predict can be matched by observation. When did Occam's Razor become the ultimate factor of determining truth? Figure it out first, then reduce and refine it. Instead we walk in saying that if it doesn't meet some predefined criteria of elegance and conformity with Unification then it must be wrong. If a Grand Unification Theory is possible, it will come. I think that going out of one's way to force it however is the wrong approach. When we start with a preconceived notion that physics has to fit into some greater scheme then we're doing it an injustice and limit our potential.