LHC: Multimillion God's Particle Chase & Earth's Extinction Rate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hippasos
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Eyes
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the allocation of funds for scientific research, particularly the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), in light of global issues like famine in developing countries. Participants question the justification of spending millions on projects like the LHC while children suffer from hunger. They argue that increasing food production through scientific advancements has not solved the problem of hunger, as population growth often offsets these improvements. The conversation highlights the need for a holistic approach to improving quality of life in developing nations, suggesting that merely increasing food supply is insufficient. The discussion also touches on the complexities of population dynamics, emphasizing that in regions with high mortality rates, larger families are often a survival strategy. Overall, the debate reflects a tension between funding scientific exploration and addressing immediate humanitarian needs, with a call for intelligent discourse on the matter.
Hippasos
Messages
75
Reaction score
0
Can someone provide intelligent answers to these questions?

The meaning of LHC

http://www.all-acronyms.com/cat/1/LHC

Multimillion God's particle chase:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/God-039-s-Particle-Costs-29-Million-in-Repairs-to-the-LHC-99431.shtml

While the children in developing countries suffer from famine?

How much more money and intelligent resources is needed to answer intelligent questions like theory of everything?

What will happen to "earth lungs" meanwhile?

Multimillion Martians hunt aka (please let one bacteria or bacteria fossil of it be found):

http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/life/

What is the exact extinction rate at planet Earth today - do we even know?

What is the theory (if there is any - please point me to it) predicting - how long can we maintain this kind of progress?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
How many seas must a white dove sail before it can sleep in the sand?None of your questions have answers.
 
Intelligent answers require intelligent questions.

It appears you have a problem with the money being spent on the pursuit of science...care to actually provide an intelligent argument in support of your position regarding this issue...?
 
A side question, do the owners of the LHC expect to generate money by running it?
 
Whenever someone poses a question of this form -- why are we spending so much money on scientific research when people are dying of hunger? -- I am reminded of a well-known fact about traffic engineering.

The fact is: if you incrementally increase the capacity of a roadway, the traffic congestion on that roadway actually gets worse.

The same thing happens in all resource-consumer systems, including the food supply. The amount of food that can be grown per acre of land has gone up enormously over the past 100 years, mostly because of scientific research into pesticides and genetics. In the same period of time, the population has also exploded, making those advancements in food science moot.

Just like in road congestion, every incremental improvement in our food supply will result in an incremental increase in the world's population. There will -- very unfortunately -- always be hungry people, no matter what resources we devote to increasing the food supply. Taking money out of the LHC budget and throwing it into food production will not solve anything in the long term.

So, why do people keep having so many kids? The population is declining in many first-world countries, including Japan and most of Europe, but is exploding in most third-world countries like India. It turns out that the only way for families to survive in places with high rates of infant and child mortality, high rates of debilitating disease, is to have many children. In the first world, where virtually every child lives to adulthood, we have the luxury of deciding to have just two children. We don't need to throw more food at third-world countries; we need to get their quality of life up to the point at which having children is no longer a survival mechanism. Scientific research in all forms has been responsible for dramatically improving the quality of life in western countries, so why would you want to stifle it now?

Besides, look at all the money we already spend on increasing the food supply! Genetically-engineered crops are one of the hottest fields of scientific research in existence. And... look at all the opposition to it, particularly from lucky, wealthy people who can afford the luxury of turning their noses up at nutritious food because of some high-brow moral objection.

- Warren
 
chroot said:
Whenever someone poses a question of this form -- why are we spending so much money on scientific research when people are dying of hunger? -- I am reminded of a well-known fact about traffic engineering.

- Warren

All in all in guess this type of question would not be good idea to present in an iq-test...
 
Hippasos said:
While the children in developing countries suffer from famine?
About 4Bn of them are alive because of a 19century German chemist, but it would obviously have been better for his education to have been spent on the poor.

There is a quote somewhere from an Amercan politican n the depression about the waste of money on these new fangled automobiles when what the farmers needed was better horses.
 
If I don't finish all of my sandwich should I toss it into a paper envelope and mail it to Africa ?
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top