EU's spend on the military in 2007 alone (£3bn versus £150Bn). Which do you reckon is better value for money?

I have a particular grief regarding illegal and senseless wars, however Nazi Germany, expanding aggressive Communism, British Imperialism, US military expansionism are all explanatory of the need to defend or liberate yourselves, however wanting to find what happened trillions of zillions of years ago, would need more careful thought I would suggest.

Good Luck

Moss

It appears from the above that it's not actually the money spent that you object to but that we might actually find out where we originated from. Why is that?

Well, military spending is a whole new other topic!

I used that as a comparison to the amount spent on the LHC. If the EU can afford to spend 150Bn on guns and bombs in the course of a year why can they not (with fairly major contributions of dosh from non-EU members who are also taking part in the experiment) spend 2% of that on a machine that may open up whole new worlds of science?

Well, military spending is a whole new other topic!

I used that as a comparison to the amount spent on the LHC. If the EU can afford to spend 150Bn on guns and bombs in the course of a year why can they not (with fairly major contributions of dosh from non-EU members who are also taking part in the experiment) spend 2% of that on a machine that may open up whole new worlds of science?

Maybe because, as we all know, that most probably any result of these experiments can and will be used for military purposes.

The U.S. sales of weapons has quadrupled these last few years because of new and better weapons. Food for thought I believe.

Anyway a most interesting topic, and I'm still divided on this subject.

cheers

onzestan

They could have created water irrigation systems throughout Africa for that and for what purpose? It is beyond me

But irrigating Africa will simply create more mouths to feed, and medical needs for their lifetimes. As they age they will need plastics, things made from steel and energy. The same is true for any population in any country, I am not picking on Africa in particular - but do consider that the countries that form that continent; seem to have more than the world's fair share of political problems leading to wars based on tribal disputes than any other peoples. Mention Africa I think of Elephants and AKs.

Over population is the problem we face on this planet, if the LHC solved that we would be better off, maybe sterilize Europe in an 'opps' radiation burst.

Soylent Green - food of the future !

Well Cuban now you've hit the nail on the head for a multitude of problems from epidemics to global warming. The plain simple fact of the matter is that there are just way too many of us. So how do we start the cull? In ancient times the old and anyone considered non-productive would would be just left out to die (perhaps not quite so literally) but then we got all emotive about death and decided we had to do all in our power to prevent it. So now we have research programmes whose direct and indirect products serve to keep more and more people alive whilst we don't have a uniformly distributed means of feeding them.

Of course if anybody, myself included, had a close relative suffering from a terminal illness we'd want everything done to alleviate their suffering no matter the cost. Then following their death we'd, likely as not, throw ourselves into highlighting the ailment and how little is spent on researching cures etc. It has become human nature and is what differentiates us from the animals.

As for the comparison with military spending, that is a good point and I'm a little surprised it didn't come up earlier. Well who is going to be the first nation to completely demilitarise it's land? A brave step that some nations have attempted but only on the back of a powerfull ally.

As for the comparison with military spending, that is a good point and I'm a little surprised it didn't come up earlier. Well who is going to be the first nation to completely demilitarise it's land?

Costa Rica in 1949 in Article 12 of the Costa Rican Constitution. Wiki

It appears from the above that it's not actually the money spent that you object to but that we might actually find out where we originated from. Why is that?

A small Leap of Faith there perhaps endure, but I will accept it was not worded in the most approprate manner. I have no problem with the spend on speculative science, if it has a clear remit and targeted outcomes, but this is directed at finding what happened just after the Big Bang, but for what purpose? what will it achieve that can benefit the planet in proportion of spend, what is the Return on Investment?

I also understand your previous comment,

ALL the MRI, CT and cancer radiotherapy treatments were developed from what was originally blue skies research

but were all these tech improvements driven by abstract research into a subject that would have no specific payoff from the start and more importantly, at what cost?

I was actually refering to the reasons of such giant spends (in reaction to)

Nazi Germany, expanding aggressive Communism, British Imperialism, US military expansionism

and the cost of finding out what

happened trillions of zillions of years ago

Moss

But irrigating Africa will simply create more mouths to feed, and medical needs for their lifetimes.

Hadn't thought of that, on reflection the LHC rocks, let the unclean, weak and diseased die off innominious shame!

All tongue in cheek of course Cubes,

Good Luck

Moss

It appears from the above that it's not actually the money spent that you object to but that we might actually find out where we originated from. Why is that?

A small Leap of Faith there perhaps endure, but I will accept it was not worded in the most approprate manner. I have no problem with the spend on speculative science, if it has a clear remit and targeted outcomes, but this is directed at finding what happened just after the Big Bang, but for what purpose? what will it achieve that can benefit the planet in proportion of spend, what is the Return on Investment?

I also understand your previous comment,

ALL the MRI, CT and cancer radiotherapy treatments were developed from what was originally blue skies research

but were all these tech improvements driven by abstract research into a subject that would have no specific payoff from the start and more importantly, at what cost?

I was actually refering to the reasons of such giant spends (in reaction to)

Nazi Germany, expanding aggressive Communism, British Imperialism, US military expansionism

and the cost of finding out what

happened trillions of zillions of years ago

Moss

By definition speculative science can't have a clear remit and targeted outcomes. If it's speculative no-one knows what the outcome will be. The tech improvements weren't driven by abstract research. Improvements never are. Rontgen had no idea that his research would lead to X-rays and the beginning of medical physics. Marie Curie wasn't looking for tech improvements when she discovered radium and polonium. She actually refused to patent the processes she used so that other scientists wouldn't be hindered in their research. It cost her her life ( the research not the non-patenting).

By definition speculative science can't have a clear remit and targeted outcomes. If it's speculative no-one knows what the outcome will be. The tech improvements weren't driven by abstract research. Improvements never are. Rontgen had no idea that his research would lead to X-rays and the beginning of medical physics. Marie Curie wasn't looking for tech improvements when she discovered radium and polonium. She actually refused to patent the processes she used so that other scientists wouldn't be hindered in their research. It cost her her life ( the research not the non-patenting).

By definition speculative science can't have a clear remit and targeted outcomes.

I would suggest you can.

If it's speculative no-one knows what the outcome will be.

Of course they don't, it doesn't mean they can't have a targeted outcome, 'short selling', to use an operative term of the moment, is extremely speculative, but they have a targeted outcome, not always what they want, but an outcome all the same.

Good Luck

Moss

So how do we start the cull?

As for the comparison with military spending, that is a good point and I'm a little surprised it didn't come up earlier.

Well who is going to be the first nation to completely demilitarise it's land? A brave step that some nations have attempted but only on the back of a powerfull ally.

If the LHC or it's off shoots produced free clean energy that would solve the distribution of food and the availiblity of drinking water the world over - I think that water is one of the biggest problems we currently face. Or rather China faces, and I would assume that is why it is so interested in gaining Tibet.

In times of rising oil prices countries with oil wish to protect their assets - spending on 'defence' increases.

If there is no millitary funding in connection with the LHC my name is Uncle Gibbon Pan Troglodytes.

As for saving everyone. "Reverse Triage: ....sometimes the less wounded are treated in preference to the more severely wounded. This may arise in a situation such as war where the military setting may require soldiers be returned to combat as quickly as possible, or disaster situations where medical resources are limited in order to conserve resources for those likely to survive but requiring advanced medical care."

Add to 'medical resources' food, water, housing, energy.

It is not difficult to liken 'war' to eccononic competition. Add to that ideologies that commicate internationally by bomb and I can fully understand & support the need for national borders that are enforced.

I fear we have strayed from LHC.

I fear we have strayed from LHC.

Not offtopic as there was no specific topic I only mentioned the LHC as an example.

Anyhow I've been edificated as I thought Hadron was a brickie that built a wall to keep the Scots off the grass.

endure, interesting that bit about Costa Rica:-

An era of peaceful democracy in Costa Rica began in 1889 with elections considered the first truly free and honest ones in the country's history.

Costa Rica has avoided much of the violence that has plagued much of Central America. Since the late nineteenth century, only two brief periods of violence have marred its democratic development. In 1917-19, Federico Tinoco Granados ruled as a dictator, and, in 1948, José Figueres Ferrer led an armed uprising in the wake of a disputed presidential election. In 1949, José Figueres Ferrer abolished the army; and since then, Costa Rica has been one of the few countries to operate within the democratic system without the assistance of a military.

With more than 2,000 dead, the 44-day Costa Rica Civil War resulting from this uprising was the bloodiest event in twentieth-century Costa Rican history, but the victorious junta drafted a constitution guaranteeing free elections with universal suffrage and the abolition of the military. Figueres became a national hero, winning the first election under the new constitution in 1953. Since then, Costa Rica has held 12 presidential elections, the latest in 2006.

Shame the recent Thai junta couldn't match their constitution.

Now I'm

Interesting the arguements both for and, whilst not against, not supportive of blue sky research. I have always been a keen supporter of research, coming from an R&D background, but have been recently having doubts. It could be argued that the money, rather than irrigation projects in third world countries, could be better spent closer to home like better equiped schools, hospitals etc. But then I guess we'd have more scientific undergraduates champing at the bit to mess with atomic or microbiological things.

But then we'd all be better off if all nations could emulate Costa Rica, but before that happens we all have to learn to trust one another.

I've been to Costa Rica. It's vaguely Thai-ish. The folks are very laid back as they are in Honduras too!

Nearest I've made it to central America is Venezuela and that place is, once you get out in the villages and small towns, also very Thai-ish. But then they are also poor people who like nothing better than to party. But overall the country is vastly different to Thailand, very violent to the point of constantly being on the brink of civil war. Which is why Hugo needs his cause celebre, USA, to justify his army.

I wonder if Thailand, and maybe other members or ASEAN, could ever follow Costa Rica's lead and disband their military. That way they could plough the money into research (briefly bringing us back on topic ) and maybe become a world leader in a field of science.

No, not all the time the military find their way into government either through the back door or storming through the front.

Anyhow Pura Vida as they, apparently, say in CR.