Printable View
GlenW
I'm sorry but I think you are being naive (and I don't equate that with intelligence).
If people had always taken that short term decision over research in the past, we'd be much less technologically advanced and have far more people dying of incurable illnesses.
I have problems like everyone else but I don't let it affect opinions like whether its better to save 5000 lives today or 50000 lives tomorrow. Obviously the same can't be said for you.Quote:
Originally posted by GlenW
Agreed you obviously have much more serious problems.
So my opinion on this subject is decided by my problems?Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
I have problems like everyone else but I don't let it affect opinions like whether its better to save 5000 lives today or 50000 lives tomorrow. Obviously the same can't be said for you.
Care to elaborate, with your in-depth knowledge of my life?
I think not!
This coming from the person who has already told me I have serious problems.Quote:
Originally posted by GlenW
So my opinion on this subject is decided by my problems?
Care to elaborate, with your in-depth knowledge of my life?
I think not!
If you're going to start slinging mud, you can expect to get some back.
I thought I was talking about priorities :confused:
I mean :
we should not stop research in any other field of science. We should focus on what is more pressing and what can be achieved in the short term without sacrificing long term research. After all, short term solutions have a long term effect i.e. those 5000 you'll save today may very well be the first in a long line of lives you'll save. It's not because you let 5000 live today that it will not save 50000 in the future.
That was my point and along those lines researching the unified field theory seems a bit less important than pressing medical research. Which does not mean it shouldn't be researched at all.
We can't sling mud at each other because we don't know anything about each other.Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
This coming from the person who has already told me I have serious problems.
If you're going to start slinging mud, you can expect to get some back.
But a bout of banal, mindless name calling might be a laugh.:)
Yeah, well that would be great but I suspect that already most areas of research or stretched given the finance that is available. Should money be diverted away from physics to areas such as medicine?Quote:
We should focus on what is more pressing and what can be achieved in the short term without sacrificing long term research.
Thats a question that will always be answered subjectively.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Yeah, well that would be great but I suspect that already most areas of research or stretched given the finance that is available. Should money be diverted away from physics to areas such as medicine?
One we disagree on!:rolleyes:
Apparently, though, when I disagree it's because I 'process my logic in a tumble dryer', not because it's a question that will always be answered subjectively.
As you said yourself, you tend to be 'harsh' in situations like these.Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
Apparently, though, when I disagree it's because I 'process my logic in a tumble dryer', not because it's a question that will always be answered subjectively.
I perhaps reacted a little to vehemently.:(
But that's probably your intention?
Two diametrically opposed arguments.
If we fund medicine research, we may keep Steven Hawking aliven longer to discover his grand unified theories and such.
If we fund higher physical research, the answers can be filtered down and applied to help people in a biological and medicinal capacity later.
one argument seems very humanitarian in nature, one seems perhaps more directed and efficient. At the end of the day, neither argument is 100% accurate.
I like Wally's views do what you can for today without neglecting the future.
Common sense posts like this will only spoil the thread:DQuote:
Originally posted by Behemoth
Two diametrically opposed arguments.
If we fund medicine research, we may keep Steven Hawking aliven longer to discover his grand unified theories and such.
If we fund higher physical research, the answers can be filtered down and applied to help people in a biological and medicinal capacity later.
one argument seems very humanitarian in nature, one seems perhaps more directed and efficient. At the end of the day, neither argument is 100% accurate.
I like Wally's views do what you can for today without neglecting the future.
I think what we really should be doing is increasing research funding in all important areas of research. However, I get the impression that no matter how much was being spent on medicine, there would never be enough and they would want to take money away from physics (or other areas).
Glen:
I'm quite capable of some unbalanced and distorted views when I want to be.
I think our technological prowess has surpass our ability to survive without it and the whole human race is spiralling towards self-destruction. I think the world would be a better place with no nuclear weaponry and antibiotic resistance germs.
But thats just madman ramblings...:D
And those budgets will be decided by pen-pushers that have no real idea of what the numbers they are writing out actually mean...:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
I think what we really should be doing is increasing research funding in all important areas of research. However, I get the impression that no matter how much was being spent on medicine, there would never be enough and they would want to take money away from physics (or other areas).
If I am harsh it's because I try to ignore most of the emotional aspect. People die and that's not going to change. It shouldn't matter which innocent people die, they're all innocent people and it doesn't matter who is friends with them. There is no point crying over spilt milk, as they say.
I am not deliberately harsh, I just try to be reasonable. I don't like walking on eggshells just to avoid upsetting someone with the cold reality of the situation.
Anyway, it seems the discussion is pretty much concluded.