[quote]machiajelly wrote:
SSC wrote:
Forgive my ignorance about Islam, it’s reasons like you I tend to avoid politics. It was a bad example, but you seem to be dodging answering the point I made. How is endangering our existence justified by science just for science’s sake?
I did address your original point (albeit perhaps too succinctly); I have no idea what you were trying to convey with super soldiers and Islamists.
You’re a layperson (no insult intended; when it comes to physics so am I). The only thing driving your fears of existence being wiped out are hyperbolic news reports and your apparently biggotted views of the French.
If you’re going to turn it into a number game about the end of existence (your existence) just refer to what Scott already said - the probability of dying due to some random factor by going outside today is higher than the world coming to an end from the LHC.
The risk for the LHC is truly minimal, but furthering our knowledge of the universe and existence should never be stopped just because the layperson does not agree.[/quote]
Thanks for responding with civility. I’m in a bit of a better mood, so hopefully I can be a bit less neandrethalic.
The point I was trying to make was less about the machine and its chances for success, but more towards the question of when scientific progress should be examined, as a possible outcome could be cataclysmic for everyone, not just myself. Think of it this way, taken from Jurassic Park:
“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”
The reason I chose my two examples are easy. I’ll break them down.
1.) The idea of the super-soldier has obviously floated around for decades, almost a century if you will. You brought up the idea of applied science - which tampering with DNA and the genetic makeup of humans is applied science. By justifying the particle accelerator with the “applied science” concept, you’re only justifying any other questionable experiment or radical idea.
2.) I don’t know why everyone went so far and took my second example out of context. I wasn’t even talking about a particular group of people just to exploit them, but to drive a point home. The main reason I used that example was for the nuclear weaponry thought - and improving its concentration (or however the hell you measure radioactivity and its effects.) Creating a stronger, bigger weapon and submitting it to (ENTER MUCH-MALIGNED ORGANIZATION IN WHICH 99% OF THE WORLD WANTS TO DISPEL,) is something that can put us in jeapordy - just like the chance of LHC going haywire, as remote as it may be.
As for my ‘bigotry’ is concerned, it was a comment made in poor taste, but I don’t see how that’s called to attention but your clear views of pro-war folk aren’t. Those seem a big singularly aimed as far as I’m concerned.