Blogs, science and the LHC
Posted 10-09-2008 at 06:45 PM by MizVoldemort
So, I have a blog, over at http://purplepiggy.wordpress.com/ (so if you like this one, feel free to read some of it, a lot of it is rubbish, but there are a few deep-ish things in there.
But I decided to post this blog here, because it was inspired by conversation on here, as well as other sites and with other people.
Warning, if you're sick to death of the LHC, I'd recommend you don't read this, or glaze over to my sentiment at the end. I'd also like your honest comments. I'm a very scientific person (ack, if only I could do maths!), and I tend to let my rants take over me. So if you can be bothered to read through it all, a comment would be nice, whether it's in agreement, or to just tell me that I'm crazy.
So, everyone’s been talking about the LHC and the end of the world.
Most of it is negative. People are saying that the risk of it creating microblack holes that don’t dissolve and gobble up the Earth, or this strange matter that converts all normal matter into strange matter too is too high. Which I can empathise with, to be honest.
Just a little note on that. I trust the scientists. Yes, I know a couple are dead set against it, but CERN employs a truckload of people. If all of these mega-brains thought it was going to blow up they’d be booking their tickets with NASA right now. I like to think I understand it, and because I love physics (as a concept, that is. I dropped it after GCSE because I just can’t cope with the actual maths involved. Nope, I’ll stick to reading about theories, not calculating them!) and like to read up on it I think I do have a fairly good grasp of what is going on. But I know that I, like the majority of the population who have not done physics to degree level and then specialised in quantum and particle physics, am pretty darn ignorant about it all as well.
And if you don’t understand something, then fear comes right along with it. In my opinion that’s the root cause of a lot of problems. Racism, lalalalaphobia, etc, etc. We don’t understand that person, because they’re different. What ifs creep in… etc, etc. Which is why I empathise with the people really worrying about this. Just like I empathise with the people who scorned Darwin when he came back with this theory of Evolution. It was new, and scary, and went against the Bible, which was pretty much all they had to, y’know, explain why things were in those days. And of course they had the fear that if they supported him God would come smiting along, destroying all of their crops, leading to mass death. Just like this LHC thing is new and scary (unless you’re working there of course - in which case it’s new and exciting!), and you don’t want to support it in case it blows up the world leading to mass death.
Just for the record, instant death by strange matter or black hole actually sounds a lot more cool, exciting and painless than death by starvation.
It’s bird flu all over again people. At least bird flu and the LHC make a lot more sense than the usual ‘today is the last day of the Earth’ theories. Given that they actually have some science in them, rather than the Bible code, or whatnot. Sorry to any religious people in here who believe in the Bible code, but you could do the same thing with a copy of Harry Potter, and get a good few coherent sentences out of it, and probably at least one leading to the end of the world.
So yeah, a bit bored and urined off with scaremongering, but generally a lot more tolerant.
Oh no, it’s something else that’s been urining me off.
The money side of it. It cost £4.4 billion to build. For all those on the other side of the Atlantic that’s $9 billion. And don’t ask me for Euros, because that exchange rate just confuses me.
But yes, when you immediately look at it it looks like a truck load of money.
Here’s a job for all you guys out there. Google NASA’s space budget. £4.4 billion spent on one project doesn’t sound that much when you see how much they spend in a year.
And then just think about how much those rich and famous in the entertainment business make.
On a global scale, it’s still a big amount, but not truly massive.
Science in general is underfunded. I’ve known this for a while - mum was a genetic biologist and got paid peanuts. Not only that, but once you’ve left the field, say, to have a baby Jojobean, like Mum, it’s impossible to get back in, since it’s moved on so much since you left. Heck, Mum will look at what I’m studying for A Level Biology, and she won’t have a clue!
Buy yourself a New Scientist magazine. Look int he back at the job adverts. Most of the jobs in there will require a PHD. Then take a look at the average wage. Not much, is it?
And it’s not getting any better. The UK Government has reduced the physics research budget. Not great for all those trying to make discoveries.
My point is that science is underfunded. Why begrudge one large experiment that could have amazing discoveries?
What if it goes wrong, they say.
Then that’s great. I can’t remember where I read it, but there’s a nice little quote floating around somewhere about how a scientist’s greatest achievement is proving themselves wrong. True, not everything in science goes to plan, but that can lead to some pretty awesome discoveries. Penicillin people. It was discovered by accident when something went wrong, and look at how many lives it’s saved. And there are countless other examples.
Then you get the third world preachers. Yes, I agree that poverty is a horrible thing, but the amount of times I read a comments section on any blog, video, website or whatever and see the typical ‘how could you blend an ipod when people are starving in Africa?’ or ‘why are you debating about something so small when there are children dying in the third world?’ It urines me off. And with the LHC you have the same attitude. £4.4 billion could have saved so many people...
I hate to be cynical, but that's bovine excrement.
The solution to world poverty is not to throw money at them. Why? There are many reasons. For one, if you go through a charity, you’re asking for trouble. A lot of money will get caught in red tape, or renting the high street shop. Let me tell you a story my geography teacher told me when we were studying development. He has a friend who sells and fits those carpet tiles. The ones you see in offices and schools. Like lino, but carpet lino. They, like most things of that ilk, are expensive. My geoggers teacher got his utility room fitted with them for free from his friend. Not because they were friends. Because Oxfam had just build a shiny new HQ, and had decked it out with carpet lino. And then had it all thrown out and replaced, because it was the wrong fire trucking colour. Nice way to spend your money, doing so much good for all the starving people who are really going to appreciate the fact that your HQ looks pretty.
The moral: do your research before you give to charity. See where the money is actually going.
Secondly, there are different types of aid. There’s top down aid. That gets given to the Government of said starving country. And what does it get spent on? Political agendas, the rich and already wealthy, or the folks who have the right connections. Look at Ethiopia. Money that could have saved thousands was spent on weapons to kill thousands! You need to go for bottom up aid if you want to do any good.
And above that, it needs to be sustainable. One case we learnt about involved a rich country donating combine harvesters, and other high tech equipment. Not a very good idea, you see. Because although this stuff may be well and good with someone who knows how to use it, has a suitable use for it and earns enough to pay for the upkeep of it, it’s not going to do much good in any other situation. It’s another burden. give them simple, cheap, easily and cheaply replicated or repaired equipment, and teach them how to use it so that the skills can be passed on.
And then we come to a rather more … immoral … situation. In some cases giving charitable aid makes the situation worse. Again, look at Ethiopia. They were starving, we gave them food, they had kids, the money ran out, the food ran out, and how you have even more starving people. A question of deep ethics coming up here. Maybe it would have been better not to send food. It’s all too easy to become dependant on aid, especially when it’s food. You’re left with a situation where you have a difficult to survive area with more people than resources. I suppose it’s a question of your ethics. Would it be better to have let 100 people in this village die, and have ten survive and start to make a decent living on the land within the following years, or would it be better to have ten people die, 100 people live, and 1000 people on the brink of death five years later? Like abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, whatever, it’s not an easily answerable question. I know what I would decide, and I feel very cold hearted for it.
So yes, throwing money at charities and these people won’t help. Not until the red tape and politics involved is sorted out.
And then we come on to my next point. Even if they get the politics sorted, and a Government that actually cares about the people (I wish), the money will run out one day.
Another question for you, I hope I’m making you think today. Would you rather give X country £X of food, that would eventually run out. Or would you rather spend £X amount of money developing genetically modified crops (gasp) or selectively bred crops that count survive the arid conditions?
Keep a whole village alive for five years, or return after five years, to half a village, with something that will allow them to survive for the next 1000 years?
But I decided to post this blog here, because it was inspired by conversation on here, as well as other sites and with other people.
Warning, if you're sick to death of the LHC, I'd recommend you don't read this, or glaze over to my sentiment at the end. I'd also like your honest comments. I'm a very scientific person (ack, if only I could do maths!), and I tend to let my rants take over me. So if you can be bothered to read through it all, a comment would be nice, whether it's in agreement, or to just tell me that I'm crazy.
So, everyone’s been talking about the LHC and the end of the world.
Most of it is negative. People are saying that the risk of it creating microblack holes that don’t dissolve and gobble up the Earth, or this strange matter that converts all normal matter into strange matter too is too high. Which I can empathise with, to be honest.
Just a little note on that. I trust the scientists. Yes, I know a couple are dead set against it, but CERN employs a truckload of people. If all of these mega-brains thought it was going to blow up they’d be booking their tickets with NASA right now. I like to think I understand it, and because I love physics (as a concept, that is. I dropped it after GCSE because I just can’t cope with the actual maths involved. Nope, I’ll stick to reading about theories, not calculating them!) and like to read up on it I think I do have a fairly good grasp of what is going on. But I know that I, like the majority of the population who have not done physics to degree level and then specialised in quantum and particle physics, am pretty darn ignorant about it all as well.
And if you don’t understand something, then fear comes right along with it. In my opinion that’s the root cause of a lot of problems. Racism, lalalalaphobia, etc, etc. We don’t understand that person, because they’re different. What ifs creep in… etc, etc. Which is why I empathise with the people really worrying about this. Just like I empathise with the people who scorned Darwin when he came back with this theory of Evolution. It was new, and scary, and went against the Bible, which was pretty much all they had to, y’know, explain why things were in those days. And of course they had the fear that if they supported him God would come smiting along, destroying all of their crops, leading to mass death. Just like this LHC thing is new and scary (unless you’re working there of course - in which case it’s new and exciting!), and you don’t want to support it in case it blows up the world leading to mass death.
Just for the record, instant death by strange matter or black hole actually sounds a lot more cool, exciting and painless than death by starvation.
It’s bird flu all over again people. At least bird flu and the LHC make a lot more sense than the usual ‘today is the last day of the Earth’ theories. Given that they actually have some science in them, rather than the Bible code, or whatnot. Sorry to any religious people in here who believe in the Bible code, but you could do the same thing with a copy of Harry Potter, and get a good few coherent sentences out of it, and probably at least one leading to the end of the world.
So yeah, a bit bored and urined off with scaremongering, but generally a lot more tolerant.
Oh no, it’s something else that’s been urining me off.
The money side of it. It cost £4.4 billion to build. For all those on the other side of the Atlantic that’s $9 billion. And don’t ask me for Euros, because that exchange rate just confuses me.
But yes, when you immediately look at it it looks like a truck load of money.
Here’s a job for all you guys out there. Google NASA’s space budget. £4.4 billion spent on one project doesn’t sound that much when you see how much they spend in a year.
And then just think about how much those rich and famous in the entertainment business make.
On a global scale, it’s still a big amount, but not truly massive.
Science in general is underfunded. I’ve known this for a while - mum was a genetic biologist and got paid peanuts. Not only that, but once you’ve left the field, say, to have a baby Jojobean, like Mum, it’s impossible to get back in, since it’s moved on so much since you left. Heck, Mum will look at what I’m studying for A Level Biology, and she won’t have a clue!
Buy yourself a New Scientist magazine. Look int he back at the job adverts. Most of the jobs in there will require a PHD. Then take a look at the average wage. Not much, is it?
And it’s not getting any better. The UK Government has reduced the physics research budget. Not great for all those trying to make discoveries.
My point is that science is underfunded. Why begrudge one large experiment that could have amazing discoveries?
What if it goes wrong, they say.
Then that’s great. I can’t remember where I read it, but there’s a nice little quote floating around somewhere about how a scientist’s greatest achievement is proving themselves wrong. True, not everything in science goes to plan, but that can lead to some pretty awesome discoveries. Penicillin people. It was discovered by accident when something went wrong, and look at how many lives it’s saved. And there are countless other examples.
Then you get the third world preachers. Yes, I agree that poverty is a horrible thing, but the amount of times I read a comments section on any blog, video, website or whatever and see the typical ‘how could you blend an ipod when people are starving in Africa?’ or ‘why are you debating about something so small when there are children dying in the third world?’ It urines me off. And with the LHC you have the same attitude. £4.4 billion could have saved so many people...
I hate to be cynical, but that's bovine excrement.
The solution to world poverty is not to throw money at them. Why? There are many reasons. For one, if you go through a charity, you’re asking for trouble. A lot of money will get caught in red tape, or renting the high street shop. Let me tell you a story my geography teacher told me when we were studying development. He has a friend who sells and fits those carpet tiles. The ones you see in offices and schools. Like lino, but carpet lino. They, like most things of that ilk, are expensive. My geoggers teacher got his utility room fitted with them for free from his friend. Not because they were friends. Because Oxfam had just build a shiny new HQ, and had decked it out with carpet lino. And then had it all thrown out and replaced, because it was the wrong fire trucking colour. Nice way to spend your money, doing so much good for all the starving people who are really going to appreciate the fact that your HQ looks pretty.
The moral: do your research before you give to charity. See where the money is actually going.
Secondly, there are different types of aid. There’s top down aid. That gets given to the Government of said starving country. And what does it get spent on? Political agendas, the rich and already wealthy, or the folks who have the right connections. Look at Ethiopia. Money that could have saved thousands was spent on weapons to kill thousands! You need to go for bottom up aid if you want to do any good.
And above that, it needs to be sustainable. One case we learnt about involved a rich country donating combine harvesters, and other high tech equipment. Not a very good idea, you see. Because although this stuff may be well and good with someone who knows how to use it, has a suitable use for it and earns enough to pay for the upkeep of it, it’s not going to do much good in any other situation. It’s another burden. give them simple, cheap, easily and cheaply replicated or repaired equipment, and teach them how to use it so that the skills can be passed on.
And then we come to a rather more … immoral … situation. In some cases giving charitable aid makes the situation worse. Again, look at Ethiopia. They were starving, we gave them food, they had kids, the money ran out, the food ran out, and how you have even more starving people. A question of deep ethics coming up here. Maybe it would have been better not to send food. It’s all too easy to become dependant on aid, especially when it’s food. You’re left with a situation where you have a difficult to survive area with more people than resources. I suppose it’s a question of your ethics. Would it be better to have let 100 people in this village die, and have ten survive and start to make a decent living on the land within the following years, or would it be better to have ten people die, 100 people live, and 1000 people on the brink of death five years later? Like abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, whatever, it’s not an easily answerable question. I know what I would decide, and I feel very cold hearted for it.
So yes, throwing money at charities and these people won’t help. Not until the red tape and politics involved is sorted out.
And then we come on to my next point. Even if they get the politics sorted, and a Government that actually cares about the people (I wish), the money will run out one day.
Another question for you, I hope I’m making you think today. Would you rather give X country £X of food, that would eventually run out. Or would you rather spend £X amount of money developing genetically modified crops (gasp) or selectively bred crops that count survive the arid conditions?
Keep a whole village alive for five years, or return after five years, to half a village, with something that will allow them to survive for the next 1000 years?
Total Comments 0
