Natalia,
I'm taking a break so I'll go down to your other points.
At 15:58 13/09/2010 -0700, you wrote:
Hi Keith,
CERN is scheduled for a 12 month "mothballing" to save on energy costs,
(only about $25 Million) but upgrades will be taking place during that
time, and physicists will be stopping to analyze the mountains of data
they have not had time to examine from their past work. I think that given
the enormous start-up and operational costs, they can't afford not to keep
this going, and we'll soon see revisions in their approach. Though they
have not yet found the HIggs Boson, antimatter was first created there in
'95. Perhaps you overlooked the CERN web site info I sent regarding their
actual ongoing production of anti-hydrogen.
<http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/academy/AM-travel01b.html>http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/academy/AM-travel01b.html
" How mach antimatter can you make in one accelerator cycle?
Here at CERN we can produce 50 millions antiprotons in each cycle (about
once a minute), that allows us to make a few hundred antihydrogen atoms.
The number could be 10 times higher in particular configurations of the
accelerator. This sounds a lot, but expressed in grams it is a billionth
of a gram in a year.
If we count on the production CERN has done over the last 10 years (about
1 billionth of a gram), it has cost a few hundred millions Swiss francs.
This press release on antimatter production came out of CERN in '95:
<http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases1996/PR01.96EAntiHydrogen.html>http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases1996/PR01.96EAntiHydrogen.html
<http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/academy/AM-travel01b.html>
This 2008 CERN site answers some questions about goals and misconceptions
(many of which I held) using the Dan Brown book misinformation as a spring
board:
<http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Spotlight/SpotlightAandD-en.html>http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Spotlight/SpotlightAandD-en.html
Also, below, you wrote:
"How can we breed better children?" is something every mother is
interested in. "How can we conquer disease?" is a question that everybody
is interested in.
On what do you base your assertion about every mother?
Only from my experience.
I've followed your postings on how women choose their mates, and your
belief surfaces time and again that status and best provider are key
factors in mate selection.
They are not my beliefs alone. Male selection by females has ben, and
continues to be, the subject of a great deal of research. I haven't time to
go through those here but if you are seriously interested into ernquiring
into the evidence then I would recommend "The Evolutionary biology of Human
Female Sexuality" by Randy Thornhill and Steven W. Gangstad (OUP 2008).
This is a highly academic text with copious references even though this
subject is still only two or three decades old at the most. It is, however,
only taking real shape since the explosion of genetic research since the
Human genome Project (2003). A popular book, although written by highly
qualified/experienced authors, Cindy Meston and David Buss and also
well-referenced is "Why Women have Sex".
You might consider that women were forced to mate in this way for
centuries, and that most had little choice for just as long. It's still
the case today due to religious dogma and societal edicts that women must
settle for same,
Yes, I agree. This is a (uniform) byproduct of the agricultural society
(but not of hunter-gatherers).
but of those who are able to exercise choice, most are opting for love,
compatibility, or in the case of long lasting relationships, both.
Yes, this is our modern culture, though bear in mind that, statistically,
women who have had their marriages arranged by parents (and mostly "fall in
love" after the event) are equally happy. it is very interesting that many
of our young Indian people in the UK, even if highly educated and
"Westernized" still want their parents to arrange introductions.
Women who dream of marriage (with or without children), a diminishing
number these days, fantasize about real passion for that union. This is
hardly achieved by mere faith in status elevation and a concomitant
financial stability.
Youthful hormones are powerful. "Love is blind", as they say. It's
still fact that, generally, women choose men of as high a status or
intelligence (of potential high security) as of equals or inferiors.
It goes against human nature to marry out of love, despite what you
choose to observe.
It's very much in nature to be in love. I have never said otherwise. It
doesn't necessarily have to precede marriage, shocking though this might
seem to the highly individualistic Western mind..
I must add at this point that it's just as obscene as men choosing their
mates based solely on physical attributes or wealth status.
It's not "obscene". (That, itself, is an obscene word to use in this
context.) Other things being equal men prefer younger partners and those
who are beautiful than not. Beauty correlates with good health and with
intelligence -- as well proved as any genetic finding in science.
That this happens to disturbed or confused individuals, of whom there are
many, does not mean it's the predominant driving force in mate selection
for either sex. Otherwise, women would all hold out for the balding CEO,
conception would drop practically to extinction, and only one generation
of poor would all be single men.
Many women (and usually those of exceptional beauty) allow themselves to
marry the most grotesque men -- so long as they are rich. Think of Jaquie
Kennedy subseqeuntly marrying Onassis! Think of Rpert Murdocj
h's beautiful wife for whom he threw over his wonderful wife and mother of
his children. These are just one of hundreds of second marriage couples
that one sees photos of in the press.
In fact, given the high divorce rates, you may as well concede that lust
is far too often the unfortunate driving concern for both women and men.
Are you saying that lust is a bad motive for marrying? It might be, it
might not be.
Most families, women are keenly aware, can only get by with two
salaries, and if women were primarily choosing for the reasons you
describe, they wouldn't end up working to make ends meet. Love or lust,
for a while in the case of the latter, will make that essential low-wage
position entirely worth it.
Breeding better children is certainly going to be the dream of some people
obsessed with perfection, but, even according to physicists, without
imperfection, we would not have this wonderful universe of ours today.
That we will evolve to have stronger, more intelligent children is in the
genes already.
The genes also throw up defective children due to new genetic mutations
which constantly arise when sperm meets egg (between one and three each
time it is calculated -- but not all mutations are harmful, of course. Some
are highly beneficial and that's the way we evolve).
Women, even in the hopeful, delusional state of lust, are conceiving
consciously with offspring in mind that represent the best blend of two
'special' people; too often in their own image, but certainly not the
best possible human is top of mind. Breeding is a whole other scary
topic, akin to dog breeding.
That science thinks it's in our best interests to breed a human capable of
light year travel is one thing, but developing a new human to become
toxin/disease tolerant every time Pharma rears its ugly head, or
psychological stress accumulates--we couldn't possibly keep up.
You are raising a straw man. No, it won't be science that determines the
future of human breeding. It will be women and future mothers. They will go
to almost any lengths to ensure that they have healthy children, free from
impairments.
Far more logical to criminalize industrial/Pharma toxic produce now, and
allow evolution to progress naturally. We're hardly in a position to
require prepping a human for interstellar space, since we haven't even
mastered local interplanetary travel. When that day comes, we might be in
a better position to 'play' with genetics wisely, if that's possible,
should we decide it's necessary at all.
Conquering disease is mostly doable today if we substantially reduce
pollutants, actually use research funds for what they're intended, and
change our life style to reflect healthy choices. Why complicate things by
trying to master the effects of modern living if we're not going to
eliminate the actual causes of the effects? That everyone may be
interested in conquering disease plays to the myth that science should and
will solve all of our problems. One of the biggest myths began with the
belief, because of science, greed and/or convenience, that we could live
without deleterious consequences from pollutants.
You've shifted tack here and there are points I might also agree with you
about, but I've spent a lot time in trying to convince you on the previous
matters so I think I'll leave it there.
Keith
Natalia Kuzmyn
On 9/12/2010 1:42 AM, Keith Hudson wrote:
Now that we are into an era of austerity -- at least in Europe and at
least for a number of years -- what is the future for CERN (European
Organization for Nuclear Research)? This huge circular particle
accelerator running for miles under the boundary between France and
Switzerland is now due to be moth-balled from 2012 onwards because of its
immense running costs. This is a body-blow to several thousand engineers
and scientists, including many of the best young brains of Europe. From
2013 onwards, if we are realistic, the likelihood is that it will be many
years -- if ever again -- before European governments will be in a
position to support it.
We must also bear in mind another factor which is never talked about.
This is that the cost of particle physics has never appeared in political
manifestos at election times. It has been surreptitiously slid into more
general governmental spending on science education and research. The
proverbial man-in-the-street is vaguely aware that his consumer goods are
due to science, but he would never willingly vote for the immense sums of
money required for further accelerators if they ever began to loom large
in governmental budgets.
The man-in-the-street is potentially as curious as the most dedicated
scientist but his education is so blunted in childhood that he cannot
begin to assess the importance and excitement of particle physics in the
whole scheme of things. Indeed, it is a marvel that the CERN accelerator
has been funded at all, there being hardly a politician or senior
bureaucrat in the whole of Europe who understands anything of basic
science (Angela Merkel of Germany being a notable exception).
But even if the CERN accelerator could have continued, the Higgs boson
discovered, and antimatter atoms created, then one thing is for
certain. Many more questions will have been raised, and the scientists
concerned would have wanted to build an even more powerful accelerator.
This, at the very least, would probably cost several times more than the
present one -- probably more than Europe could afford. It is possible
that one more might be built. If a fantastic scientific breakthrough
occurs during 2011, then perhaps America and China could join the project
and help to build the next accelerator which might have to be the size of
Europe, or the American Mid-West or the Gobi desert.
Subsequently, if all the deep matters of physics are not answered, what
then? An accelerator that runs round the whole Equator? This is a classic
Malthusian problem. Sooner or later, the whole world would not be large
enough, nor governments rich enough, to build the next one. This would
not only be a body-blow to particle physicists, it could be devastating
to scientific enquiry itself.
But never say never. Perhaps all the particles that physicists have
discovered so far, and will discover in the future, are merely
terminological artefacts of our present scientific theories, the
principal one being the Big Bang. Perhaps the universe wasn't created
this way. Perhaps there aren't really such things as sub-atomic particles
but something else that adopts particular appearances according to the
experiments that are applied. Perhaps a different scientific view of
things, different concepts and different theories and experiments will
reveal another way of explaining the overwhelming wonders of the universe.
Perhaps classical experiments in the future -- whatever the current
theory might be -- will have to be held in outer space. If so, then
despite delays, we do have hope for science in the future because the
best young minds in science are not confined to physics alone but also to
evolutionary biology. And we will need this subject if we are ever to go
on prolonged flights or carry out large experiments in outer space. We
are probably going to have to deep-freeze or otherwise maintain human DNA
in good condition for long periods of time. To do this we are going to
have to understand and develop genetics a lot further yet.
And this is already the main growth area of science even though it has
only really come of age since the Human Genome Project in 2003 which blew
several previous ideas of biology shy-high. Biologists are also pursuing
answers to deep questions. "How did Life start?" is the most profound
one. This may turn out to be involving complex issues of a quantum sort
that are quite as deep as those presently pondered by particle
physicists. Although this question only intrigues a minority of the
population there are also some wider ones. "How can we breed better
children?" is something every mother is interested in. "How can we
conquer disease?" is a question that everybody is interested in.
And, of course, the taxpayer will support this avenue of enquiry. So far,
both the professional careerists and the more fanatical believers of
organized religions kick up a lot of trouble from time to time. But the
motivations of potential recipients of genetic manipulation (particularly
mothers of IVF children so far) as well as the scientific curiosity of
professional biologists has been too strong. Politicians and bureaucrats
already know this, of course, and genetics is now quietly slipping
through the legal cracks and developing quite as fast as is possible,
limited only by the quantity and quality of young minds wanting to enter
the subject. Even if some governments were to outlaw or delay particular
lines of enquiry for electoral reasons -- as President George Bush did
concerning stem cells some years ago -- then other governments will allow
it to continue, or even give it much more substantial backing as
Singapore and China are already doing.
Even if science is blocked along the present particle physics avenue then
we have every hope that it will continue along others. And -- who knows?
-- even the "soft" science of biology might one day help to answer the
questions that particle physicists are now asking but can't yet answer.
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
