> Einstein wrote:

> Science by the government is 90% horse crap, and 10% accidental discoveries.

"Oops!  We got lost on the way to Denny's and landed on the moon!"

"Oops!  I was trying to fill out this paperwork really fast, and the intense force between my pen and the paper destabilized the ink molecules, starting nuclear fission!  Maybe we can make a bomb out of this!"

"Oops!  I was drawing pictures of my hand on this stack of forms and accidentally mapped out the human genome!"

> Acolyte wrote:

> Zarf Beeblebrix: "How about because, although there are huge benefits in the long term for said projects, in the short term, they are wholly unprofitable?"

Oh, right, businesses don't have a conception of what long-term means.

Never argued that businesses have no concept of what "long term" means.  However, long term projects have a way of draining huge amounts of money, which jeopardizes the short term.  If a company can't foresee that a long term project can continue while retaining short term financial stability, the company will jettison the long term project or collapse, making the long term project's loss inevitable.

The thing about the federal government funding the project is that the federal government, just by its sheer size, has the capability of pooling society's resources to create massive research projects.  And since the federal government has a greater likelihood to continue surviving than a business (this at least referring to the United States federal government), it is better able to take a short term loss for long term gain.

"Seriously, what new toothpaste will we be able to develop as a result of the LHC?"

Who knows? That's what's so fun about science. If the debate over global warming is any indicator, science is not more or less perturbed by government influence than it would be by private influence. The politicization of the climate issue has muddied the waters so, that whomever hasn't jumped on the IPCC bandwagon either fervently denies anthropogenic factors, or has suspended judgement altogether due to the ambiguous nature of the statements regarding the big "what ifs" of global climate change. Moreover, I would add that an individual's failure of imagination should not be construed as the failure of the free market.

Okay, here's the problem there: business investment requires at least some direction of a profitable goal.  I want to make this very clear: in areas where a profitable goal is conceivable, the private sector does awesome.

Take, for example, nanotechnology.  Businesses have already popped up trying not just to develop the short term nanotechnology areas, such as tougher metals.  Some research businesses have popped up trying to be the first to build extremely long term, theoretical projects, such as the molecular manufacturer (a device that would essentially rearrange atoms from matter to construct whatever object a person wanted).

The difference, though, is whether profitability is foreseeable.  If the only goal is "we might eventually make something that we someday may sell at some price," it's a crap investment.  But if the goal is "we might eventually develop X revolutionary technology that we can sell and become rich beyond our wildest dreams," you can bet a venture capitalist will come forward.

Yeah, but if we can't conceal weapons, everyone with weapons will have to brandish them in public.  Then every robber will be able to point out the idiots who don't have guns.

Think of this situation:

Little old lady with a purse and a 25 year old in a suit and a violin case.  Who should I rob?  Sorry, lady, you're going down.

But oops!  The little old lady had a revolver in the purse!  Bam!

Now, picture a little old lady carrying a gun around and a 25 year old in a suit and a violin case.  Who should I rob?  Well, shit, if the guy pulls out a gun, I can sue him in a tort for the damages caused by him concealing a weapon.  He's going down!

> Chris_Balsz wrote:

> It is a matter of scientific FACT that humanity would be more efficient as an organism if it were a society of parthogenetic clones.  If women could impregnate and bear children without men, society could dispense with all the clutter, the violence, and the wasted time of dating, sex, and rape.  This is FACT, so your objections to the Lesbian Bitch State are purely cultural and subjective, and really ignorant of the Facts. Typical penis units.

Lack of genetic diversity owns the world without men.

How about because, although there are huge benefits in the long term for said projects, in the short term, they are wholly unprofitable?

Seriously, what new toothpaste will we be able to develop as a result of the LHC?

> Justinian I wrote:

> Zarf,

I have sympathies toward "practical morality," but that's not what religious conservatives are about. I support educating children on hard work, but I don't on prayer. What the social conservatives do is support morality because of religion. They are principle trenchers.

Someone can support some morals for practical reasons, and that's fine. But that isn't what social conservative do, because of the religious connection.

Actually, number 2 would be quite in line with religious conservatism.

I think the two ideals are non-competitive.  You can be a political conservative, yet oppose gay marriage.  Here's how:

The government should generally not interfere in the economic affairs of the nation.  However, there are exceptions, that being in the case of externalities.  If an economic condition benefits society more than the net benefit to the parties making the agreement, then the government has the right to subsidize particular actions to accommodate the unrealized benefits.

Now in the case of marriage, the nation gains a key resource: people.  In Western societies, where populations are stagnant and in some cases declining, higher population is a source of economic, political, and military strength for a nation, all other things being equal.  Thus, a nation with a dwindling population would want to encourage more children to be born.  That means it's in the government's interests to promote heterosexuality.

Or how about going this way?

The government should not interfere in economic affairs.  However, moral issues fundamentally have negative consequences on the economy.  An immoral society will slowly degrade, and the nation's economy and military will suffer as a result.  Rome is a good example.

As a result, even though a nation shouldn't interfere in economic affairs, it is in our national interests to retain a rigid moral fabric.  Homosexuality contradicts that moral fabric for X, Y, and Z reasons.  Therefore, it's bad.

Disclaimer: I don't advocate either of these positions.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> "Neurotoxicology?"

Maybe he kept finding increased levels of heavy metals in peoples' brains and that started him thinking...

And why not Neurotoxicology?  It is called interdisciplinary study...

1: That "maybe" is highly speculative.
2: Neurotoxicology is an interdisciplinary study, yet economics isn't?  I'm not doubting that he may have some knowledge that helps in understanding the world of the social sciences.  But to say that a scientist in neurotoxicology is more legitimate a source on economic theory than an economist is just blatantly wrong.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> About Chris Martenson

First of all, I am not an economist.

Hmm... maybe a little out of his field, at least if you're asserting he is an advocate of your resource-based economy?  Neurotoxicology?  Um... okay...

> DPS wrote:

> In the West America has one of, if not the highest, deaths do to guns per capita.  They also have the least amount of gun control.

Um... isn't that like saying "Legalizing pot reduces the instances of arrest for use of pot?"

1. McCain

2. Yeah.  I think elections force compromise.  I may not agree with McCain 100%, but it becomes an issue not of whether an individual personally kept to their moral standards, but whether their moral standards are best for the nation.

Like it or not, compromise is the name of the game in democracy.  Otherwise, we devolve into totalitarianism.

Stupidity: The stuff dreams are made of.