« Civilization | Main | Emergency Exit Flying. »

March 19, 2005

Comments

little miss demosthenes

good advice, caolionn. i'll keep your soapbox comment in mind in my own pbl =)

ALejandro

Let me underline "ACT".

sgaileach1

We clearly need more physicists and more good science PR as well as more educated technical professionals and specialists, along with a certain revolutionary new technological means of cohesively and efficiently organizing these independent interests into a more functionally interactive and uncompromisingly representative body of collaborative influences and clearly defined objectives extending far beyond the scope of any otherwise isolated corporate interest, honed to facilitate lending science and reason the voice it calls for in the broader context of today's council of global authority.

It is not intended to imply those presently on the council inept, rather simply to state that obviously true realization of global potential can only be determined by the free, enabled, and fully informed experience of its spectrum of unique possibilities collectively and in present context identifying what that unified purpose and direction is to be.

It all comes down to risk, such as whether these many powers yet possess the level of technological sophistication required to effectively consolidated their resources and influence into such a unified direction as would enable risking a $35,000 minimum annual tax-free student income for example be offered to any willing to participate in the “new-new deal” and modern Renaissance of Global Utopian Networking. I cannot help feeling that they must know what time it is.

Kevin

Good blog. I do think, however, that when you write:

"Science is not a controversial topic. Generally, everybody likes science, some may fear it, but on the whole science is everybody's friend."

you are being more optimistic than evidence allows. In fact, I would suggest that many, many Americans are actually quite frightened of science. Let me rattle off a few examples:

- A majority of Americans disbelieve Darwinian evolution.

- The Bush administration managed to con Americans into supporting a war because of "chemical and biological" weapons were there. Who makes these weapons? Presumably it's chemists and biologists. Obviously people are afraid of these things or they wouldn't have agreed to a 200+ billion-dollar invasion/occupation. They handcuffed the weapons inspectors (who are...chemists and physicists. They can't be trusted.).

- Stem cell research limitations will be the laughing stock of our grandchildren's generation. But stem cells are evil.

- Nanotechnology: the grey goo will get us all!

- Atomic bomb

- Genetic modification of food
/list

Americans are very religious, and they sense that science and religion are mutually exclusive. I know that there are many scientists who are also devoutly religious--I don't understand how that works, but whatever. I would very much encourage those people to write lots of books explaining why science and religion can co-exist.

I'm not sure that the very logical argument of "science for the sake of knowledge" will be the best way to win public support for research. Our main goal is to convince a pragmatic and not altogether open-minded public that science benefits *them* in a tangible way.

Anyway, bravo a million times for your work to fight the good fight. I think the HEP community has a rather up-hill battle compared to those of us who study things related to biology, chemistry, health, telecommunications, etc. where commercialization is much more obvious. Though I wouldn't mind my own wake-field accelerator!

samer

http://avatarsfr.ifrance.com
http://partitionschanson.ifrance.com
http://partitionsflute.ifrance.com
http://partitionsmusique.ifrance.com
http://partitionsgratuite.ifrance.com
http://partition-guitare.ifrance.com
http://partition-musicale.ifrance.com
http://tablature-gratuite.ifrance.com
http://tablature-guitare.ifrance.com
http://tablaturesfr.ifrance.com

The comments to this entry are closed.