Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Steven]

19 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Bermuda, the Bahamas and the Virgin Islands are prospering nicely, I think.

 

Canada and Australia are doing OK, aren't they?

 

Germany, Scandinavia and the USA doing better than us, I think, though not brilliantly. .... India is still progressing, isn't it?

 

UK plc could be following LCFC into the relegation zone over the next couple of years, I reckon. Genuinely hope I'm wrong about that, as it will affect all of us to some extent, if it does happen. 

TAKE A LOOK-Asia GDP: Australia GDP slams into reverse, risks recession

http://in.reuters.com/article/asia-economy-gdp-idINL4N1DP243

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, Steven said:

I don't do any of these. 

 

On very rare occasions, I've sipped a latte, but plead not guilty on all other charges - apart from metropolitan (if Leicester counts)!

[GazzinderFox]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

On very rare occasions, I've sipped a latte, but plead not guilty on all other charges

Please, let's just call them what they really are - cups of warm frothy milk. You ought to be ashamed of yourself!

[Barky]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

No disagreement about the waste, but I'm surprised to see how long it's taking for many people to realise that the UK establishment consistently wants bankers and speculators as the cornerstone of the economy, not scientists and engineers. Right wing folks in particular, as it was an idol of theirs who made that very, very clear a few decades ago.

Not surprising though is it. Look at the amount of money made in financial services. Without that you've got no funding for your bunsen burners and what not. Financial services is a massive cash cow in the uk, and its nothing to be ashamed of. If science could demonstrate the same ability to generate value I'm sure we'd see more focus on it.

[Finnaldo]

2 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said:

Please, let's just call them what they really are - cups of warm frothy milk. You ought to be ashamed of yourself!

 

Don't punish him anymore, he's already had to drink a latte!

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Barky said:

Not surprising though is it. Look at the amount of money made in financial services. Without that you've got no funding for your bunsen burners and what not. Financial services is a massive cash cow in the uk, and its nothing to be ashamed of. If science could demonstrate the same ability to generate value I'm sure we'd see more focus on it.

This is what I'm talking about. Financial services generate money in a fast food, short term material fashion. Scientific research not only pays off long term through direct application, the spin-offs from projects often make money too (NASA came up with the MRI, the microwave and Velcro, amongst others). Also, the market is so volatile according to world events that the value of financial services can plummet over the course of a single day. Not so with research...much more stable.

 

Additionally, since when was all value material? Money is zero good to a dead man, and likewise financial services are no use to a dead economy, or no economy (not the case right now obviously, but when the time comes it certainly won't be the city boys having to solve things).

 

[Webbo]

20 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This is what I'm talking about. Financial services generate money in a fast food, short term material fashion. Scientific research not only pays off long term through direct application, the spin-offs from projects often make money too (NASA came up with the MRI, the microwave and Velcro, amongst others). Also, the market is so volatile according to world events that the value of financial services can plummet over the course of a single day. Not so with research...much more stable.

 

Additionally, since when was all value material? Money is zero good to a dead man, and likewise financial services are no use to a dead economy, or no economy (not the case right now obviously, but when the time comes it certainly won't be the city boys having to solve things).

 

Not sure that's true. I believe the microwave was a British invention and Velcro was Swiss.

 

Edit; apparently the microwave was an American invention but not Nasa.

[GazzinderFox]

27 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

(NASA came up with the MRI, the microwave and Velcro, amongst others).

 

It's a bit fuzzy who exactly came up with the MRI scanner, there are several who contributed to it, but it definitely wasn't NASA.

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Not sure that's true. I believe the microwave was a British invention and Velcro was Swiss.

 

Edit; apparently the microwave was an American invention but not Nasa.

 

5 minutes ago, GazzinderFox said:

It's a bit fuzzy who exactly came up with the MRI scanner, there are several who contributed to it, but it definitely wasn't NASA.

Ha, well that will teach me to check my sources better next time!

 

How about pioneering work in artificial limbs, video enhancement tech and memory foam instead? And that's just the tip.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

 

And that's from one research organization.

 

In any case, that's all rather distant from the point that was being made.

[Barky]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

This is what I'm talking about. Financial services generate money in a fast food, short term material fashion. Scientific research not only pays off long term through direct application, the spin-offs from projects often make money too (NASA came up with the MRI, the microwave and Velcro, amongst others). Also, the market is so volatile according to world events that the value of financial services can plummet over the course of a single day. Not so with research...much more stable.

 

Additionally, since when was all value material? Money is zero good to a dead man, and likewise financial services are no use to a dead economy, or no economy (not the case right now obviously, but when the time comes it certainly won't be the city boys having to solve things).

 

Private companies are free to invest as much as they want into science. But when we're talking public money I think people prefer guaranteed returns over the possibility of accidentally inventing a microwave. I completely understand your point, but I think it's a hard sell when so many people are struggling for the basics. Science is seen as a luxury.

[leicsmac]

29 minutes ago, Barky said:

Private companies are free to invest as much as they want into science. But when we're talking public money I think people prefer guaranteed returns over the possibility of accidentally inventing a microwave. I completely understand your point, but I think it's a hard sell when so many people are struggling for the basics. Science is seen as a luxury.

Since when was any city investment a guaranteed return?

 

It's all a bit perverse, isn't it - but I guess that's human nature, people want short term material gain over long term benefits for the future. I certainly understand why people think as they do, but I'll never accept it - not when it's known how destructive that need is now and is going to be to come.

[Barky]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Since when was any city investment a guaranteed return?

 

It's all a bit perverse, isn't it - but I guess that's human nature, people want short term material gain over long term benefits for the future. I certainly understand why people think as they do, but I'll never accept it - not when it's known how destructive that need is now and is going to be to come.

It's a guaranteed return in the sense that financial services are the country's biggest earner, so any measure to increase those earnings has a proportionately large effect.

 

I don't think we're talking about short term material gain, we're talking about money that is earned by the country (through tax revenue) and can then be spent on other things. If you prioritise science you don't get as much return so everything that is paid for by that return including long term non-material things suffer.

 

It's like a business having a standout cash cow product. They might be concerned by a lack of diversity but the way to solve that wouldn't be to restrict sales of the cash cow, they'd maximise the cash cow and then spend those revenues on other developments.

 

Or, another way, if your football team is too reliant on one player, you wouldn't drop him just to balance things out, you'd try your best to get the most of of him and then use the elevated position that player has helped you attain to attract better players. At least that's how it's supposed to work. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Barky said:

It's a guaranteed return in the sense that financial services are the country's biggest earner, so any measure to increase those earnings has a proportionately large effect.

 

I don't think we're talking about short term material gain, we're talking about money that is earned by the country (through tax revenue) and can then be spent on other things. If you prioritise science you don't get as much return so everything that is paid for by that return including long term non-material things suffer.

 

It's like a business having a standout cash cow product. They might be concerned by a lack of diversity but the way to solve that wouldn't be to restrict sales of the cash cow, they'd maximise the cash cow and then spend those revenues on other developments.

 

Or, another way, if your football team is too reliant on one player, you wouldn't drop him just to balance things out, you'd try your best to get the most of of him and then use the elevated position that player has helped you attain to attract better players. At least that's how it's supposed to work. 

That makes sense, but it's still operating on the assumption that the global status quo socially and environmentally holds. There's no reason to really think it will change drastically in ten years say, but what about fifty? A hundred?

 

The idea of things changing drastically is abstract, I know, and that's why most don't consider it worth thinking about, but it's something that needs to be planned for and the only way to do that is through improved scientific research.

 

Put it this way...Financial services pay for the science, but science will make sure the world doesn't change so much that no money or economic system on the Earth can stop it.

[Webbo]

Not sure science is really suffering. It's not like there hasn't been massive technological change in the last few years.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Not sure science is really suffering. It's not like there hasn't been massive technological change in the last few years.

Perhaps our definitions of science suffering differ then, as they might. There has been massive advances in computer tech and to a reasonable extent in diagnostic and treatment medicine, but not truly in energy development, environmental preservation or manned space flight - three critical areas for the future. Either these areas aren't being developed at all, or nowhere near fast enough. I mean, we last went outside Earth orbit with people in 1972, for pitys sake.

[Great Boos Up]

9 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Bermuda, the Bahamas and the Virgin Islands are prospering nicely, I think.

 

Canada and Australia are doing OK, aren't they?

 

Germany, Scandinavia and the USA doing better than us, I think, though not brilliantly. .... India is still progressing, isn't it?

 

UK plc could be following LCFC into the relegation zone over the next couple of years, I reckon. Genuinely hope I'm wrong about that, as it will affect all of us to some extent, if it does happen. 

The Bahamas still don't have phone lines and power from the last hurricane. Houses have become worthless because of the insurance. Tourism has been in decline for decades and drugs and crime is rife.

Bermuda and the Virgin Islands are protected as British overseas territory. (not the weather, the infrastructure)

[Great Boos Up]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Perhaps our definitions of science suffering differ then, as they might. There has been massive advances in computer tech and to a reasonable extent in diagnostic and treatment medicine, but not truly in energy development, environmental preservation or manned space flight - three critical areas for the future. Either these areas aren't being developed at all, or nowhere near fast enough. I mean, we last went outside Earth orbit with people in 1972, for pitys sake.

In space, there is space, then lots more space. Going to look at more space is the most effective way of wasting energy, harming the environment and wasting money. The new science is the small. like the CERN project which is looking at what energy actually is or the biochemical structure of amino acids.

Want free energy, an AI super computer and a cure for cancer? Look small.

[Countryfox]

10 minutes ago, Great Boos Up said:

In space, there is space, then lots more space. Going to look at more space is the most effective way of wasting energy, harming the environment and wasting money. The new science is the small. like the CERN project which is looking at what energy actually is or the biochemical structure of amino acids.

Want free energy, an AI super computer and a cure for cancer? Look small.

 

Good reply Boosy ...   You took the words right out my mouth.     

 

 

Honest.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Great Boos Up said:

In space, there is space, then lots more space. Going to look at more space is the most effective way of wasting energy, harming the environment and wasting money. The new science is the small. like the CERN project which is looking at what energy actually is or the biochemical structure of amino acids.

Want free energy, an AI super computer and a cure for cancer? Look small.

Manned space flight may well be the only way humanity in general and civilisation in particular survive in the future. Both particle physics (in particular finding out more about which ones govern gravity) and biochemical are extremely important and will enable us to survive longer here...but the endgame will always have to be to leave or perish, unless we develop to the point that we can avert or at least mitigate the way the Earth changes that eliminates other species. And if that's the case, it's likely we'll be out there already anyway.

[Alf Bentley]

12 hours ago, Steven said:

TAKE A LOOK-Asia GDP: Australia GDP slams into reverse, risks recession

http://in.reuters.com/article/asia-economy-gdp-idINL4N1DP243

 

Blimey. Men at Work will have to rewrite the lyrics of their big hit:

"We come from a land down under, where business is slow and politicians blunder"

 

 

3 hours ago, Great Boos Up said:

The Bahamas still don't have phone lines and power from the last hurricane. Houses have become worthless because of the insurance. Tourism has been in decline for decades and drugs and crime is rife.

Bermuda and the Virgin Islands are protected as British overseas territory. (not the weather, the infrastructure)

 

To be fair, I wasn't referring to the lives of real people living in places like the Bahamas. I was referring to all the offshore banking business, shell companies and tax avoidance.

I bet their many pound notes didn't get wet in the hurricane, and that their phone connections to Swiss banks were repaired pretty sharpish.

[Barky]

13 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Perhaps our definitions of science suffering differ then, as they might. There has been massive advances in computer tech and to a reasonable extent in diagnostic and treatment medicine, but not truly in energy development, environmental preservation or manned space flight - three critical areas for the future. Either these areas aren't being developed at all, or nowhere near fast enough. I mean, we last went outside Earth orbit with people in 1972, for pitys sake.

Energy development is going well, renewables are at record levels and we get articles like this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37902773

 

We're spending money on things like flood defences and there are all sorts of laws and schemes about the environment.

 

Not sure the value of putting a human outside of earth's orbit when we can send robots which we seem to be doing quite regularly.

 

Surely a lot of this can be done privately anyway. The money making potential for energy sources is massive, I'd bet 99% of the progress in that area has come from privately funded research. Public money should go mainly to the here and now, imo.

 

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Barky said:

Energy development is going well, renewables are at record levels and we get articles like this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37902773

 

We're spending money on things like flood defences and there are all sorts of laws and schemes about the environment.

 

Not sure the value of putting a human outside of earth's orbit when we can send robots which we seem to be doing quite regularly.

 

Surely a lot of this can be done privately anyway. The money making potential for energy sources is massive, I'd bet 99% of the progress in that area has come from privately funded research. Public money should go mainly to the here and now, imo.

 

There have been a few good steps. My point is however that compared to other areas it isn't enough. We're still way too reliant on fossil fuels, there is still way too much non renewable forest being cleared and air and sea pollutants being used, and we're still looking to crack the problem of fusion energy because we think it won't be necessary and we're not focusing on it enough.

 

Regarding space, sending robotic probes out there works to a degree for initial findings, but at the end of the day we're going to need to get out there in person, for the sake of commercial interest and ultimately survival. I know from personal experience how much more difficult planning a mission is when you have to factor in a manned crew...But one day we're going have to do it. Might as well be sooner rather than later.

 

For what it's worth I don't really care if its public money, private money,  market drivers, commercialism or simple human altruism that gets us into space, cleaning up the environment better and getting us using better energy sources. What matters is simply that it happens, for everyone's sake.

[Buce]

41 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

There have been a few good steps. My point is however that compared to other areas it isn't enough. We're still way too reliant on fossil fuels, there is still way too much non renewable forest being cleared and air and sea pollutants being used, and we're still looking to crack the problem of fusion energy because we think it won't be necessary and we're not focusing on it enough.

 

Regarding space, sending robotic probes out there works to a degree for initial findings, but at the end of the day we're going to need to get out there in person, for the sake of commercial interest and ultimately survival. I know from personal experience how much more difficult planning a mission is when you have to factor in a manned crew...But one day we're going have to do it. Might as well be sooner rather than later.

 

For what it's worth I don't really care if its public money, private money,  market drivers, commercialism or simple human altruism that gets us into space, cleaning up the environment better and getting us using better energy sources. What matters is simply that it happens, for everyone's sake.

 

Is there anything in Theoretical Physics that suggests we'll ever have a viable way to travel beyond the Solar system, Mac? It seems to me that even in Science Fiction, the issue of travelling such phenomenal distances is dealt with by either ignoring it (ie. Star Wars), or by inventing unexplained technology (Like Star Trek's Warp Drive or Asimov's Hyper-Space).

[Barky]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

There have been a few good steps. My point is however that compared to other areas it isn't enough. We're still way too reliant on fossil fuels, there is still way too much non renewable forest being cleared and air and sea pollutants being used, and we're still looking to crack the problem of fusion energy because we think it won't be necessary and we're not focusing on it enough.

 

Regarding space, sending robotic probes out there works to a degree for initial findings, but at the end of the day we're going to need to get out there in person, for the sake of commercial interest and ultimately survival. I know from personal experience how much more difficult planning a mission is when you have to factor in a manned crew...But one day we're going have to do it. Might as well be sooner rather than later.

 

For what it's worth I don't really care if its public money, private money,  market drivers, commercialism or simple human altruism that gets us into space, cleaning up the environment better and getting us using better energy sources. What matters is simply that it happens, for everyone's sake.

I don't know, there's only a certain pace that you can replace fossil fuels with renewables, you can't instantly switch from one to the other, and it seems to me that progress is pretty good and it won't be long before use of fossil fuels reach sustainable levels and beyond that they'll probably disappear because other technology will naturally progress and become a much better option.

 

 

Don't know much about space travel but I'm not convinced there is any need to send people. Surely we know enough by now from having people living on the ISS for months about what it's like for a human in space. What's the point in spending all that money sending a person to say mars when you can send a robot who will happily spin around doing science for years. Then using that data and what we already know about humans in space I'm sure a clever scientist could figure out what it would be like for a human without anyone having to leave the planet.

 

Anyway, the EU referendum 

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Is there anything in Theoretical Physics that suggests we'll ever have a viable way to travel beyond the Solar system, Mac? It seems to me that even in Science Fiction, the issue of travelling such phenomenal distances is dealt with by either ignoring it (ie. Star Wars), or by inventing unexplained technology (Like Star Trek's Warp Drive or Asimov's Hyper-Space).

 

Being able to control the fundamental particles that dictate gravity, like we do  with the electromagnetic force is the best bet. Do that, and while we won't be able to travel faster than light we will be able to do things that mean we won't need to. It is certainly theoretically possible.

 

On a more mundane level, biotech could mean one day that our lifespans are so long that traveling using "conventional" methods would work too.

 

 

39 minutes ago, Barky said:

I don't know, there's only a certain pace that you can replace fossil fuels with renewables, you can't instantly switch from one to the other, and it seems to me that progress is pretty good and it won't be long before use of fossil fuels reach sustainable levels and beyond that they'll probably disappear because other technology will naturally progress and become a much better option.

 

 

Don't know much about space travel but I'm not convinced there is any need to send people. Surely we know enough by now from having people living on the ISS for months about what it's like for a human in space. What's the point in spending all that money sending a person to say mars when you can send a robot who will happily spin around doing science for years. Then using that data and what we already know about humans in space I'm sure a clever scientist could figure out what it would be like for a human without anyone having to leave the planet.

 

Anyway, the EU referendum 

I think that the transfer to renewables and fusion research could be done better, but I guess we'll see.

 

You're right in that we don't need to send out humans to space to get to know about it, but that's not my point. My point is that at some time in the future we're going to HAVE to leave, either to get something that will help us here that a robot can't do or simply because we face unsolvable problems on Earth and will go extinct or just have real trouble otherwise.

 

But yes, this is a discussion for another place.