Stop Stealing to Pay for Hobbies!

[FriendlyHacker]

Telescopes are a hobby, though can predict civilization ending asteroid collisions, can be used to discover about global warming in other planets (and then find out it also happens here).

 

The Sun and Supernovas are fancy things, until we are hit face on by Gamma Ray radiation and die, or a huge EMP destroys all our electronics.

 

Atom smashers are a hobby, except all modern technology is based on the understanding of the inner workings of atoms, from computer chips, to lasers, to GPS and the Internet.

 

So you see, our life depends on those very hobbies you question the legitimacy of.It is ok to say you don't understand what these people are doing, no need to attack their profession out of ignorance.

[Kevin Beal]

We need work with atoms and telescopes? Then let's find profitable uses of the proposed technology and get investors. There is no reason we should be stealing from people to pay for these things. If it's so desirable, then people will pay for it.

 

You might actually be ignorant of the point being made when you accuse others of ignorance.

[Think Free]

I think Stef's off-base when he implies that "scientists" are doing what they want to do ("hobbies"). I think the world would probably be a better place if they were. Instead, they're probably mostly doing what they have to do to meet the strange and arbitrary requirements of academia or whatever is necessary to try and secure their next grant. And all of this, of course, to pay for the massive debts they've acquired and to justify what they've done with the last 8+ years of their lives.

 

Telescopes are a hobby, though can predict civilization ending asteroid collisions, can be used to discover about global warming in other planets (and then find out it also happens here).

 

The Sun and Supernovas are fancy things, until we are hit face on by Gamma Ray radiation and die, or a huge EMP destroys all our electronics.

 

Atom smashers are a hobby, except all modern technology is based on the understanding of the inner workings of atoms, from computer chips, to lasers, to GPS and the Internet.

 

So you see, our life depends on those very hobbies you question the legitimacy of.It is ok to say you don't understand what these people are doing, no need to attack their profession out of ignorance.

 

Don't you find it ironic that after Stef talks about scientists creating crises to justify their work you list a number of purely hypothetical disasters (plus sub atomic technology) to justify their work? Now, if scientists actually diverted a civilization-ending asteroid that would be something else. I think maybe you're getting a little hung up on his gross characterization of modern "science" and missing his broader point.

[FriendlyHacker]

Kevin Beal: You are working with the technologies mentioned above, right now, else you would be sending me this from smoke signals.

 

Hey you know why these technologies use governmental funding? Because you can't profit from them, it's not profitable to build a 50 billion dollar atom smasher, companies would not invest on that. Even though the technology coming out of that huge financial loss, is actually what moves our economy.

 

Am not defending the government either, I am saying that the Free Market has not provided a solution to the huge investment required to move technology to new frontiers.

 

And am making a clear point here, that those scientists are not useless, and that attacking their professions when you depend on those very things, is just silly.

I think Stef's off-base when he implies that "scientists" are doing what they want to do ("hobbies"). I think the world would probably be a better place if they were. Instead, they're probably mostly doing what they have to do to meet the strange and arbitrary requirements of academia or whatever is necessary to try and secure their next grant. And all of this, of course, to pay for the massive debts they've acquired and to justify what they've done with the last 8+ years of their lives.

 

 

Don't you find it ironic that after Stef talks about scientists creating crises to justify their work you list a number of purely hypothetical disasters (plus sub atomic technology) to justify their work? Now, if scientists actually diverted a civilization-ending asteroid that would be something else. I think maybe you're getting a little hung up on his gross characterization of modern "science" and missing his broader point.

Hypothetical? There is a continent killing asteroid coming our way, the EMP disaster already happened, many times, we just didn't have electronics. And are you a global warming denier? Google it.

[Kevin Beal]

I am saying that the Free Market has not provided a solution to the huge investment required to move technology to new frontiers.

That's quite a remarkable statement seeing as how the vast majority of all technological progress has come out of what exists of the free market. The free market is not doing quite enough, so we need to go in the exact opposite direction as the free market to make up for it seems to be the implication here. And that makes no sense.

 

 

 

And am making a clear point here, that those scientists are not useless, and that attacking their professions when you depend on those very things, is just silly.

Then they should have no problem finding work in areas that people are actually willing to pay for it voluntarily. That would be awesome if that happened.

 

Assuming there were some things that are unquestionably beneficial from stealing people's money, they are far outweighed by the cost of doing that.

 

Here's a relevant and funny podcast:

You cannot be free because... (killer astroids)

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_674_Youre_Not_Free_Because.mp3

[FriendlyHacker]

That's quite a remarkable statement seeing as how the vast majority of all technological progress has come out of what exists of the free market. The free market is not doing quite enough, so we need to go in the exact opposite direction as the free market to make up for it seems to be the implication here. And that makes no sense.

 

All modern technology has a single origin, the Military Industrial Complex. But don't believe me, read about it.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Went forum fishing today. All I caught was a bucket of red herrings.

 

Let's see, this one says that "big science" is a justification for immoral government. Hmm. Yeah, that adds up. The internet (debatable whether this required government), some moon rocks, and a giant particle accelerator are a fair trade for war, theft, kidnapping, and basically treating people like cattle to be harvested.

 

Of, course, if you like sauce on your red herring, you can always sprinkle some "Begging the Question" on it. The question being: is high-tech the only answer?

 

Tune in next week for more Adventures of Captain Narcissist, as he battles his way against those pesky rationalists, and unleashes his new Fallacious Weapon of Mass Arrogance.

[Kevin Beal]

All modern technology has a single origin, the Military Industrial Complex. But don't believe me, read about it.

Well, that's not very compelling. Where is the error that I'm making?

 

People have argued that wanting to get laid is the origin of all modern technology. So what?

[FriendlyHacker]

 darkskyabove : Am not saying is a justification for anything, don't try distorting what I have said, but go ahead, show me how the Free Market solves this.

 

By the way, I am in need of some large funding to advance technologies and don't want to/scared off working for the government, do you have a solution for me?

Well, that's not very compelling. Where is the error that I'm making?

 

People have argued that wanting to get laid is the origin of all modern technology. So what?

 

Read about it, am not getting back to this. Read the history of computers, the Internet, GPS, particle physics, etc... Did you know Alan Turing worked for the UK government during the war? That he invented modern computers? Did you know that the Internet was a communications system used in war? I could go on and on, read about it.

[Think Free]

Hypothetical? There is a continent killing asteroid coming our way, the EMP disaster already happened, many times, we just didn't have electronics. And are you a global warming denier? Google it.

 

If by "coming our way" you mean, "has a snowball's chance in hell of hitting us," yes. Yes, an EMP hypothetically speaking may hit us again some day. And yes, global warming is a disaster going on all over Google.

[FriendlyHacker]

If by "coming our way" you mean, "has a snowball's chance in hell of hitting us," yes. Yes, an EMP hypothetically speaking may hit us again some day. And yes, global warming is a disaster going on all over Google.

Did you ever bet on the lottery? Have you ever played on a casino machine or video game and expected a jackpot? Because a lot of people believe things that are a thousand times less likely to happen than that asteroid hitting us, which is a cyclical process anyway, even if it won't happen in 20 years, it is bound to happen at some point.

[Think Free]

Did you ever bet on the lottery? Have you ever played on a casino machine or video game and expected a jackpot? Because a lot of people believe things that are a thousand times less likely to happen than that asteroid hitting us,

 

People do lots of crazy things. This is not a valid argument.

 

Because a lot of people believe things that are a thousand times less likely to happen than that asteroid hitting us, which is a cyclical process anyway, even if it won't happen in 20 years, it is bound to happen at some point.

 

Certainly, but we don't have time to argue about it, WE HAVE TO FUND ASTRONOMY WITH TAXES NOW!!!! Anyone who disagrees hates all life on earth.

[FriendlyHacker]

Think Free"The most amazing thing happened to me today. Absolutely nothing!" Richard Feynman

 

The funny thing about that, is that the planet is large enough, the Universe is large enough, that crazy impossible things happen all the time.

[Think Free]

Think Free"Do you know what happened to me today? Absolutely nothing!" Richard Feynman

 

The funny thing about that, is that the planet is large enough, the Universe is large enough, that crazy impossible things happen all the time.

 

And somewhere in the universe, an asteroid is happening to hit a planet.

[FriendlyHacker]

Somewhere in our local Galaxy, a whole Star system was just devoured by a black hole.

 

A few years ago, 12 Dino killing sized asteroids hit Jupiter, simultaneously. Google Shoemaker. Neil deGrasse joked that if there is life in Jupiter, certainly there are no dinosaurs to be found now.

[Think Free]

Somewhere in our local Galaxy, a whole Star system was just devoured by a black hole.

 

A few years ago, 12 Dino killing sized asteroids hit Jupiter, simultaneously. Google Shoemaker.

 

You keep making these statements as if they mean were in a state of imminent asteroid impact emergency. But they don't. They're just facts without context. Maybe someday a large asteroid will be on a collision course with us. How does that justify coercive funding of astronomy right now?

[FriendlyHacker]

Are you one of those people who only do the things that need to be done on the last minute? Would you bet the life of every human being on the planet on such strategy? Try coming up with complex Asteroid intervention technologies, when the asteroid is visible to the human eye and a few hours from impact.

 

 

Also, could you show me how the Free Market would profit, from an asteroid intervention that can save the life of everyone?

 

 

If you want to do something good for humanity, a good start is not involving any money in it. Humans are the only animal who pay to live on the planet. Would we have to pay to save the planet too?

[Think Free]

Are you one of those people who only do the things that need to be done on the last minute? Would you bet the life of every human being on the planet on such strategy? Try coming up with complex Asteroid intervention technologies, when the asteroid is visible to the human eye and a few hours from impact.

 

Would I bet the life of every human being on the planet on their freedom and own desire to survive? Yes.

 

EDIT: More fundamentally, does it matter what I would bet?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Telescopes are a hobby, though can predict civilization ending asteroid collisions, can be used to discover about global warming in other planets (and then find out it also happens here).

 

The Sun and Supernovas are fancy things, until we are hit face on by Gamma Ray radiation and die, or a huge EMP destroys all our electronics.

 

Atom smashers are a hobby, except all modern technology is based on the understanding of the inner workings of atoms, from computer chips, to lasers, to GPS and the Internet.

 

So you see, our life depends on those very hobbies you question the legitimacy of.

 

It is ok to say you don't understand what these people are doing, no need to attack their profession out of ignorance.

The same method of funding has been used to murder a quarter of a billion people, kill and maim millions more in countless wars, enslave millions of people and to vastly increase the likelihood that we'll end ourselves completely. I think I'll take my chances with global warming and rouge asteroids.  

Kevin Beal: You are working with the technologies mentioned above, right now, else you would be sending me this from smoke signals.

 

Hey you know why these technologies use governmental funding? Because you can't profit from them, it's not profitable to build a 50 billion dollar atom smasher, companies would not invest on that. Even though the technology coming out of that huge financial loss, is actually what moves our economy.

 

Am not defending the government either, I am saying that the Free Market has not provided a solution to the huge investment required to move technology to new frontiers.

 

And am making a clear point here, that those scientists are not useless, and that attacking their professions when you depend on those very things, is just silly.

Hypothetical? There is a continent killing asteroid coming our way, the EMP disaster already happened, many times, we just didn't have electronics. And are you a global warming denier? Google it.

The solution is to pay for it yourself. 

All modern technology has a single origin, the Military Industrial Complex. But don't believe me, read about it.

So what?

Are you one of those people who only do the things that need to be done on the last minute? Would you bet the life of every human being on the planet on such strategy? Try coming up with complex Asteroid intervention technologies, when the asteroid is visible to the human eye and a few hours from impact.

 

 

Also, could you show me how the Free Market would profit, from an asteroid intervention that can save the life of everyone?

 

 

If you want to do something good for humanity, a good start is not involving any money in it. Humans are the only animal who pay to live on the planet. Would we have to pay to save the planet too?

That's a nice meme but humans are not the only animals to pay to live on the planet. Non-human animals also pay because they really have to work hard to survive. If you think animals don't have to pay to live on the planet then go live like an animal. 

The horrible thing about this kind thing is that we'll never know what technologies or ways of doing science would have evolved without all the retarded government funding. Perhaps because of the limitations people would have come up with a way to do the same things at a fraction of the cost; necessity being the mother of invention. We may be living with warp drive now for we know.

[Josh F]

We need work with atoms and telescopes? Then let's find profitable uses of the proposed technology and get investors. There is no reason we should be stealing from people to pay for these things. If it's so desirable, then people will pay for it.

 

You might actually be ignorant of the point being made when you accuse others of ignorance.

Science need a kickstarter.  There are these things called open source labs, too. 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Science need a kickstarter.  There are these things called open source labs, too. 

Yeah, people who ask how the free-market will fund science answer their own question.

[Kevin Beal]

I think that technically speaking, I am a scientist. Specifically a computer scientist, albeit with no formal training. I'm a sort of research and development guy, and I worked hard at marketing my skills as a programmer. I try to provide high quality products and services. I have never stolen any money in order to do the work that I do, and the idea of being paid with stolen money makes me kinda sick.

 

I imagine that I would be more of a hobbyist if I worked with grant money or if I was subsidized, since I don't really have as good of an idea of how much value the customers are getting. I would think more in terms of "wouldn't it be cool if" rather than "people seem to have trouble with".

 

And that's something I've noticed from the outside is that places like CERN, in whatever value they do provide (what I'm unsure), they provide infinitely less value than private companies like Google. Spacex and Virgin Galactic have made products that people actually want to use, while NASA sits on their thumbs doing nothing really.

 

There's this station somewhere in the states where guys get paid with stolen money to send messages out into space and listen in case aliens hear it and reply. If that's not a hobby, then I don't know what is. Or digging up dinosaur bones or traveling to remote regions to investigate a new grasshopper species. Like, what the fuck? There's people dying to death ovah heeyah (in a bad italian accent).

[Mike Fleming]

I'm getting Zeitgeist flashbacks from this thread.  Ah ha!  The free market can't fund science, therefore central planning!  Venus Project FTW!  

All modern technology has a single origin, the Military Industrial Complex. But don't believe me, read about it.

 

You are going to have to prove the "all" part of this statement.  

 

But regardless, I admit that many technologies have come from the military.  Not surprising when you see the colossal amount of money poured into the military.  If we compare it to what the market can develop with generally much less money, I think we were majorly ripped off.  Just imagine how much could have been developed were that money in the free market instead.  Not to mention all the lives that wouldn't be killed.  Plus, all the resources wasted on aircraft carriers, advanced planes, subs, nukes, bombs, etc that could be used to make actual useful things.

[FriendlyHacker]

FriendlyHacker, on 29 Oct 2013 - 11:41 PM, said:

 

You are going to have to prove the "all" part of this statement.  

 

 

Project Manhattan and its German counterpart funded all early advancements in particles physics engineering that gave us computer chips, lasers, semi-conductors, advanced ceramics, and etc...

 

The UK Government funded research done by Alan Turing on devising the Turing machine (aka the machine we call a computer nowadays), Turing was the one who devised a machine that could automatically break the German Enigma Code.

 

The Military Industrial Complex is, by far, the largest investor in Artificial Intelligence development. The military is also pushing forward the development of faster computers and data storage, faster computers means more control over the population, and better ways to encrypt/decrypt messages.

 

GPS was created with military aircraft in mind, and was put into practice by artificial satellites, which in turn are only there because of NASA and Soviet funding in space exploration during the cold War.

 

The Internet used to be a safe way for the military to send information to spies abroad.

 

I could go and on, but if you want to know more about this, you will have to do some of your own research and read some books, this is not the place for me to make a book long reply, and neither I have the time.

I think that technically speaking, I am a scientist. Specifically a computer scientist, albeit with no formal training. I'm a sort of research and development guy, and I worked hard at marketing my skills as a programmer. I try to provide high quality products and services. I have never stolen any money in order to do the work that I do, and the idea of being paid with stolen money makes me kinda sick.

 

I imagine that I would be more of a hobbyist if I worked with grant money or if I was subsidized, since I don't really have as good of an idea of how much value the customers are getting. I would think more in terms of "wouldn't it be cool if" rather than "people seem to have trouble with".

 

And that's something I've noticed from the outside is that places like CERN, in whatever value they do provide (what I'm unsure), they provide infinitely less value than private companies like Google. Spacex and Virgin Galactic have made products that people actually want to use, while NASA sits on their thumbs doing nothing really.

 

There's this station somewhere in the states where guys get paid with stolen money to send messages out into space and listen in case aliens hear it and reply. If that's not a hobby, then I don't know what is. Or digging up dinosaur bones or traveling to remote regions to investigate a new grasshopper species. Like, what the fuck? There's people dying to death ovah heeyah (in a bad italian accent).

Ok, before criticizing what people do at CERN, or in biology research, you need to understand what they are doing.

 

These kinds of jobs are the kind of thing that if done well enough, you don't even notice it was there. I would not be surprised to hear that people nagged Darwin and Mendel in their biology extravaganzas, when Darwin could have used his private fortune in other ways, such as charity or buying his wife and kids something they thought was useful. People want the results, but don't want to pay for the process. And the biggest issue with cutting edge science on the Free Market, is that cutting edge science almost never works, you can't know beforehand if this new meta-material will be the new graphene or something completely useless.

 

Science wins even when it finds out that something won't work, that's not how the free market operates. If your product does not work, you close down your factory, fire all your employees and hope the banks won't own your very Soul from that point on.

 

Science is a positive sum game, the free market is a zero sum game, they are fundamentally incompatible.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Friendly Hacker you've made the claims that our very life depends on the hobbies Stef questions the legitimacy off and that he attacked their profession out of ignorance. I've yet yo hear you give any evidence for those claims. Stef is well aware as is probably everyone on this site that much science you mentioned has been funded through government. At no point did Stef say this was not the case. He said people should stop stealing to fund their hobbies. Do you agree or disagree that people should stop stealing to fund these things? 

[FriendlyHacker]

Friendly Hacker you've made the claims that our very life depends on the hobbies Stef questions the legitimacy off and that he attacked their profession out of ignorance. I've yet yo hear you give any evidence for those claims.

 

I have mentioned many things already, but will mention one more: He was criticizing Astronomy/Cosmology, while using satellite communication technology, I rest my case.

Stef is well aware as is probably everyone on this site that much science you mentioned has been funded through government. At no point did Stef say this was not the case. He said people should stop stealing to fund their hobbies.

 

If I remember correctly, Stefan likes to boast how the Free Market is the one doing the hard science, being his most common example the Apple products, which are just a bundle of things coming out of government funded projects, that were put together on the same device and re-branded as Apple.

Also, the one who brought this up on this topic was Kevin, so I was not replying neither to you or Stefan regarding that.

Do you agree or disagree that people should stop stealing to fund these things? 

 

I'm not here to defend any government, I'm as much of an anarchist as you are, I simply don't buy into the Free Market ideas and want to live in a world free of price tags.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I have mentioned many things already, but will mention one more: He was criticizing Astronomy/Cosmology, while using satellite communication technology, I rest my case.

I just told you he already knows about technology funded through government. We all know this. It's not a secret. He did not criticize astronomy or cosmology, he criticized THEFT. You think Apple just re-branded some device the government made?  Fine. I ask again - do you support stealing to pay for such research?

I have mentioned many things already, but will mention one more: He was criticizing Astronomy/Cosmology, while using satellite communication technology, I rest my case.

 

If I remember correctly, Stefan likes to boast how the Free Market is the one doing the hard science, being his most common example the Apple products, which are just a bundle of things coming out of government funded projects, that were put together on the same device and re-branded as Apple.

Also, the one who brought this up on this topic was Kevin, so I was not replying neither to you or Stefan regarding that.

 

I'm not here to defend any government, I'm as much of an anarchist as you are, I simply don't buy into the Free Market ideas and want to live in a world free of price tags.

If you are an anarchist and want to live in a world free of price tags then go make that world. It's completely irrelevant. I ask AGAIN - do you support stealing to pay for such research? It's a yes or no question. 

[FriendlyHacker]

If you are an anarchist and want to live in a world free of price tags then go make that world. It's completely irrelevant. I ask AGAIN - do you support stealing to pay for such research? It's a yes or no question. 

 

Have you actually watched that video? He was saying the work these people do are a waste of time, since the free market does the hard science anyway, and they are there only to waste our money on their personal preferences.

 

Obviously I don't support it. I am trying to make that world, could have a cushy job at CERN if I wanted to, and would be more useful that way, sometimes I do regret this decision though, because I either become rich like Darwin to fund my own projects (meaning I will create a corporation), or I will work at government funded places.

 

I honestly don't know what is the worst option there.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Obviously I don't support it, I could have a cushy job at CERN if I wanted to, and would be more useful that way, sometimes I do regret this decision though, because I either become rich like Darwin to fund my own projects (meaning I will create a corporation), or I will work at government funded places.

 

I honestly don't know what is the worst option there.

So your answer is "NO". It wasn't obvious at all as I had to ask you this yes or no question several times and you did not initially answer. If you agree with Stef that people should not steal to pay for this research then what's the point of this post?

[FriendlyHacker]

So your answer is "NO". It wasn't obvious at all as I had to ask you this yes or no question several times and you did not initially answer. If you agree with Stef that people should not steal to pay for this research then what's the point of this post?

 

Am not defending the government either, I am saying that the Free Market has not provided a solution to the huge investment required to move technology to new frontiers.

And am making a clear point here, that those scientists are not useless, and that attacking their professions when you depend on those very things, is just silly.

 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

Who the hell claimed that those scientists were useless or attacked their professions. AGAIN,  Stef attacked the theft, not astronomy or cosmology so what are you talking about? Are you saying he depends on theft? Should he also not criticize theft because the science was done largely through theft? Again, if you already agree with Stef's view then what was the point of the original post?

[Kevin Beal]

Hey Friendly,

 

There is a problem here. There are certain things that you are either not understanding the implication of, or accepting and not understanding why to accept it and maintain your position is a contradiction. To continue a debate would not seem to be productive if that trend continues. What I would like you to do, if you don't mind indulging me for a sec, is to watch this youtube playlist on the introduction to philosophy:

 

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC1647D7F937DDE7A

 

If we don't have any clear criteria for how a proposition is to be proven or disproven, then debate is just going to go in circles and make everyone really frustrated.

[FriendlyHacker]

If proving a proposition, means I will have to teach astronomy and cosmology to people here so they can even tell what I'm talking about, I don't see that as efficient use of my time, as I said, there are books out there.

 

But what you want me to prove anyway? That lasers were discovered because of atom smashers? Would you understand me if I did? You want me to show how lasers are used in almost every electronic equipment nowadays? What?

 

I will get back to the video and show specifically when Stefan mentioned those things, just a bit busy right now.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

If proving a proposition, means I will have to teach astronomy and cosmology to people here so they can even tell what I'm talking about, I don't see that as efficient use of my time, as I said, there are books out there.

What proposition?

[FriendlyHacker]

Link to 54 minutes into the video

"The other thing too, I mean all of these scientists, I mean what do they do? They suck at the government tit all the time, I mean this is one of the great tragedies of WWII, is that it turned engineering into academic science, and so I mean you got this complete bullshit peer review system which is all political and you know they did this study recently where they tried to replicate the 56 biggest findings in cancer research, and could replicate like 6 of them, that's like 10%, 90% of this shit went unchallenged, 80 thousand patients went to trials for bullshit and probably died, this shit get people killed, and people say:

- Well, this person has not been peer reviewed.

Peer review is just... you know what peer review is in a rational society? It's the customer fucking parting money for something, that's peer review, I don't need peer review on an iPad, I just need to know if I am going to buy it or not, and same thing is true about Apple, the peer review is because nobody gives a shit about what you are doing, and won't part with a god dammed penny for it, and so you got to submit to some other process to get your grants and suck off the blood of the tax payer even more you god dammed scientists! And so you invent this process called peer review because there is no fucking market for what you're doing, cause you are a bunch of parasites diddling around with your big telescopes and making pretty pictures, sell them to me! Put them in a fucking calendar! I don't care, ride them like Miley Syrus rides a wrecking ball, id like to see Neil deGrasse Tyson that, but that's just a little aside, but you know, take your big cock and point at the money market, I mean that'd be great! Fantastic, you know shake your money belt in a leopard skin, I don't care, but go sell something in the fucking marketplace and stop taking my money for your hobbies! 99% of science these days are a fucking hobby!

 

(Neil deGrasse Impression) - I like stars! I think moons are pretty! So I would really like a giant telescope for 2 trillion dollars so I can point it to a nebula and say: Uhhh, that's sparkly!

 

Good God people! Don't take my money because you like looking at sparkly things! Jesus, I mean, are you Marilyn Monroe? I's a hobby! People have telescopes on the park it's a hobby! Go make something that people want and that is useful! Like a medicine that you can sell to people! But this giant super collider, bady blady blah is like, oh my God, I mean, leave my child future alone, and go play with a "meccanos??" set like you're supposed to! [.....]

 

[....]Don't get me wrong, I love the methodology of science and all that, but the purpose of knowledge is to satisfy demand! I mean, maybe a charity of people would give their stuff so geeky guys could peer at telescopes at things that don't matter. Before the second world war, there literally were only a few hundred thousand scientists in the whole world, the whole world! There were only a few hundred thousand scientists, and in the war, they got all these scientists and diverted them from industry and and technology or whatever, where they were actually producing stuff that consumers wanted, that made the world richer and better, they diverted all of this stuff to the military industrial complex, and now the military industrial complex and academia, coff coff, that word leaves a bad taste in my mouth, tastes like fascism, but academia and the military industrial complex employed the vast majority of scientist, and now there are 7 million scientists in the world? That's like piling 9 thousand hookers on a street corner, I mean nobody could even untangle them, let alone use them for any functional thing, so I mean, it's ridiculous that it's all just a big bloated statist mess, so what they do is that they continually keep creating alarms, so they can get more money!

 

- Global warming! And now I've just read, there's a giant asteroid coming to hit us in 2034! So is just this continuous panic that we need to invent, because there is no market demand, so all what they are doing is that they are creating such a vast amount of information, that nobody could sit through at all, there is no money, and no career to be made in debunking the bullshit that comes out of these research labs, you can look up the economist just a huge amount of this stuff is not replicable, is complete bullshit, and is just used to get published."

 

So you heard it straight from the horse's mouth, he can't understand it because has no time to sit through all the hard to understand information, even though he  talks like an expert on global warming, astronomy, cosmology, asteroid detection and particle physics, since he apparently is capable to understand it enough to call it bullshit.

 

I heard Stefan say on another recent video though, that you have to be a good Physicist to even understand what a physicist is doing and comment on it, so he can go ahead and follow his own advice.