[Closed] Scientific 'Exploration' - worth it, or a waste of time and money?

Very soz wrong forum. 😳

Science gives you the means to make the weapons, religion the excuse to use them.
Two sides of the same tarnished coin.......

Thats that then. Sack the scientist, make our women walk around under a tent and fiddle with the kids.

Worth it imho. Can't stay on this rock forever so I hope one day we can find away off to allow just a bit of the human race to survive a bit longer.

Also look where technology was 100 years ago...we've come a long way in a short period of time, certainly relative to earth's history. Imagine what we can discover in the next 100+ years...if we don't blow each other up.

That's quite a profound notion, Hilldodger.

Starseven; I don't think you quite understood the question...

Is it worth it?

You were able to post on here because of scientific 'Exploration'
Or we could just live in a mud hut.Also available due to scientific exploration.

You think those buildings are staying up because there's a guy inside praying that they won't fall down?

Do you have any idea how ironic it is that you are complaining about science on the Internet?

science is awesome..............religion is shyte, imho

I just like the fact that the thing that supports the drill is called a 'Derrick'

Derrick: The main hoist winch and a system of elevators lifts 1,250 tons of pipes and machinery through the 72-
foot-wide opening in the bottom of the ship.

No no no; don't misunderstand me, I'm not against all Scientific Exploration(I have said this), I just question the 'value' of some projects. I'll admit I have no idea of what the LHC is or what it's purpose is, but I think it's fair to say that a large proportion of Space Exploration doesn't seem to have brought mankind the kind of benefits that were promised us back in the early days. Indeed, NASA have scrapped loads of recent projects, and the US govt has routinely cut back funding year on year.

One example that springs to mind, is that British Mars probe; all that money, and time and effort, and the bloody thing broke down immediately it got there.

I just think that there are times when money could be better spent on applications of real, tangible benefit, not on playing 'who can get to the Moon first'.

You think those buildings are staying up because there's a guy inside praying that they won't fall down?

Hahahaha brilliant statement, and pretty much ends the debate right there.

The OP's argument is one that I would expect from George W. Bush, or other some right-wing religious monkey who doesn't understand the full implications of how our scientific endeavour benefits us.

In the end, knowing is much more interesting than not knowing so why not?

The space technology trickles down to things like mobiles, tvs and broadband from military networks!

Understanding what is out there and a better understand how we work on Earth.

Treating medical conditions, environmental issues, improve humankind and our instinct of what is out there!

Sorry I used to work as a biochemist because I watched too much star trek as a kid!

STWers in 'flying off the handle at the merest hint of criticism of Science and completely missing the point' non-shocker... 🙄

I'm not criticising [i]all[/i] science, you numpties. Just some of the seemingly useless/not particularly meaningful projects that always seem to cost billions of dollars yet seemto produce bugger all end product.

Nowt wrong with wondering about stuff,and tryingto find out about stuff, but resources are finite, and all I'm suggesting is that perhaps some could be put to better use.

Have a little think before responding please. This was intended as an attempt to stimulate lively, interesting and perhaps enlightening debate. I believe this is possible... 😀

Now, I'm off down the offie. Anyone want anything?

A lot of the manned flights into space was just showing off. China are doing the same thing now.
Probes that are sent into space are much better, cheaper. Things will break down though, but it doesn't mean you should give up.

but I think it's fair to say that a large proportion of Space Exploration doesn't seem to have brought mankind the kind of benefits that were promised us back in the early days

I am a science fan, I think of myself as a scientist, logical and that 🙂 but what benefits were promised? I seem to remember some stuff about being able to grow perfect crystals maybe on Tomorrows World but otherwise it was just regular science with the added bonus of removing one factor (gravity). Now the "race to space" stuff, that created some technology I am sure.

EDIT- I think the end product is often knowledge rather than something tangible.

do life saving drugs come from science too???

or do you just pray to save a life??

For me, putting techno-junk into orbit and seeing who can spin their atoms the fastest whilst people die for want of basic medical care and clean water is pretty much the antithesis of civilised behavior.....

Have a little think before responding please. This was intended as an attempt to stimulate lively, interesting and perhaps enlightening debate.

Don't worry, TJ24 will be along soon to tell us all what to think 😆

do life saving drugs come from science too???

No, most life saving drugs come from applied technology rather than big science....

Here you go, Ton; little bit of help for you, as you seem to be struggling:

I'm not criticising all science, you numpties. Just some of the seemingly useless/not particularly meaningful projects that always seem to cost billions of dollars yet seemto produce bugger all end product.

OK?

For me, putting techno-junk into orbit and seeing who can spin their atoms the fastest whilst people die for want of basic medical care and clean water is pretty much the antithesis of civilised behavior.....

Thank you, hilldodger. That's the kind of thing I'm on about.

so we should only do science we know is going to work?

how would you decide whether something is going to be useful before you start?

disproving a hypothesis can be as useful as proving a hypothesis....

It's the unexpected benefits that projects can sometimes bring which surprise:
The L. Hadron Collider's forerunner, CERN, gave birth to the web/internet.
The space race, although willy-waving, gave skills in rocketry to put up satellites for GPS and communications protocols for mobile phones.

So the answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Even India managed to do it last year using our aid money.

so we should only do science we know is going to work?

But 'doing' science needn't be about spending billions of dollars, I think was the OPs point.

It's not about the pros and cons of science itself as a worthwhile human endeavor but how the funding is allocated and what projects are prioritised.

I'm sure if 1% of the NASA or CERN budgets had been put into projects of more direct social impact that both the big boys would have still been able to play with their big toys but also the quality of many peoples lives would have been significantly improved - I call that win/win 😀

OK, I'll admit I was a little provocative with my OP, but with all the criticism of Religion, I thought it was time Science had a turn...

There's some good responses here. Certainly, I believe it's worth pursuing an idea, but it seems that sometimes, the application of Science is akin to the corruption of Religion for those seeing to further their own ends. The scientist J Robert Oppenheimer, quoting the Bhagavad Gita, claimed:

If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one." and "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.

This followed the first tests of the Atom Bomb. A scientific project that went on to create a threat the World had never previously envisaged. Now, nations posture like strutting cocks with their nuclear arsenals, in some futile dance of death.

Indeed, it could be argued that far too much scientific method and theory is applied to destruction and oppression. The Kalashnikov is more valuable than a Human Life, in some parts of the Globe. It's a pity such energy can't be applied for the good of all people, rather than to serve the interests of the few...

first it's a pop at religion, now it's a dig at science.

'the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys'

[i]Indeed, it could be argued that far too much scientific method and theory is applied to destruction and oppression[/i]

It's always gliby dismissed as something like 'science doesn't kill, people do' but it's harder to wipe out a nation or social group with a pointed stick than a cluster of high explosives.

Scientists sufficiently arrogant to put their own curiosity and pride above any degree of social conscience or morality are the direct counterpart of the religious bigot who uses peoples beliefs to turn them against each other.

Basically we're a bunch of over tooled savages that will try to turn any object of beauty, worth or splendor into a way to degrade, destroy or debase our fellow man.........

.....knowledge without wisdom I think someone called it 😥

Is it me, or did Talkemada used to be a well upholstered steeplejack from bolton?

Blimey Hilldodger; you keep coming up with succinct and insightful comments. Careful...

Science enjoys, all too often, too much respect, imo. Not all the results of Scientific endeavour have benefitted Mankind. Many have in fact served to be used as tools against Humanity. The Space Race was a thinly veiled development program for weapons systems. As for any beneficial spin-off products, who's to say they could not have been developed from more peaceful and benign investigations?

Judging by historical evidence, I can't help but be a little wary of projects such as the LHC. Would such vast sums of money be spent on purely compassionate projects? Hmm...

I'm off to watch CSI:NY. 😀

Hmmm, I was right then, Fred Dibnahs back in town...

AFAIK the cost of the LHC is around 6.5 Billion EUR which is a little less than 10 times the annual EU emergency aid budget :(. Ok, that's since 1995 but even so. Having seen villages flattened by weapons that cost more than the combined population of the village would ever see in their lifetimes, a wee bit spent on some social rather than the scientific wouldn't be a bad thing.

and as for science, I still find it strange that we are comfy that it says that the world suddenly appeared out of nowhere and that all that we can see in the universe is only 5% of what has to be there, we just can't find the rest. It's not because its too far away, it's just here and hiding under the bed, in the closet etc. really. We don't even know what this 95% is. Or maybe I don't get it.

>Starseven; I don't think you quite understood the question...

No I think starseven's bang on the money. The Wright brothers pioneered human flight on December 17, 1903. In just over 100 years look what has been achieved - man on the moon, space vehicles on Mars, probes exploring our solar system. All in only 100 years of powered flight!

Don't write it off when it's only just started.

I'm not criticising all science, you numpties. Just some of the seemingly useless/not particularly meaningful projects that always seem to cost billions of dollars yet seemto produce bugger all end product.

So how do you know, beforehand, which is which? Faraday was asked the same question by Gladstone, as to what the value of electricity was.

I don't think you quite understood the question...

I don't think I do either.

What exactly are you on about mate ?

I'm sure if 1% of the NASA or CERN budgets had been put into projects of more direct social impact

Leaving aside the obvious idiocy of the argument, the US spends roughly twice as much on foreign aid as it does on NASA.

But isn't the chain from Wright brothers to space probes largely due to developments in technology and manufacturing processes than 'science'

It's difficult to distinguish the 'tools' from the 'job' sometimes - I like to think that (perhaps excepting microprocessor tech) that the scientists/engineers of a few hundred years ago could pretty much have most of todays sci-tech explained to them in terms they'd soon come to grips with.

It still surprises me how old some of the major scientific advances are, last century IMO has seen the engineers and technologists take the lead whilst the scientists faff around with imaginary solutions to outdated concepts.

Science = concepts and ideas
Technology = the means to explore/exploit them

I don't claim to be anything other than an everyday bench level scientist but I do like to think I keep abreast of 'the big picture' and have a fair idea of 'what's going on in the world of science'.
From my perspective the last 50 years hasn't seen many advances in 'thought science' that even come close to the advances in tech/engineering.

Would be more than happy to be corrected..........

Leaving aside the obvious idiocy of the argument, the US spends roughly twice as much on foreign aid as it does on NASA.

Are you sure about that? I thought the USAID budget was roughly the same as the NASA one and NASA is only one thing - the US has their own equivalent of the LHC as well for example.

The question really isn't that idiotic. Scientific exploration has a real place and there will always be the poor and starving but sometimes there seems a real imbalance.

So what is the deepest we have ever explored?

2 thoughts:

'But isn't the chain from Wright brothers to space probes largely due to developments in technology and manufacturing processes than 'science''
-Yes, but where do you think the developments in technology came from? Engineering is basically applying science to real problems. The skills involved are similar but sufficiently different that both are needed.

'Or maybe I don't get it' (not wanting to single anyone out, this one's quite common)
-To a large extent, you don't get it. Neither do I. Or a lot of people. The current theories on the origins of the universe, particle/quantum physics etc are horrendously complicated and really quite difficult to follow. But quite a lot of people have spent a long time working on them, it's not just one persons best guess. Dark matter etc is a good example - sounds really, really far fetched, but there's quite a lot of work showing that it's a fairly plausible theory. Not 'getting it' is fine*, assuming that it must be wrong because of that is maybe a bit hasty.

*That's not what she said.

Not 'getting it' is fine*, assuming that it must be wrong because of that is maybe a bit hasty.

Must have been badly written on my behalf then. I don't assume it's wrong because of that or anything else. Not only have a lot of people spent a lot of time working on it, there are real practical outputs from the same theories. The engineering/science stuff you referred to. I just find it strange that we (including me) are comfortable with it all because it is more than just a little weird

Doubting current investment now in scientific endevours is like questioning a man 3 centuries ago who built a wheel (or whenever, I have no idea when wheels were first invented). Yes, it might not seem hugely prosperous now but open your mind and accept the effort needs to be made now to lay groundwork for future enterprises.

I think the key problem is the poor communication of the output of scientific experimentation to the masses. This lack of knowledge transfer and dissemination is exactly why people doubt the use of science and exactly what threatens its funding.

a man 3 centuries ago who built a wheel (or whenever, I have no idea when wheels were first invented)

Yeah, it was about 3 centuries ago. For thousands of years people had struggled with their carts and chariots, until some bright spark invented the wheel. Not sure, but I think it might have been some Scottish bloke.

well a quick wikipedia visit suggests I was only 2k out, which is nothing on the general evoluntionary scale of things but you go ahead and big your historical knowledge up there, go on.

So who was this Dunpol geezer then ?

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

the ussr and america pumped billions into the space race, the commies won it with sputnik

huge waste of money when both countries had plenty of homegrown issues to solve at the time
but now satellites are part of our daily lives, mobile phones, gps, the www, 24hr news,google earth 😆

it took 40 years from the first satellite to the armada we have up there now

the op is too shortsighted to see the benefits of science - its his children that will see their lives changed by the scientists of today

but in our culture we expect results immediately, the media doesnt help, nor does the grant system, you have to big up your work to get your hands on the dosh

From my perspective the last 50 years hasn't seen many advances in 'thought science' that even come close to the advances in tech/engineering

I can probably speak with a little authority about the failed British Mars probe: Beagle 2, as I designed the mission control system for it and was closely involved with it's operation.
I don't know if you watched wonders of the solar system last night but they were talking about arguably the most profound philosophical question: is the Earth the only living planet and mankind alone in the universe?
Mars is the easiest worthwhile place to look because it had water, there is meteorite evidence and it's actually quite close.
Beagle came about because ESA offered the UK an experiment on Mars Express. Colin is a world leader in the analysis of meteorites and knew that if he coul do his experiment on Mars he might prove the once existence of life there. Who would turn up the chance of that?
The UK is still world class at space technology despite goverment attempts to kill it off so UK industry scraped enough money together to keep the mission alive until the goverment was embarrassed enough to help.
To put it into perspective: the entire Beagle programme cost around 45 million pounds. Quite a lot less than the dome and about the same as the the Eden project. It's not that much considering what it was trying to do.
Mars landers have a fifty-fifty chance of surviving. Weight restrictions gave no capacity for extra air bags redundant computers or spare chutes. We were unlucky. If it had done it's experiment or just taken a few photos it would have hailed a great British success. But it was a great British success to actually get a spacecraft to Mars against all odds and we are proud of that.

Morning all!

I got bored last night, and CSI Sunday was on Five USA, so I went and enjoyed that instead.

the op is too shortsighted to see the benefits of science

No I'm not. That's completely untrue. I need to wear glasses to see properly, and thanks to Science, I can! 😀

What I'm criticising, isn't all Science, just the parts of it that don't seem to have any real benefit to Mankind; a fair bit of military technology, for example. Much of the Space Race utilised WW2 technology to develop weapons delivery systems. Most 'Rocket Science' is about developing weapons. Half the satellites in Space are for military observation etc. To suggest that stuff like mobile 'phones wouldn't have been invented if it weren't for the Space Race, is a fallacy. The tech and science were there anyway, it's the application of such that is open to criticism.

Loads of the satellites up there are simply floating junk now anyway. Most don't last more than a few years at best.

I have no problem at all, with Science being used to further Mankind's existence. I do have a problem with it being abused to satisfy national egos, and to develop ever more efficient ways of killing.

As for Beagle2: I can understand the reasons behind such a project, but I must question why it is deemed necessary to spend so much, for no calculable benefit. Truth is, as resources on Earth are becoming ever more precious, we look further afield to obtain the materials necessary to sustain out own greed. As has been mentioned, enormous sums of money are spent chasing rainbows, while actually solvable problems here on Earth are ignored.

It's about weighing up costs and benefits, I suppose. The actual success rate of Scientific Investigation, against what can actually be achieved with the resources we already have.

Nuclear power, whilst offering enormous amounts of energy for relatively small input, has brought the World to the brink of MADness, and the price of failure is incredibly high. The devastation caused to this planet by man's greed for power and energy is far too high a price to pay.

Of course, there has to be a balance between encouraging exploration, and preventing a waste of resources. A very fine line, and not an easy task.

Personally, I feel a lot of resources are wasted on projects that bring little or no benefit; Beagle 2 cost £45million, and was a complete failure. 50/50 success rate? Is it really worth it? That £45 million could have been put to much better use. Medical equipment/research that could save lives, perhaps.

Man spends too much of his time with his head in the clouds, and not enough time trying to keep his feet on the ground.

I do understand your point. Nuclear warheads aren't the most useful thing around, for example.

And has NASA actually found anywhere better than Earth yet?

Beagle 2: I'm not disputing that hard questions must be asked before spending tax money on science. But it was a rare chance to answer a very deep question about our existence. Honestly 45 million is small change compared with what NASA spend on equivalent missions.

Do you think lasers are useful? Without quantum theory, no-one would have thought of the idea.

As for nuclear fission, we all wish the weapons would go away, though arguably their presence has put an end to a series of world wars. But we are going to need the power plants unless you want the lights to go out in the near future.

Your problem always goes back to the military applications of science, do you know what the military spends?

Space exploration is definitely worth it, not only for resources but knowledge.

I can't decide if you picked up this line of questioning from a Christian or an Accountants internet forum Talkemada.

I can't decide if you picked up this line of questioning from a Christian or an Accountants internet forum Talkemada.

Neither, it's a question on part of his GSCE course and he's hoping we'll effectively answer his Easter homework assignment for him. 😉

There's a lot of very deep questions about our existence we could ask, but finding the answer doesn't always provide us with much.

And in space, we could explore the universe for 100,000 years and still find nowhere better than home.

Neither, it's a question on part of his GSCE course and he's hoping we'll effectively answer his Easter homework assignment for him.

And in space, we could explore the universe for 100,000 years and still find nowhere better than home.

And we could find something that offers us something useful in 10 years.

Well, military 'need' has driven a fair chunk of Science; the Space Race/Star Wars was primarily about Cold War posturing with the veneer of 'Scientific Interest', and I think it's fair to say that a lot of Scientific projects simply wouldn't get the funding if it weren't for the possibility of military application.

The USA spends bucketloads of cash on UFO investigation (well they used to). With the argument that it's necessary to seek knowledge of something you may need to defend against. The chance of encountering other lifeforms is as likely as another lifeform obliterating our planet at any time, with some cosmic ray, to provide energy for their planet or whatever. IE, not very likely at all, or not something you could do anything about anyway even if you did know.

I see it like this: you have a finite amount of money. You have children to feed. You can either spend that money down the betting shop, or feed your kids.

Seems to me that Man is more intent on praying his Horse will come in, while his kids go hungry.. 😥

Just a thought - the money that gets spent on science etc - where does it go?

Isn't it just Keynsian stimulus with great fringe benefits?

Teach a man to fish etc etc.

And in any case, LHC and whatnot are exploring the fundamentals of our universe. The closer we get to figuring that out, the more likely we are to be able to produce say limitless free energy, or a Star Trek style replicator or whatever. If we don't explore, we'll never know if there's anything worth finding.

Seems to me that the internet seemed pretty useless to most people in 1969.

Hmm, seems that my Search for Intelligent Life (STI) on here has not been quite as fruitful as I'd hoped... 🙁

Some interesting points and observations however. I haven't come here with a completely closed mind, just a highly sceptical one. I remain unconvinced that 'All Science' is something to be 'believed' in without question.

Teach a man to fish etc etc

Yes, I like that. We have the resources, means and motivation to explore, so of course we should. We should however be mindful that such exploration may be fraught with unforeseen problems, and create previously non-existent issues.

'OOh look, Nuclear Power! Loads of cheap energy!'
'Great!'

BANG!

'Oops, now it seems that we've created a catastrophe of terrible proportions, that will take decades, if not centuries for the Earth to recover from, and blight the lives of millions'.
'Oh dear. Ah well never mind... ooh, what does this button do?'

But we are going to need the power plants unless you want the lights to go out in the near future.

Or maybe, we could actually reduce the amount of power we use, and find cleaner alternative forms of energy production, thus negating the need for such dangerous sources...

The closer we get to figuring that out, the more likely we are to be able to produce say limitless free energy

Or, alternatively, we could blow ourselves up in the process.

No such thing as a Free Lunch...

It's the Star Trek future.....a lot of people think it's inevitible.
When they talk about 'progress' that's where they think we are going.

Or maybe, we could actually reduce the amount of power we use

if you want to do that then spending all the "science money" on aid isn't really a good step.

You'd save millions of people, all of whom would require resources, food, shelter, power etc

that's kinda the flaw in your argument. If we chose to ignore science, stand still and put the funds into creating a utopia where everyone had a decent life and lived to 80 then we would almost immediately run out of resources and collapse into a society where everyone was fighting for basic survival.

Only by continuing to progress and learn new things can we have any hope at all of providing for the human race.

The population of the world 3000 years ago was around the same as the current population of England. If we keep growing at that rate then we need as much technological help as we can get.

If we're questioning spending money on science instead of hospitals and so on (not sure how you'd have hospitals without science, we'd be back to leper colonies and leaches, but never mind), why not also question why anyone spends money on arts, music, theatre, films, literature, and culture in general, not to mention mountain bikes, when it's all useless and should be spent on these mythical hospitals?

If we chose to ignore science, stand still and put the funds into creating a utopia where everyone had a decent life and lived to 80 then we would almost immediately run out of resources and collapse into a society where everyone was fighting for basic survival.

Really? Why?

Science, of course, has brought us ways of saving and prolonging life. Nature seems to have quite good ways of controlling populations; predators, environmental change, disease, etc. Science enables us to counteract these forces.

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8602394.stm ]Hmm, seems rampant Scientific Exploration is no longer going quite as unchecked...[/url]

Imagine if you took the Cold War period, took all the good stuff that was developed, and threw away the nasty war stuff. You'd be left with an awful lot of great tech, but it's development would have cost a fraction of what the war stuff did. Of course, War is a great motivator to develop and innovate, but isn't necessarily the only motivational force.

All this wonderful Science, but what do we do with it?

Talkemeda, have you got any experience of the way research is funded in the UK? Do you know the decision process used to decide what gets funded?

Really? Why?

Because if you take everyone out of poverty and give the entire planet happy comfortable lives with excellent health care then the population will explode at an even greater exponential rate than it is already, and very quickly drag us all back under again.

It's just not a sustainable ideal.

Besides do you really think it is just lack of money that creates poverty? Do you honestly think giving billions, trillions whatever to the world's poorest countries would end starvation and poverty?

Well, I'd imagine that someone comes up with an idea, presents that idea with all related data/info/hypotheses, to someone in charge of allocating funding, they weigh up that idea against others, and pick the one they feel has the best chance of success/validity/value. And then allocate funding as they see necessary.

Of course, where funding comes from may have a significant bearing on what gets chosen. The Defence Industry is a significant benefactor to scientific study and research, I understand.

Porton Down was established as a Chemical and Biological Weapons research facility. I'd imagine quite a bit of positive science comes out of the place, but I'd wager a bigger part of their budget is for producing weapons, rather than more benign solutions.

Because if you take everyone out of poverty, give the entire planet happy comfortable lives with excellent health care then the population will explode at an even greater exponential rate than it is already, and very quickly drag us all back under again.

Hmm. Interesting. Any stats/evidence to back this claim up?

Any stats/evidence to back this claim up?

How about the last 2000 years of history?

Any stats/evidence to back this claim up?

According to the US Census Bureau POPClock, around 131,940,516 people are born every year and only 56,545,138 die.
So the world population is currently expanding at around 75 million a year - though obviously it is exponential growth, so that rate is increasing all the time.

Now consider what happens if you decrease the number of people dying before they have children, while simultaneously increasing fertility and access to healthcare...

Ok, this is straying from the point a little, but..

In the more developed parts of the World, birthrates are stabilising or even falling, as people tend to have less children. More and more people are choosing not to have children, and Science has given us advances in Contraception, which may be denied many people in poorer countries. So, there could also be a case for Human population levels actually 'levelling off'. Certainly, population levels aren't climbing as rapidly in the more developed nations.

So should be cut back on medicine then? Not treat people? Problem is, who decides who is worth treating or not? enforced contraception/sterilisation? That takes us into a whole very uncomfortable and unpalatable world...

Interesting points though, and perhaps in some way even supportive of my own arguments. Is the relentless pursuit of, and blind faith in Scientific Discovery to be our undoing?

Also in the 'developing world' aren't high birth rates an insurance policy against childhood mortality ?

I'm sure I've read a WHO report that links increase in survival rates to decrease in birth rates - as communities become more able to 'bank' on their children reaching productive adulthood, they have less children and are able to concentrate their resources on them......

birthrates are stabilising or even falling, as people tend to have less children. More and more people are choosing not to have children

ONS say the current birth rate in England and Wales was 1.96 children per woman in 2008, the seventh consecutive annual rise and the highest it has been in 35 years.

population levels aren't climbing as rapidly in the more developed nations.

True, but those less well developed nations have a lot of catching up to do!

If you choose to "stop science" to help them catch up sooner, then how would we hope to feed, cloth and shelter them with our current technologies?

So should be cut back on medicine then? Not treat people? Problem is, who decides who is worth treating or not? enforced contraception/sterilisation? That takes us into a whole very uncomfortable and unpalatable world...

not at all. I'm just pointing out that universal health care and high living standard for everyone, while a very noble aim, does have very dire consequences in reality.

One thing I'm a bit uncomfortable with your comments with though, GrahamS:

It's quite a Western-centric perspective; are wein the West, with the power to potentially change things, right to deny such help to those in the Third World? Should we not look to keep our own house in order first?

As Hilldodger points out, there are reasons why birthrates in certain countries are high, and could it not be argued that these would be lowered with greater access to healthcare and contraception?

[Conspiracy Theorist] Easiest way to control populations is to deny basic healthcare/clean water etc to those who are the least economically and politically powerful, in order to ensure continued access to valuable resources to those with that power? Even go so far as destabilising entire regions, supplying rival groups with weapons, restrict aid etc, to further enable 'population control'? All part of an existing and carefully orchestrated plan? [/Conspiracy Theorist]