Salam.

This post is a response to a message from a fellow student in Manchester. For the actual post, see after the article.

While other responders seem to touch on the second sub-issue in the article - i.e. atheism vs theism, creationists vs evolutionists (whatever-lah), I’d beg to take the first sub-issue that I noticed mentioned by Asrar, which, to me, attracts a greater portion of attention (perhaps because the CERN, particle-accelerator, dark matter, anti-matter thingies are something I’ve read about in Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons back there in Banting and in an edition of National Geographic’s magazine some time in the past academic year).

The issue, which is, whether such technology - with the massively expansive (repeat : expansive) budget is a necessity to humanity, as opposed to other more directly humanistic endeavours e.g. feeding the starving in Africa, free medical treatment for the Bersamamu-type impoverished in Malaysia, and health education for Chinese peasants between the mountains. Similar contradictions, albeit to lesser degrees, might be seen in the clash between animal rights and human rights (I still remember a doctor once said the cost of pet food in the Europe per year can feed all the hungry Africans, or something like that), environment protection vs economics (would you rather keep a forest virgin or a people deprived of their source of income?), and even, costly cancer research vs more immediately cost-effective distribution of medical supplies to the rural communities - just to cite a few examples.

I’ve often wondered about these priorities, and scratched my proverbial head about the significance of seemingly useless (and COSTLY) studies like archaeology, computer sciences (yes, computer sciences, when you think deeply about it a large portion of it is starting to become not that vital to human existence - especially those parts about business, money-making, entertainment and enriching the rich - I’m ready to take oppositions and being called shallow for this statement), anthropology, engineering (endeavours to build greater and greater constructions baffles me), and even researches about animal behaviour and human psychology (don’t even get me started on dear’ole Sigmund Freud) - in the face of other urgent demands of humanity, basically making the world a place where everyone can have all their basic needs, the first three at the base of Maslow’s hierarchy.

Things have moved from fulfilling the basic needs to satisfying the urges, the drives, to achieve perfection and accessibilize luxury (for those who can afford it). Almost every field I mentioned (with all due respect to the students) above, used to be vital to humanity, in the days of old. Now, for instance, I could not see the significance of making more bungalows and skyscrapers with increasingly high technology and security when viewed in contrast with the squatters area visible when one is taking the LRT in Kuala Lumpur.And what does studying the behaviour of birds and some bizarre Mexican raccoon (I don’t know if they exist) benefit humanity at large? How does it enable the barefoot children living nearby the forests where the studies were conducted get education?Perhaps it is not too outrageous to state that the people who do that kind of thing - i.e. indulging and devoting themselves to their research and niches of work that they realize do not directly benefit humanity and perhaps is a waste of resources, considering the more urgent need at hand - are actually there because of their own personal attachment and passion to the job. An archaeologist digging the remains of Ming Dynasty would fight to the death about how what she does enhances the heritage of humanity, and so on, and so forth, but would it feed the peasants of China? Self-denial? Mental conditioning to believe that one is actually doing something right because one WANTS to do it.

(I do not wish to expound on the economic benefits of such jobs, because, well, of course not everyone wants to ditch their source of income and go volunteering, people have families to feed and I don’t want to irrationally point out that. Having an option - or to be more exact, the courage - to be in a more ethical, beneficial field is not a privilege enjoyed by everyone.)

However, on the true style of Theory of Knowledge student of Banting, I’d now like to stand on the other side of the fence. (Give me a few seconds to climb up and jump down).Oh, the territory feels more familiar. Perhaps because the former feels so Communist-like and the grounds feel treacherous to tread on.

A few centuries or decades ago, researches and inventions that we deem vital to existence today are also libelled as luxurious and insignificant. I mean, when Galileo first talked about astronomy, people didn’t exactly applaud him and call him a hero, right? And who in Baird’s time would’ve thought that his ‘talking box that emits light’ would be of any use? Don’t even start about the now-indispensable computers that start as massive constructions with tangles of wires and buttons filling a room. Costly medical researches have saved lives - (still, mostly those who can afford it, but lives are lives, and I don’t mean to imply ‘Mao-ish’ly that the underprivileged have more precious lives than the privileged). Social sciences offer insight into humanity that makes us feel more value and understanding in being humans. After all, the Maslow’s hierarchy does not end after the bottom three.

The world does not move in compartments. Every single part interacts with the other, in direct or indirect ways. Seemingly useless skyscraper projects provide source of income for the uneducated labourers (let’s not talk about working conditions, health hazard and wages here, what matters is they can put food on the table from it). Researches in the deep Amazon provide us knowledge and appreciation of Divine wisdom and inspire activists to protect the environment. Realisation that environment protection is necessary but must not be carried to the extent that people lost their source of income might drive the authorities or responsible parties to design environmental-friendly occupations for these people to partake in, which would be creative as well as constructive.

Point is, what we don’t see today, might be apparent tomorrow. What we don’t see at the surface might be happening underneath. Throwing away something just because the immediate benefit is not directly visible is naive bordering on stupidity. It takes wisdom and courage to be able to take risks for the envisioned, possible greater good. If there IS a greater good that one honestly seeks, not some self-indulgent pursuit of personal satisfaction and economic gratification while the rest of the world rots, Devil may care.

Source Email
—– Original Message —-
From: asrar abu bakar
To: mcot@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 6:51:14 AM
Subject: [mcot] ramadan with a bang! Salam wbt…Pernah dengar pasal teori “big bang”? rupa2nya saintis dah cipta satu teknologi baru untuk ‘create’ big bang sebab nak kaji sejauh mana partikel-partikel yg lebih kecil dari atom (yg masih belum dibuktikan adanya) boleh berubah menjadi jirim (ke jisim? lupa dah fizik) dan seterusnya membuktikan teori penciptaan alam semesta melalui konsep big bang. 8000 saintis dari merata dunia terlibat dlm multi-billion project ni dan proses pertembungan partikel2 dijangka mula hujung bulan depan.tak sure kalo cerita ni dapat liputan kat akhbar malaysia tapi kat sini, dah jadi satu hype besar-besaran. boleh katakan semua artikel mula dgn “if you are still reading this, then rest assured that the earth is still in its place” sebab ura2 mengatakan teknologi ni boleh memusnahkan dunia huhu. tp ‘ijma’ saintis2 sedunia mengatakan projek ni tidak mendatangkan sebarang kemudaratan.apa komen orang? ada kata membazir..baik guna duit tu utk bantu mangsa2 pelarian, famine dan keganasan kat middle east, afrika so on..ada gak yg percaya dunia dah nak kiamat, teknologi ni akan create blackholes yg akan menelan dunia…ade plak beberapa pandangan daripada golongan pro-Intelligent design / yg percaya kepada Tuhan termasuklah org2 Islam yg mengatakan projek2 sebegini adalah sebenarnya usaha pro-atheism scientists yg cuba buktikan tiadanya Tuhan di mana penciptaan universe ni hanyalah by chance and is readily explained by science.so how can our faith and understanding explain such issues?do religion and science work in tandem or are they in a colliding course?any takers?ha budak2 kpm fizik explain laaa..nak harap budak2 engineering diorang bukannya tau apa hehehee…

Scientists start ‘big bang machine’

The project hopes to observe a paricle known as a Higgs Boson, or a ‘God particle’ [AFP] Scientists in Switzerland have started up a machine designed to accelerate sub-atomic particles to nearly the speed of light and then smash them into each other in a bid to find out how the universe began. The project began operations on Wednesday, but its critics fear that it could go wrong and create a black hole that would destroy the Earth. The Large Hadron Collider, housed in a tunnel 100 metres below ground straddling the French-Swiss border, has cost more than $5.4bn and has been almost two decades in the making. The collider began work at 9.30am local time (0730 GMT) with the first protons injected into the 27km, ring-shaped tunnel at the headquarters of the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (Cern). Scientists monitoring the collider on computer screens burst into applause when Lyn Evans, the project leader, announced: “We’ve got a beam on the LHC.” ‘Big bang’ More than two thousand scientists from around the world have worked on the project which hopes to observe a particle known as a Higgs Boson, or a “God particle”, that scientists hope will explain how particles pick up mass. The big-bang theory The phrase “big bang” was coined in 1949 by Fred Hoyle, a British scientist.Hoyle was trying to disparage the then emerging theory, which countered his own “steady state” view - that the universe had always existed and was evolving but was not expanding.The big-bang theory suggests the universe began as a speck at extremely high temperature and density and rapidly expanded and in doing so cooled. The Higgs was named after Peter Higgs, a British physicist who devised the theory of its existence in 1964. Archana Sharma, a physicist with Cern, told Al Jazeera that the experiment could be equated to the discovery of X-rays or electricity. “We are precisely at that kind of moment in science -something new is going to come about,” she said. “In addition, there are theories - to be technical - that explain the universe on the astronomical scale and their are theories that explain it on a subatomic scale… There is a connection between these two where the origin of mass is explained by a mechanism called the Higgs mechanism. Our primary scientific goal is to find the Higgs.” The collider will send protons in opposite directions along a 27km circuit - the protons will travel the 27km 11,000 times per second - and at four points the protons will intersect and smash together. Scientists will monitor the collisions and collect data on the particles created by these collisions, which they say will come close to re-enacting the “big bang” - the theory that a colossal explosion created the universe. The project could also help prove the theory of supersymmetry, a theory in particle physics that suggests every particle has a corresponding partner particle. The end of the world? Prior to the launch, the internet was abuzz with rumours that the particle accelerator could create black holes or an as-yet hypothetical particle called a strangelet that would grow and destroy the earth. A black hole has a gravitational field so powerful that it pulls particles, including light, into itself. But staff on the project have reject the claims. “Nothing’s going to happen here that’s not already happening in nature,” Mario Nessi, the projects technical director, said. Cern says it has commissioned a panel to verify its calculations that such risks are virtually impossible.