When I was in Marine Biology (for years) I always thought of nudibranchs as sea slugs with style. Some more than others.

@dirkdeagler7

You keep saying I'm being fanatic, or aggressive. Nothing in that quote could be construed as such. It was a direct response to the following quote from your previous post:

"Explain to someone who has no insurance or has a problem with medical bills or has no job or has family members fighting abroad or is getting foreclosed on....that we need to spend money to better understand hermaphroditic snails and the intricacies of their mating rituals in order to better understand evolution and reproduction to maybe one day apply that technology to genetic research or fertility programs."

Presumably you would also argue that they would not be convinced by the need to study the intricacies of sea-slug gill withdrawal reflexes. Your posts seem to suggest that someone other than scientists (some vaguely defined "greater good") should be dictating which specific research aims should be funded. You suggest we should be "asking" these people if that money should be spent.

My contention is that scientists have spent their (already meager) funds with remarkable efficiency. My example was meant to illustrate that asking lay people what science should be funded is likely to have prevented some of the most critical research of the last century from ever having taken place. They don't understand the broader impacts of the research, and thus lack the expertise necessary to evaluate its merit. Sure, someone in pain will probably balk at those sorts of studies. However, if you ask them "are you glad someone did the necessary research to develop ____insert_medical_procedure here____," then I think you'll find they're happy their forefathers spent a few pennies studying snails. The fact is the reverse argument does not hold up. We all, scientists not withstanding, are experts in basic human needs and suffering. For many, scientists that's what drove us to the work. You act as though we can not evaluate the merit of research with respect to the larger picture. I think you're wrong. We do it all the time.

Also, I'm a bit insulted by your reference to people with medical bills, or family members fighting abroad as I fall into both categories. We all have our cross to bear. I don't think I'm alone in responding "I'll be fine, spend the money on the future."

Excuse me, what? This isn't us being fanatic. This is more simple dismissiveness. You haven't convincingly demonstrated significant wasteful spending. Your arguments are all hypothetical or anecdotal. Give me data to sink my teeth into and I might bother to show you fanatical.

Of course there are other priorities, but maybe basic science and medical research don't even register in the budget. You're the one defending defense research, remember? I would send citizens buried by medical expenses (like myself) knocking on your door. I wouldn't suggest they consider cuts to research that experts in biological sciences have agreed show promise. I hate to think how many advancements we aren't funding as it is.

Where I will fault science is in their incapacity to efficiently communicate. Our job description amounts to summarizing the unintuitive. For my money, this communication gulf accounts for most of the perceived waste in science. When you're inside you see how all the ant work science (both metaphorical and literal) contributes. Most of the great discoveries end up looking more like great summaries. Every field has someone come along once a decade or two, but it's hard to know who. Then the universe is easier to understand; and everybody wins.

Here's an example. Studying gill-withdrawal responses in sea slugs provided the foundation for what we now know about neuronal learning and memory. This was circa 1952. Reasoning similar to yours would have prohibited that expense. That would have been dumb. I agree if your point is simply that we should do a better job of convincing you of that.

Oh! Would that be why it doesn't mind being eaten?>> ^lv_hunter:

Though to be corrective that isnt a jellyfish. Thats a colony of hydroids called a porpita porpita.

"As ancient sea-slugs begin to crawl...

Through ragweed and barbed wire."

Possibly one of the best lyrics of all time.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^BansheeX:
My, aren't we young and gullible.

You just made the ignore list, fuckwad.
Say hello to Quantumushroom. I'm sure you'll find you have a lot in common.
And keep pretending that you're the only person in the world who pays taxes, or that all of your taxes are wasted on "entitlements" and foolish research.
It's really the only leg you have to stand on.


Quantumushroom is an inflammatory neo-con who parrots hypocritical fiscal criticisms and pro-interventionist nonsense. What has he criticized Democrats on that Bush didn't DO when he was in office? Other than a few social issues, nothing, yet he defends the (socialist) neo-conservative party to the last.

Question is, why do you want to force others to finance things they believe are inefficient and don't want to participate in? Public schools and retirement schemes would theoretically be very easy things have opt-outs for. It's not illegal to sell education services apart from the government, or manage your own earnings for retirement. I'd prefer not to waste my time trying to convince you how Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable ponzi schemes, you've already convinced yourself of the impossible. Yet you are adamant at forcing me to participate in them with you despite my preference (after an enormous amount of research) not to devote part of my earnings there. All YOU should be concerned about, is you and those like you who believe it will work between you. Whether I believe I can save and invest my money more efficiently than the social security system shouldn't make any difference to its proponents. And the same logic goes for this fucking sea slug. A politician could come to your door with any damn reason to want money, and you'd give it to them, we already know that. But you don't own what others have or earn, so stop trying to vote in a learned minority who has doubts.

Have you even been paying attention to the stimulus packages? These people do not fucking care about you, buy a clue. If they cared about waste, Obama would have used his veto pen umpteen times already instead of verbally admonishing earmarks and the undeserved bonuses begotten by giving billions of stolen money to idiots who drove their companies into the ground. If they cared, they wouldn't brazenly state it out loud that you don't:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEfICUoWKBw