I mean... isn't that kinda like saying: "we need to learn how to cure cancer, and not just improve chemotherapy"?

"Curing cancer" is A LOT more complicated than "chemotherapy," and it gets more complicated the further you look onto it.

Yes. We DO need to learn how to mend nerves. We're working that. But who knows when we'll even be close? Here is a potential patch that can help people NOW.
We're advancing both. One is just gonna take a lot longer to get the results we want.

Looks like we won't need to invent Neuropozyne after all!

Damn... I remember when they were first trying to implement the subscription thing and thought it'd never take off.. "It's such a scam! People are just gonna use the older version until yall give up this stupid idea!"

I still don't know how they did it..

Thank god for google docs

When your spouse dies, so aliens take it upon themselves to put out ads for other aliens to see, and they abduct a new spouse for you

The economy is hitting everyone hard v__v

Whoa.... it's like how cancers in whales can also get cancer, so you have tumors parasitizing tumors, and so whales live on.

but with zero money, your health will eventually go negative

since when do the rich favor the planet over the economy?

How's your PhD coming along?

Not every scientist has to work on what you think is the most pressing matter, or even on a big issue or serious topic.

Check out this quote from physicist Richard Feynman:

> Then I had another thought: Physics disgusts me a little bit now, but I used to enjoy doing physics. Why did I enjoy it? I used to play with it.
>
>I used to do whatever I felt like doing - it didn't have to do with whether it was important for the development of nuclear physics, but whether it was interesting and amusing for me to play with. When I was in high school, I'd see water running out of a faucet growing narrower, and wonder if I could figure out what determines that curve. I found it was rather easy to do.
>
>I didn't have to do it; it wasn't important for the future of science; somebody else had already done it.
That didn't make any difference.
I'd invent things and play with things for my own entertainment.
>
>So I got this new attitude. Now that I am burned out and I'll never accomplish anything, I've got this nice position at the university teaching classes which I rather enjoy, and just like I read the Arabian Nights for pleasure, I'm going to play with physics, whenever I want to, without worrying about any importance whatsoever.
Within a week I was in the cafeteria and some guy, fooling around, throws a plate in the air.
As the plate went up in the air I saw it wobble, and I noticed the red medallion of Cornell on the plate going around. It was pretty obvious to me that the medallion went around faster than the wobbling. I had nothing to do, so I start to figure out the motion of the rotating plate. I discover that when the angle is very slight, the medallion rotates twice as fast as the wobble rate.
>
>Then I thought, ``Is there some way I can see in a more fundamental way, by looking at the forces or the dynamics?''
I don't remember how I did it, but I ultimately worked out what the motion of the mass particles is, and how all the accelerations balance...
>
>I still remember going to Hans Bethe and saying, ``Hey, Hans! I noticed something interesting. Here the plate goes around so, and the reason it's two to one is ...'' and I showed him the accelerations.
>
>He says, ``Feynman, that's pretty interesting, but what's the importance of it? Why are you doing it?''
>
>``Hah!'' I say. ``There's no importance whatsoever. I'm just doing it for the fun of it.''
>
>His reaction didn't discourage me; I had made up my mind I was going to enjoy physics and do whatever I liked. It was effortless. It was easy to play with these things.
>
>It was like uncorking a bottle: Everything flowed out effortlessly. I almost tried to resist it! There was no importance to what I was doing, but ultimately there was.
The diagrams and the whole business that I got the Nobel Prize for came from that piddling around with the wobbling plate.

There is value in playing, and with playing with science. Value in the learning itself, even if just for fun with no goal in mind.
With the new information gleaned from your play, you or someone else can come along and be inspired and find the answers they were looking for for their serious questions.

The EMR^(2)

Elongated MuskRat
European MaRathon

Yeah but the specific GROUPING of particles wasn't.

Like, yeah human tribes have existed for thousands of years, but the group "America" has only been around for a couple hundred.

tbh all gold on Earth is billions of years old

Their faces say: "After all why not? Why shouldn't I keep it?"

"Guys! I know how to make the species destruction/extinction-proof!
We just have to fix the problems we currently have, and prevent the future problems we may have(even the unknown ones)!
Big brain amirite?"

It aaaaall circles back to the education system. Seems that most of the problems of the world would be fixed in part if we properly funded and revamped or education systems

So what about when you ponder and afyer a time, you learn something about yourself? Is that some other "-ism"?
Or is that still argued as empiricism cause the ideas and tools you used to look inward had to be learned from "outside yourself" through sensory experience?