The hunger to know about our past and present is helping to build our future in no way.

I was joking in my previous post about my opponent's inability to post in a timely manner, but no worries. - "My point is, there is no need of performing massive, expensive experiments which are probably not helping to better our present and future. It is a very need of research about our economy, climate and population but not of those which just claim that 'Our earth, before many million years was like this'." My opponent offers a weak characterization of the work going on in some of the theoretical sciences, leading me to believe that he has not done much research concerning the purpose of the LHC or similar examples. Since my opponent seems fixated on the experiment, he'll be happy to know that the construction of the LHC has already brought forth another scientific breakthrough as seen here: http://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch... , proving its worth at least on a medical level and improving our present and future. - "Referring to the same 'Collider experiment', is it important to know how our earth evolved and how the big bang took place?, or to save those who are dying because of shortage of food. And in my view some of the experiment and researches, are performed for the only purpose of achieving fame and name and not for development of humanity." Assuming for a moment that one accepts the premise that working to feed everyone on earth would not lead to catastrophic population overgrowth, the stretching of planetary resources too thin or any other apocalyptic scenario, perhaps my opponent puts too much stock in saving others. He has not yet proven that it would be better for humanity to assist other people in their survival and at the same time he rejects some of the goals and accomplishments of the LHC. http://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch... At the same time, he gives another strange characterization of science as being a fame driven business. True there are some scientists who use their knowledge for the purposes of furthering their own bids for glory, but those scientists do so by expanding the knowledge of the human race. - "Knowledge of past is of utmost importance and quintessential of further developments, but now a days most of these researches and experiment are done to get those facts from past which may not be helpful." Again we do not yet know the ramifications of the outcome of the experiment or of the previously cited effects of the experiment itself. Unless my opponent could supply evidence that large scale or expensive experiments are in some way hurting the work of charity groups and social norms, I don't see how he can justifiably reject doing them based on his original humanitarian premise. - "Just knowing our past by conducting huge and expensive experiment shall not improve our future but there is a need of performing select researches and experiments which may help to solve issues of prime concern like food problem, like climate condition and a much more prevailing in our world." Let's assume for a moment that all scientific endeavors were halted tomorrow for the express purpose of spending more on social needs, for example, improving conditions in Africa. How could we work towards reversing deforestation without knowing what would effectively grow and flourish there based on the geological, meteorological and historic details of the region? How could we know that, hypothetically, the Earth wasn't naturally progressing toward the destruction of Africa without knowing how the earth formed, how the tectonic plates move or how the atmosphere functions? Even then, there's nothing to say that these "hard" sciences wouldn't produce something of equal or greater value in any of the social sciences. Crossover in groups of knowledge happens all the time. If no one dreamed to invent the plow or sythe, wouldn't it also be what my opponent describes? Stopping the improvement of our knowledge in order to focus on what we have now? Wouldn't the lack of those two important Neolithic tools greatly hurt his quest to end hunger? I recommend my opponent search more in depth to the ramifications of previous big, expensive experiments such as these to see where their outcomes and the outcomes of those have lead. Thanks to him and the voting audience for my first formal debate.