Lis wanted me to post this here, because she thinks it's a good statement of something I believe abo

[xiphias]

Lis pointed me to this cool article about why owls don't suffer the same sorts of vascular head trauma from spinning their heads around that we would expect to see in analogous movements in humans:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/48681/how-can-owls-rotate-their-heads-270-degrees-without-dying

One of the comments following up to it expressed an opinion that I've seen before, and it always makes me sad:

"All well and good.. but really wondering the value of this study at Johns Hopkins and who paid for it... when so few humans can afford to be treated there."

So, I responded, and Lis said that I should repost it here. So that, the next time that someone posts something about this opinion that makes me sad, I can use this response as a template:

The value of this study is that we now know more about the universe than we did before. We now know more about how cool things are. We now know more about owls.

Isn't that enough? Isn't learning about the universe among the highest purposes of human existence? We exist to create knowledge, and art, and kindness. Learning about the universe is a purpose in itself.

Indeed, much of this learning may later be used to improve the human condition -- perhaps understanding this about owls may help us understand ways to avoid vascular injury in humans, and when knowledge leads to utility (as it so often does), that's an additional benefit.

But to limit oneself to valuing only those things which have an immediate and pre-planned utility? How is it possible to live like that?

Even from a purely utilitarian point of view, that's self-defeating -- discoveries that make sudden and dramatic leaps forward in understanding and capability are, by their very nature, things that are discovered serendipitously, doing general research, for the pure purpose of learning new things. If you expect all of your research to be narrowly focused to obvious and clearly-defined goals, then you will be very limited in what you discover. Narrowly-focused and clearly-defined research is ALSO useful, of course, but it can't be the only thing you do.

And, seriously -- do you not just feel this? Do you not get how inherently COOL it is to now know something about owl blood vessels that you didn't know before? This isn't even a question that I ever even WONDERED about before -- not once in my life did I ever ask myself, "Why don't owls get strokes from spinning their heads around?" And now I know the answer! I now know a cool piece of information that I didn't even know that I didn't know.

Isn't that just plain awesome enough on its own?

Comments

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

*cheers and makes a note*

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Plus the Universe is all connected -- no fact about evolutionary solutions to engineering problems is entirely irrelevant to us.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm gonna steal this and repost it and frame it and quote it and steal it.

[fatpie42.livejournal.com]

I initially thought you'd missed the point, since obviously access to healthcare has been a big political issue recently. The point that so many people cannot afford medical care in the states seemed very important (albeit a bit of a tangent). However, then I saw that the comment was about not being able to afford care at John Hopkins' in particular - and admittedly that seems rather more petty.

I absolutely agree that this research is important and that, when it does have a practical use for humans, it is important that people should be able to benefit from it, preferably regardless of income or social status. :)