8 ms·

Alright, lets compare expenditures. The LHC cost around 4.75 bn (initial estimate) to construct. Let's be generous and add quite some buffer, to a solid 6bn.

Alright, lets compare expenditures. The LHC cost around 4.75 bn (initial estimate) to construct. Let's be generous and add quite some buffer, to a solid 6bn. The project has been in operation since 2010. Lets assume operational cost of 1bn a year, that brings up the total tally to 20bn. Let's add 10% just to be safe, so 22bn. The US military expenditure is THIRTY-EIGHT-POINT-SIX (38.6) times that number. PER YEAR! Remind me again, what "substantive gains" were had, by pumping 850bn dollars into one countries military per year? Bear in mind that, despite all that, (the US essentially LOST the last larger war they were involved in)[0]. US military being a touchy subject? No problem, how about agriculture? The EU agricultural subsidies (CAP) pump over 60bn into farming each year. As for the results of all that money being spent, (weeell... )[1] What about fossil fuels? Worldwide subsidies in these were (just shy of 130bn dollars )[2] (again, that's PER YEAR), and these things are destroying our habitat as we speak. So please, explain to me how paying less than 25bn, over a 10 year period, to gain the ability to figure out how reality works, is a "massive expenditures", compared to other things society throws money at left right and center. [0]: https://time.com/6090758/why-america-lost-afghanistan/ https://time.com/6090758/why-america-lost-afghanistan/ [1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/european-union-farm-subsidies-are-misused-new-york-times-reports-2019-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/european-union-farm-subsidie... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies#Subsidies_by_fuel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies#Subsidie...

Filligree 2y ago
The lack of Russia rolling over all of Eastern Europe is a pretty decent benefit.
- exe34 2y ago
  so you just need the nukes then?
  - macintux 2y ago
    Unclear. Current evidence is that nukes are insufficient, and given the non-trivial chance that the next U.S. administration would pull out of NATO, it’s not even obvious that the nukes would be a factor.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Current evidence is that nukes are insufficient, and given the non-trivial chance that the next U.S. administration would pull out of NATO Isn’t this evidence of nukes being necessary?
      - macintux 2y ago
        It’s not evidence of nukes being sufficient, which was the original question.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > It’s not evidence of nukes being sufficient Someone else’s nukes being insufficient. The last few years have shown nuclear powers are inviolable, to the point of causing allies of non-nuclear powers being violated by them drawing red lines in the violator’s defence.
        exe34 2y ago
        although over the last week, the Kievan Rus has been liberating Kursk from the Grand Duchy of Moscow.
    - exe34 2y ago
      it's okay, the UK and France have enough between us to glass Moscow.
  - skywhopper 2y ago
    No. If we only had nukes, Russia would have little to fear from invading neighboring countries with conventional weapons. Have our nukes stopped them from doing so now?
    - exe34 2y ago
      are these neighbouring countries in NATO now?
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> explain to me how paying less than 25bn, over a 10 year period, to gain the ability to figure out how reality works, is a "massive expenditures" You never quantified the LHC’s benefit. I could use your logic to justify spending billions on anything, whether confirming the existence of the Higgs or trying to find evidence of Biblical angels or whatever.
- rqtwteye 2y ago
  We need to do basic science even if there is no direct benefit visible at the time. There were times when electricity was just a party trick, there was no practical use for electrons or relativity for a while. It may take decades or longer to find a real world application but it’s still worth pushing science ahead. In the long run it pays off big time.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > We need to do basic science even if there is no direct benefit visible at the time But again, I can use this to justify anything. Why this basic science?
    - usrbinbash 2y ago
      > But again, I can use this to justify anything. No, you cannot. To use your above example, I very much doubt that anyone has a workable plan to prove the existence of biblical angels that they could formulate in enough reason and technical detail to begin construction on a multi-billion-dollar project. People did, and do, have such plans for figuring out the reactions of elementary particles. There is a difference between "science" and "anything". > Why this basic science? Because elementary particle physics pretty much explain how the basic building blocks of the universe, and the forces governing them, work, and thus provide the most essential framework to understand the natural world next to mathematics? I'd say that's pretty important, and if we spend less than 30bn on that over a 10 year period, I'd call that a bargain, certainly compared to all the other crap society wastes money on. As long as we have the dough to give trillions in handouts to billionaires so they can buy more yachts, private jets and islands, I'd say we can spare tuppence for the science that furthers our species understanding of the universe.
Davidzheng 2y ago
The question you should ask is is there a better way to find out reality with that money

Filligree 2y ago

The lack of Russia rolling over all of Eastern Europe is a pretty decent benefit.

exe34 2y ago
so you just need the nukes then?
- macintux 2y ago
  Unclear. Current evidence is that nukes are insufficient, and given the non-trivial chance that the next U.S. administration would pull out of NATO, it’s not even obvious that the nukes would be a factor.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Current evidence is that nukes are insufficient, and given the non-trivial chance that the next U.S. administration would pull out of NATO Isn’t this evidence of nukes being necessary?
    - macintux 2y ago
      It’s not evidence of nukes being sufficient, which was the original question.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > It’s not evidence of nukes being sufficient Someone else’s nukes being insufficient. The last few years have shown nuclear powers are inviolable, to the point of causing allies of non-nuclear powers being violated by them drawing red lines in the violator’s defence.
        exe34 2y ago
        although over the last week, the Kievan Rus has been liberating Kursk from the Grand Duchy of Moscow.
  - exe34 2y ago
    it's okay, the UK and France have enough between us to glass Moscow.
- skywhopper 2y ago
  No. If we only had nukes, Russia would have little to fear from invading neighboring countries with conventional weapons. Have our nukes stopped them from doing so now?
  - exe34 2y ago
    are these neighbouring countries in NATO now?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> explain to me how paying less than 25bn, over a 10 year period, to gain the ability to figure out how reality works, is a "massive expenditures" You never quantified the LHC’s benefit. I could use your logic to justify spending billions on anything, whether confirming the existence of the Higgs or trying to find evidence of Biblical angels or whatever.

rqtwteye 2y ago
We need to do basic science even if there is no direct benefit visible at the time. There were times when electricity was just a party trick, there was no practical use for electrons or relativity for a while. It may take decades or longer to find a real world application but it’s still worth pushing science ahead. In the long run it pays off big time.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > We need to do basic science even if there is no direct benefit visible at the time But again, I can use this to justify anything. Why this basic science?
  - usrbinbash 2y ago
    > But again, I can use this to justify anything. No, you cannot. To use your above example, I very much doubt that anyone has a workable plan to prove the existence of biblical angels that they could formulate in enough reason and technical detail to begin construction on a multi-billion-dollar project. People did, and do, have such plans for figuring out the reactions of elementary particles. There is a difference between "science" and "anything". > Why this basic science? Because elementary particle physics pretty much explain how the basic building blocks of the universe, and the forces governing them, work, and thus provide the most essential framework to understand the natural world next to mathematics? I'd say that's pretty important, and if we spend less than 30bn on that over a 10 year period, I'd call that a bargain, certainly compared to all the other crap society wastes money on. As long as we have the dough to give trillions in handouts to billionaires so they can buy more yachts, private jets and islands, I'd say we can spare tuppence for the science that furthers our species understanding of the universe.

Davidzheng 2y ago

The question you should ask is is there a better way to find out reality with that money