> instead do something useful
Can you present an argument for how a new super-collider is actually useful?
Can you present an argument for how a new super-collider is actually useful?
While I agree this is a huge expense, I do question the slippery slope of attacking research budgets. I wish more nations chalked this up as the 'cost of doing business'. Cutting research funding works well for election cycles, but doesn't do much for the folks down the road.
That makes sense, but you must also have a framework that tells you when something is just too much. It looks like you are comfortable with €21 BN, would €210 BN be also ok, or €2.1 TN or €21 TN? Which level does not justify the knowledge gain?
Fundamental knowledge is valuable, but in a world with finite resources you must always be able to compare with other valuable alternatives. Should we, the humankind, invest a few tens of billions into chasing hypothetical superpartner particles? Or we should invest in the ARC fusion reactor [1], that might help us cut down our greenhouse gas emissions in 20 years?
One could perhaps get those benefits through more direct means for less, but if not then it would make the collider technically useful.
Just like military R&D. So what's the point of the comparison?