CERN approves 62-mile long, $23 billion successor to Large Hadron Collider

[wiyosaya]

Those of you talking about world hunger understand much of the problem involves transport, logistics, and especially, the political and security situations on the ground where the food would ideally be delivered, right? That latter part being the most unsolvable with funds alone unless you're contemplating budgets for military actions.

Also, while I am typically a fan of the free market for determining economic questions such as how much of item X should be produced, when it comes to food supply, I am OK with the US having policies that ensure an over-production and following spoilage in most years as a hedge against a bad circumstance where the normal supply is disrupted and the extra is needed.

Good god man. $240 billion a year? And what is the figure on obese Americans these days? When is enough enough?

 

[brucek]

$240 billion sounds big but then again we're a population of 330 million. So we're talking about $725 per person per year.

I'm not a specialist in food distribution. But given we're discussing items that are not necessarily dividable into any desired chunk (I.e., the store can't sell you 2/3rds of an apple), that spoil relatively quickly, and that "life happens" (meaning you can't know the dinner you shopped for two days in advance will end up getting cancelled when someone is called in to work instead) -- exactly how much efficiency do you think is possible? Certainly 100% perfection is not achievable.

And all that is before we get to the issue of the over/under here not being remotely comparable. Producing 10% too much food is a minor issue that employs some extra people. Producing 10% too little leading to starvation death of 10% of the population is a huge huge problem.

If one of you who thinks you know better wants to dial in a "better solution" that aims to crank excess production down to the bare minimum, please experiment in some other country first, and even then only after agreeing that if you end up with a shortage that you and your family will be the last to be fed.

 

[yazooo]

I for one support this completely, understanding particle physics is the only pathway to understanding all fundamental forces and makeup of our universe, so it is a worthwhile endeavour. There are always competing research projects for funding, one of the pitfalls of costly scientific research. ITER is indeed a great project, and I'm sure (hope) it will get funded as it has the potential to dramatically change the energy landscape.

 

[Ean Mogg]

They could make it cheaper, Just add coils in the present CERN lol but I believe Scientists haven't got the sense to think of alternatives,

 

[neeyik]

They could make it cheaper, Just add coils in the present CERN lol but I believe Scientists haven't got the sense to think of alternatives,

The LHC is currently in the process of being upgraded into the HL-LHC (High Luminosity Large Hadron Collider). The proposed FCC project would retain this structure, not abandon it.

 

[JB3543]

Surely you jest. Americans waistlines are already causing health problems even with throwing out $240 billion worth of food each year.

The point, my friend, is the MASSIVE waste. If that amount of food were not wasted and were sent to those who need it, it would go a long way toward solving world hunger as it is.

But then again, it seems many really do not get the idea of waste.

Surely I don't jest.

And you just admitted that adding $240B of food to American waistlines would exacerbate health problems. You contradict yourself. (Confused people do that a lot.)

Yes, massive waste is something that should not occur. (Big concept.) But can you really say that $240B can be saved? No, you can't.

And stop saying "If we stop waste, we can feed the world's hungry". Ridiculous. Simplistic.

 

[Mister_K]

when we haven't conquered world starvation, un-treatable diseases, and world conflict, $23 Billion dollars might be better spent on the aforementioned issues .....

You underestimate the technological advancements that have contributed greatly to third world countries and the globe in general. Take space exploration for example - https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/infographic.view.php?id=11358

To fix world hunger, diseases, conflict takes decades upon decades, great systematic changes simply cannot be done in short time period (or they could but it would require dictatorship or a One World Government). Anyway, fixing world hunger is not efficient as its a deep hole that consumes matter.

You need to build an infrastructure which gives the people the tools to build, expand, educate and in return you have reduced hunger problems and crime rates.

The advancements that may occur from building this ($23 Billion is **** all, it's a tiny budget) might be greater in grand scheme of things.

Reducing the military budgets where it can be and distributing the saved money over to Education, Healthcare, Space Exploration and Science in general would be a good start.

 

[Markoni35]

They won't stop until the the-newest-hottest-coolest-super-ultra-collider circles the entire Earth at equator. That's 40,000 km. Should satisfy them for a few months. Then they'll start thinking: "Hmmm... Jupiter has a much longer circumference than Earth, maybe we could..."

 

[austin aaronson]

This megalithic proposal represents a disturbing trend of tax-subsidized, wasteful spending on the ivory tower agenda of elite academia. LHC, already touted as the 'most complex (and expensive) machine ever constructed', gave us the Higg's boson - a discovery of dubious merit that has yet to lead to a single, practical benefit. Now we're going to hemhorrage exponentially more on money on the same kind of nonsense? If the average citizen had any inkling as to how much money is being sucked into this vortex, she'd be appalled. At the very least, it is reasonable for the beleaguered taxpayer to insist upon a proposed practical application of the theory tested, if not the nuts-and-bolts technology itself.

The people pushing this agenda - CERN and the western democracies that insist on gratifying its vacuous ideas and voracious fiscal appetite - should be ashamed of what they're doing. This is particularly true when there are so many vital, even existential, societal issues that could be addressed using the same resources. Here's a novel idea: I know I'm going out on a limb, but how about taking the same amount of money, and using it to address the climate change crisis, for example?

This is your humble citizen pleading with academia: Once you've done an honest day's work - maybe by creating commercially viable nuclear fusion - then come back to me and ask if you can borrow the car for your hot evening date.

This is your poor constituent pleading with our corrupt politicians again: Show me how you're spending my money. If you're not too afraid, ashamed, or concerned about lining your own pockets, submit this proposal for a public referendum with a simple, practical cost-benefit analysis. (Particularly costs). While your at it, put a competing referendum on the ballot: Commercially viable nuclear fusion.

Let's see, you can either: A. Have 23 billion (that's right, with a 'b') of my hard earned money to humor your idle curiosity about the illusive Higg's boson; or B. You can take the same money and go solve the global climate change crisis.

In reality, I regret the saccharine tenor of this rhetoric, but I feel it's necessary in order to get the point across. Have we all lost our minds, or are we going to actually do something sensible and practical?