47 ms·

"When the whole world is running towards a cliff, he who is running in the opposite direction appears to have lost his mind." - C. S. Lewis $20 billion spent i

by mycall 8y ago

"When the whole world is running towards a cliff, he who is running in the opposite direction appears to have lost his mind." - C. S. Lewis $20 billion spent is a lot of high tech jobs being made. I'm for it. Think how much we spend on wars.

reasonablemann 8y ago
Sure, but is this the best way to spend that money?
- peteradio 8y ago
  Does it have to be the best?
  - Barrin92 8y ago
    Obviously not, but even many physicists are suggesting that the 20 billion could be spend better.
- Aeolun 8y ago
  Given the alternatives it is likely to go to, pretty likely. There’s definitely better things it could be spent on. It’s just that that will never happen. So we pick the best of the worse things.
- danarmak 8y ago
  As Scott Aaronson put it[0]: > I’m not making the much stronger claim that this is the best possible use of $20 billion for science. Plausibly a thousand $20-million projects could be found that would advance our understanding of reality by more than a new collider would. But it’s also important to realize that that’s not the question at stake here. When, for example, the US Congress cancelled the Superconducting Supercollider midway through construction—partly, it’s believed, on the basis of opposition from eminent physicists in other subfields, who argued that they could do equally important science for much cheaper—none of the SSC budget, as in 0% of it, ever did end up redirected to those other subfields. In practice, then, the question of “whether a new collider is worth it” is probably best considered in absolute terms, rather than relative to other science projects. [0] https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4122 https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4122
sandworm101 8y ago
Lots of high tech jobs come from war too. Great strides in physics came directly from war funding. Huge areas of tech (gps) came from the preparation for war.
waynecochran 8y ago
You missed her linked tweet where she counters that exact argument.

by mycall 8y ago

reasonablemann 8y ago

Sure, but is this the best way to spend that money?

peteradio 8y ago
Does it have to be the best?
- Barrin92 8y ago
  Obviously not, but even many physicists are suggesting that the 20 billion could be spend better.
Aeolun 8y ago
Given the alternatives it is likely to go to, pretty likely. There’s definitely better things it could be spent on. It’s just that that will never happen. So we pick the best of the worse things.
danarmak 8y ago
As Scott Aaronson put it[0]: > I’m not making the much stronger claim that this is the best possible use of $20 billion for science. Plausibly a thousand $20-million projects could be found that would advance our understanding of reality by more than a new collider would. But it’s also important to realize that that’s not the question at stake here. When, for example, the US Congress cancelled the Superconducting Supercollider midway through construction—partly, it’s believed, on the basis of opposition from eminent physicists in other subfields, who argued that they could do equally important science for much cheaper—none of the SSC budget, as in 0% of it, ever did end up redirected to those other subfields. In practice, then, the question of “whether a new collider is worth it” is probably best considered in absolute terms, rather than relative to other science projects. [0] https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4122 https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4122

sandworm101 8y ago

Lots of high tech jobs come from war too. Great strides in physics came directly from war funding. Huge areas of tech (gps) came from the preparation for war.

waynecochran 8y ago

You missed her linked tweet where she counters that exact argument.