There's a number of points to unpack here. High energy physics research has contributed some technology with social and economic benefits. Some of that has be

There's a number of points to unpack here. High energy physics research has contributed some technology with social and economic benefits. Some of that has been direct results coming from pure research into fundamental properties of matter and electromagnetic radiation, some are indirect results that came about because when you build an institute like CERN, it spontaneously generates advances in other areas that solve more general problems (this is known as the "collect a bunch of smart people in a single place, with a lot of resources, to solve a unique problem" strategy). But no, most of the research, pure or applied, has not really had direct practical social and economic benefits to humanity as a whole. That's entirely missing the point. We, as a society, have decided that we will balance our economic productivity into several different areas- welfare, infrastructure, military, industry, science/research, technology. We believe that investments in areas of research which have no direct benefit still can have positive outcomes- partly through fundamental discoveries, but also enriching us as a species. We also believe these investments will ensure that we have the freedom to be productive in the future. A cynic might even say that CERN has played a critical role in keeping people from working on military applications, or working for the enemy. If your criticism (it's hard not to read your comment as an implicit criticism) is that we should invest the results of our productivity more directly into areas which maximize social and economic benefits- sure, this is argued about all the time. The SSC was cancelled, at least partly because people failed to see the value in having a world-class HEP facility in the US.