this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
206 points (100.0% liked)

Science

22875 readers
117 users here now

Welcome to Hexbear's science community!

Subscribe to see posts about research and scientific coverage of current events

No distasteful shitposting, pseudoscience, or COVID-19 misinformation.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't think it's wrong to see poverty and equality as a priority over that, if I'm honest. It shouldn't be that surprising that people have an issue with billions of dollars being spent on things not currently improving lives when there are people living like hell.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But that’s entirely a problem of distribution of goods stemming from the predominant mode of economic organisation. Not building a larger particle collider would solve exactly zero problems which stem from capitalist distribution of goods and resulting artificial scarcity.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Sure. But that doesn't change people being upset that this is prioritised over living standards and lifestyles. People want that solved first and that's a perfectly ok emotion to be having that shouldn't be chastised.

The thing to push is that with capitalism is that they would rather fund this than feed and house people, because not feeding people is the point, by design. Even if this is unprofitable, it's still a thing they'd prefer to spend on than feed or house people.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Is there a world in which clearing land of animals, people, etc to make room for mines, extracting tons of ore from the ground, shipping(very harmful in and of itself in this society) it to a second place (cleared, etc) to be forged (at high temperatures requiring some energy source shipped from a third place (cleared etc)) and then shipping it to a fourth place (cleared, etc) to be built into a giant energy-consumer for perpetuity won't be harmful?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

In a leftist utopia we wouldn't prioritize either because we'd do both. In a transitory state we could do plenty of both (see China), and the cost of this project is not large relative to national projects like housing, education (which this is part of anyway), or healthcare for all. In our current capitalist hellscape shutting this type of research down would reduce no poverty and win no allies.

We're always going to allocate resources to projects that do not address the most basic of needs. Criticism of that comes from a much better place than reactionaries yelling "you can't complain about being poor unless you live like a monk," but you can make all the same arguments against it.