And that's why I don't want the money to be redistributed to less refined people
European and other countries are capable of feeding all their citizens. One may nicely survive with $200 for food per month and even the most modest welfare systems give much more to the people who can't earn more by themselves. The governments may also provide everyone with some housing and other existentially needed things. My point is that a vast majority of the money we produce is "excess production" and goes to some kind of "non-minimal if not luxurious things". It has been the case at least for decades.
As a rightwinger, I think it's ideal when almost all the money is left in the pockets of the people who earned it and who can decide what to do. Some portion of the money is redistributed. Police, armies, courts, and a few other things undoubtedly represent the most important things that are paid from the public budgets (and all the people who want to abolish the police are dangerous psychopaths). In reality, various social programs swallow much more than that.
It's clear to me that the construction of several state-of-the-art big projects that do something new, like some cutting-edge space research or the largest synchrotron (or a bunch of other pure science projects), belong to the most exciting, most justified, and most permanent ways to spend the concentrated taxpayer money. What is good about them is that they are supposed to produce visible results – and in the case of colliders, I emphasize that the collider itself (with maps of collisions) is visible, one doesn't need a new particle. People's energy is concentrated to do something that may be admired and that may even have a lasting value.
I want the 100 TeV accelerator to be built because I want to know whether there's new physics over there and what it is. We don't have a complete enough theory that could unambiguously predict these things so we still need to do experiments in this uncharted territory (high energies). There are lots of well motivated scenarios that place lots of supersymmetric partners of well-known particles (or some other particle species) around the 10 TeV range.
I just can't understand the approach of people like Alessandro Strumia whom I would expect to be a right-winger (because of his conflicts with the feminists) but who speaks like the far left creatures around Greta Trautenberg-Bilderberg and similar loons. He says that he wants an accelerator for his XY-th birthday (I surely hope that the FCC will operate well before he is 100!) but at the same moment, he finds it important (and perhaps more important) to emit bizarre statements such as "this €21 billion investment isn't good for society or even for science". WTF?
It is a good modest investment – one or two billions dollars per year (thousands of times fewer spending than the insane Covid hysteria) – because people like me find it important and the views of people like me represent one of the best directions that the society may choose. It's good for the society because it's good according to me, a curious informed person with passion for the truth. What other methods to decide "what is good for the society" would you like to promote? If my view what is "good for the society" is ignored, it means that some very different people's views and interests will be imprinted into the redistribution of the money. It someone says that "I should be modeest" and let the unrefined scumbags to determine all vital decisions, then you are one of the culprits behind the ongoing decay of the West. It is me and not them who should decide when the society is healthy.
What are the alternatives? As I said at the beginning, no one really needs to be saved from starvation and similar existential problems on our territories (or it can be easily done). You may give more money to millions of people. What does it lead to? Much of the extra money will be used to buy a larger number of more expensive cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, and other things. Is it better to give the money to these things – and to listen to the people who defend this alternative? It is not.
It is not only a "waste of money" when regular, poor people receive lots of money for free. It may be actively harmful. Much of the terrifying anti-white racist movement in the Anglo-Saxon world is created out of the people who don't need to work because they were given some money that could have gone to something constructive. Instead, they just went to some losers so that they may scream on the street and destroy statues, among many similar things. Extra drugs for these people and demolished statues and burning shops – these are the main alternatives that the societies may pay instead of the FCC collider.
Some people try to nurture their fancier image than the vandals and criminals on the streets. What would they do with €21 billion? The likes of Greta Trautenberg-Bilderberg would flush the money into the toilet of climate hysteria. For example, the money would be used to "pay for climate models" or to incentivize the people and company to "reduce their product and consumption". Are you kidding me? The work that has been done by the climate science in recent 30 years wasn't worth even €1 billion (despite the tens of billions that have actually been wasted). In particular, despite the obsession with the greenhouse effect caused by CO2, there has been virtually no progress in quantifying the strength of this phenomenon (mainly because lots of people are paid not to admit that the number is close to a very small value). Most of the atmospheric phenomena are as chaotic and "lacking a general message" as the weather. What do you want to probe for €21 billion? A good atmospheric physicist may answer the most important "universal" questions on the top of their heads, they don't even need a laptop let alone a billion-dollar computer.
The FCC collider will be a well-defined tunnel with state-of-the-art superconductive magnets that help physicists to investigate extreme physical collisions whose fate can't be quite determined by the known laws of Nature. Every million is supposed to be wisely spent. It is absolutely obvious that the billions that would go to something like "climate modeling" would simply end up in the pockets of some lying ideologues who wouldn't do anything useful – at least not as useful for the benefits to be comparable to these huge costs. Even if you consider the FCC collider "useless", it's just your opinion (your intellectual defect). Other people consider the FCC useful because it's useful to learn something about high-energy phenomena and they cared about it. I do.
But the money that ends up in the pockets of some hecklers who claim to be "climate scientists" is useless for everyone else. There is literally nothing useful being constructed or achieved here. Instead, too much money going to this kind of people helps to actively distort and hurt science. Climate research is just a dishonest cliché designed to obfuscate the fact that tens of thousands of people are stealing billions of dollars from the taxpayer's money. The more deceitful hysteria they help to maintain, the more money they earn.
I am just utterly amazed that e.g. Alessandro Strumia doesn't understand these totally rudimentary things about the grave problems of the world today. The real problem is that increasingly filthy, destructive, dishonest, stupid, immoral, cowardly, and useless people – and people who really dream about harming others or about undoing the civilization and its values and achievements – are acquiring an increasing percentage of the money and power in the Western countries. When Alessandro Strumia indicates that what I want (or what he wants) should be "less important" to decide what is "good for the society" than the screaming by some far left-wing filth, he proves that he is an integral part of the grave problem. He may have some disagreements with third-wave feminists but otherwise he thinks just like them. His ideal vision about the redistribution of the public money is all about some thieves who whine, scream, and lie that the money going directly to their pockets – without their producing a single dipole magnet – is good for the society although it is self-evidently bad for the society. They end up spending the misappropriated money for very stupid, embarrassing things that simply can't be compared to the FCC collider.
I mentioned cigarettes, drugs, demolished statues, and the climate hysterical pseudoscience as examples of the actual things that end up being funded by the taxpayer money if there aren't sufficiently assertive people (like Margaret Thatcher, the mother of the LHC, was) who defend the priorities similar to mine. But the wasting of the money may be deeper than that and the recent coronavirus hysteria is a staggering example of that. Within half a year, some €10 trillion of the GDP was liquidated by the insane policies resulting from the widespread hysteria about an infectious disease that, after and despite all those "extraordinary" months, killed fewer people than seasonal flu kills in one season.
Strumia admitted that every day, one FCC collider is wasted by the... Covid. Well, the quantification is roughly correct but the attribution is staggeringly dishonest. The innocent virus hasn't destroyed a single trillion of dollars. The trillions have been destroyed by the irrational response of a big fraction of mankind that was brainwashed by some nasty scumbags who have accumulated lots of power – and money – and who are making money when mankind as a whole loses big. Strumia hasn't said EPSILON against the insane lockdowns. Instead, it seems that he cooperated on them (and on the totally dysfunctional online learning etc. which is just a method for people doing nothing to pretend that they are doing something so that they can keep on sucking the public funds). Why does he – a particle physicist – finds it appropriate to attack a similar investment as the "Covid hysteria's waste per day" that will be divided over some 20 years and that a particle physicist should naturally be interested in? Why did he picks this particular €21 billion and not e.g. the €21 billion that was wasted for the Covid hysteria on June 2nd, for example? That's quite some focused hateful obsession with particle physics, isn't it?
It's all insane. Lots of important and traditionally respected institutions are being filled with people who actually want to actively harm them – and who are already harming them. Alessandro is unfortunately one of them. He not only works to harm particle physics as such and its funding; he is also working to harm its prestige. High-energy physics surely isn't the only "wow" field in the modern world but it is one of the top five or so "wow" fields. This very statement is only obfuscated or rejected by activists who are basically extreme leftists and who want to choke not only particle physics but all other things that were (and are) respected and celebrated by the world that was (or is?) still alright, yes, the world that was mostly built by great white men. The enemies of this world want to replace this allocation of money, power, and prestige, and move all these things to parasites who only help the society to completely deteriorate and folks like Alessandro are a part of this horrible disease of the Western society.
Alessandro also wrote that much of the work at CERN is composed of "attending committees where the future of colliders is discussed" and it's a bureaucratic, not a "wow" intellectual work. Very true. But this fact isn't the fault of particle physics. It's the fault of enemies of particle physics, a set that sadly includes himself. It's the bureaucrats and leftists that forced the institutions to be filled with lots of other bureaucrats and ideologues and for physicists to become parttime bureaucrats and ideologues. This was wrong but particle physics isn't a culprit; instead, it's clearly a victim. The FCC should be approved without any annoying bureaucratic procedures.