When the government needs to make cuts, science, education, and technology R&D should be the last to go.

Solyndra is another great example of how they demonized a R&D program designed to encourage energy independence. Instead of losing the planned $10 billion, the program has turned a profit for the government.

http://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363572151/after-solyndra-loss-...

This is actually a very fascinating part of my childhood. I was in middle school in Midlothian, TX during the time the "super collider" was being build in Waxahatchee. I was a kid, i was fascinated about this. The schools took it upon themselves to start teaching physics to 6th graders. The whole town knew it was a big deal. Then one day, it wasn't.

I'd moved away, and heard it was turned into place to grow mushrooms. I never understood when i was young, why they wouldn't want to build something so important. To be honest, i still don't really understand why we didn't build it aside from simply "Republicans." I'll check out the film.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider

The SSC was killed in the 103rd Congress by a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate and a Democratic president.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/h526 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr2445/text

The project was originally championed by Republicans (and Democrats from Texas.)

"Reagan Calls Super Collider 'Doorway to New World'" March 31, 1988|Associated Press

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-03-31/news/mn-896_1_super-c...

George Bush: Remarks at the Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory in Waxahachie, Texas July 30, 1992

"Now, the super collider. The super collider is one of the greatest scientific projects in the entire world. This place attracts scientific genius the way our U.S. basketball players attract autograph seekers over there in Barcelona. So for me it is an incredible honor to be among you and to hear of your dreams and accomplishments."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=21280

But I wouldn't want actual facts to cloud your worldview. You want to know why it was cancelled? Try Google.

Again, it's not as straightforward as that. It was started under Reagan and never adequately funded which is why it was behind budget and schedule in 1993. Cato and other conservative think tanks came out strongly against it in the early 1990's as well[1] which is why Bush dramatically cut funding in his budget in 1992.[2] When it came down to the final vote in the Senate to kill the program, 53% of Democrats voted to keep it (29/45) and 70% of Republicans vote to kill it (31/44).[3] The Republicans then went on to a massive sweep in 1994 based largely on promises to dramatically decrease government spending, where they highlighted projects like the SSC as wasteful.

There is plenty of blame to go around.

Steven Weinberg has a good piece about the failure of US politicians to support 'big science': http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/may/10/crisis-...

[1] - http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-016.html

[2] - http://www.csmonitor.com/1992/0630/30013.html

[3] - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c...

This clashes with my worldview and prejudices, so I refuse to accept any of your facts.

Never let facts get in the way of your beliefs...

When these topics, concerning the general disinterestedness and the indifference of the voting populace toward science and technology come up, one is left to wonder how it is even arithmetically possible in 2014, that there isn't yet a financially lofty interest-group apparatus in Washington, advancing policies that collectively foster the cause of basic research in science & tech.

Where are the think tanks?

Where are the high powered K-street lobbyists?

( I'm discounting the nascent and newfangled lobby groups, here.[1] )

We could not even help elect a single legislator in our own backyard.[2]

Surely, it certainly isn't for the lack of war-chests.

What is it then?

Heck, there isn't a single nationally syndicated journalist who can even rebut the casually-dystopian hogwash Hollywood routinely churns out, like clockwork.[3]

I know images of a bleak and soulless future rings more bells at the box office than visions of a verdant tech-enabled one.

Nonetheless, tens of millions of people watch these movies to nurture their already well-developed dislike for science & rational thought on one side and their embrace of religious dogma and superstition on the other.

[1] Tech Firms and Lobbyists: Now Intertwined, but Not Eager to Reveal It

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/upshot/tech-firms-and-lobb...

[2] Tech Industry Flexes Muscle in California Race

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/06/us/politics/tech-industry-...

[3] Blade Runner: The Final Cut, review

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/11089809...

> Heck, there isn't a single nationally syndicated journalist who can even rebut the casually-dystopian hogwash Hollywood routinely churns out, like clockwork.[3]

> [3] Blade Runner: The Final Cut, review

Can you explain this one? I don’t understand why journalists should be “rebutting” SF movies from the early 80s.

I have never heard someone use the plot of Blade Runner as any kind of policy advice... which makes sense because we’re not living in the aftermath of a nuclear war, and we don’t have to deal with escaped androids from off-world colonies. Most of the Blade Runner fans (and fans of the Dick novel) I’ve met are bullish on technology.

I understand his point to be that in California, the tech industry is very influential whereas in places predominantly Republican and shunning of science/tech like this area of Texas, the people don't seem interested at all in promoting science/tech as the way of the future and maybe even embrase the bleak and dystopian frontier that may lie ahead.

Again, this is what I assume he means and I could be way off so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

It pays to actually explore the links, provided.

  There are some people who prefer the original's gritty
  Chandleresque voice-over narration and the ambiguous happy 
  ending (both supposedly forced on Scott), but the Final
  Cut is a more disturbing tale of dehumanisation.

I have to agree with the sibling comment here, I still have no idea what you're getting at with the Blade Runner stuff or how it ties into the rest of your point.

You have me truly puzzled over whether you are feigning incomprehension over this or you honestly don't get what the ordinary joe six-pack or the average hockey mom makes of a future filled with dehumanizing conditions for mankind when coupled with the film's vivid representation of replicants [1] not to mention the deluge of postindustrial decay in its imagery.

If you are truly clueless of how those images translate to the "Normals" [2] whose only introduction to anything remotely scientific is a staple diet of Ancient Aliens [3] and similar pseudoscience shows on History Channel, then you could really use a road trip through the flyover states of America.

Strike that. Just venture into Tracy or Morgan Hill or Walnut Creek, if you live in the Bay Area.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicant

[2] http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/31/the-only-normal-people-are-...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Aliens

> You have me truly puzzled over whether you are feigning incomprehension over this or you honestly don't get what the ordinary joe six-pack or the average hockey mom makes of a future filled with dehumanizing conditions for mankind when coupled with the film's vivid representation of replicants [1] not to mention the deluge of postindustrial decay in its imagery.

The point that you are making will always seem clear as day to you because you are the one that believes it. The onus is on you to make sure that the rest of the world can understand it if you want to effectively communicate with others. If you have multiple people saying that they don't understand you, throwing up your hands in the air and saying, "Y'all must be trollin'" isn't very useful.

That said, we don't need to delve into fictional cyberpunk dystopias to find examples of "science run amok," so I'm not really understanding how getting movie critics to write editorials criticizing movies that show us bleak futures is all that useful, or necessary.

I did read that. I still have no idea what you’re getting at. Could you please “explain it like I’m five”?

I understood your BR reference but I'd counter that the dystopian future films are what the public likes even if they aren't what they initially want as the box office receipts show they lap these films up.

The problem with why you're getting so many comments about your BR reference is you made it way too obscure and it even comes off as a little hipster-ish. Also, (the rest of this response is in reference to your replies to said comments) perhaps instead of trying to land the flaming plane, you should have just bailed out instead.

As someone who works in the film industry, Hollywood makes movies that reflects the public's hopes and fears. It doesn't do dystopia for its own sake, any more than it does mindless techno-optimism. Picking out the re-release of Blade Runner as an example of what Hollywood churns out 'like clockwork' seems self-contradictory to say the least.

On the larger question of why we don't have a lobby to fund basic research, I don't know - perhaps because nobody wants to expend political capital on research that might not be patentable or commercially exploitable, plus you could argue that private capital is already performing effectively in that area. I think it's absurd to pin the blame on Hollywood and think it's more to do with the limitations of our geographically representative form of government, which makes alternative electoral structures like party lists impossible. Probably the best hope for blue-sky scientific research is a new cold war, sadly :-(

For someone who "works" in the film industry, you seem to be gleefully unaware of Hollywood's fondness for dystopia.

Interstellar might be one of the few newer breed of films that actually casts human space travel in some positive light.

In fact one is left wanting for instances of the "techno-optimism" - mindless or otherwise - that you describe of, in Hollywood flicks.

List of dystopian films

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dystopian_films

A simple Google search

http://i.imgur.com/hHvy0rN.png

Hollywood is fond of conflict because that's where drama comes from, as observed by Aristotle a couple of millenia ago. Nobody is interested in a story where the protagonist doesn't have any problems, which is why there's a genral shortage of utopian literature in the first place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_utopian_literature

A good number of the films listed by Wikipedia as dystopian technology is working out just fine for most people while disenfranchising a few - much as in our own world. Insofar as dystopianism is aesthetically fashionable it's largely reflective of contemporary economic or political anxieties rather than being predicated on technology. Total recall (both versions) are listed as dystopian, for example, but those films are quite neutral on the impact of technology - the dystopian element is that of economic coercion resulting from a natural monopoly (oxygen on Mars in the original; the labor supply chain in the remake).

I could dig into examples at length and compare them with positive and negative views of the future from earlier eras of film, but I'm not sure it would be worth the effort given your needlessly snide tone.

You might have missed the part where the sole premise of Interstellar was that they were leaving Earth to explore other planets because of how bad Earth had become. I.e. a dystopian future.

Regarding [2]: the incumbent in CA-17 is a popular liberal Democrat, who like most liberal Democrats supports funding for science and technology. He had as much support from the tech industry as a whole as his primary opponent, who was funded in great measure by extremely wealthy Silicon Valley executives and investors. Said opponent ran a campaign to the right of the incumbent, littered with gibberish like "disruptive" and "Government 2.0".

I don't identify with the "we" that tried to elect that guy. To me, it looks like a handful of tech billionaires trying and failing to buy a seat in Congress. If they really want to support science and technology, there's a lot of districts in the R+5 range where diligence and money could help elect centrist technocrats (with any letter after their name) rather than yet another good ol' boy.

>I know images of a bleak and soulless future rings more bells at the box office than visions of a verdant tech-enabled one.

Interstellar, I'm hoping, re-inspires some of us to dream about science once again.

>one is left to wonder how it is even arithmetically possible in 2014, that there isn't yet a financially lofty interest-group apparatus in Washington, advancing policies that collectively foster the cause of basic research in science & tech.

Not really. People who are interested in actually contributing to the world by scientific research and technological innovation have zero interest in a field that is overwhelmingly useless and idiotic: Politics.

>"People who are interested in actually contributing to the world by scientific research and technological innovation have zero interest in a field that is overwhelmingly useless and idiotic: Politics."

You say politics as a field is deemed useless by those people, and yet the funding for them to pursue the thing they are interested in is directly affected by said "useless field".

Great documentary, I really enjoyed it.

You'll notice that the member of congress mentions that Europe will build it anyway, so why waste US taxpayer money?

Europe did indeed build the LHC, and whatever value there is in discovering the origins of the universe is now enjoyed by the entire world. So what exactly was wrong with his argument?

> It shows members of congress arguing how "discovering the origins of the universe" should not be a priority.

If that sentence ended with "for government", then I agree with those members of congress.

If that sentence ended with "for humanity", then I disagree. It's time to accept that in the modern internet connected world people can pool their abilities and resources with others anywhere on the planet for common goals all without the government.

Particle Fever is damn good. It hit me right in the feels when Peter Higgs is shown crying.

That darn machine is so complex.

Has the LHC ever produced any benefit to humanity? Serious question.

First off, let's start with Benjamin Franklin's "What good is a newborn baby?" quote, when asked what good electricity could ever do. Primary research leads to unknown and unknowable benefits, because it is impossible to know what will come of it.

As an example, let's consider the magnetic moment of the proton. It's a rather esoteric measurement. The proton acts as a tiny magnet, and some researchers wanted to know exactly how strong of a magnet. So, they set up a strong magnetic field and looked to see how the proton behaved. They ended up finding two different values.

As it turned out, those two different values were the result of electrons getting in the way of the measurement. As it turned out, there were two different chemical environments in the molecule being studied, and that caused the two different values. The chemists loved it, because then they could directly measure the electron density.

Then the doctors realized that the chemists had an awesome tool. They could use it to measure the concentration of water inside a patient's body. Bam, MRI.

All this from esoteric primary research.

It's probably going to take some time for knowledge of this kind of seep into our day to day lives, but for a lark:

It's confirming evidence of the Standard Model. It's kind of like checking for your chair for a thumb tack, when you work in an office of pranksters -- if there isn't a thumb tack, was there any benefit to checking? Maybe, but you probably wouldn't say that if there was. If the standard model fell, there would be implications that we could probably engineer around up to and including utilizing nonlinear aspects of particle interactions to build computers with. But alas, it confirmed the model.

Also the standard model has implications on the nature of dark matter and dark energy, which in turn have implications on the likelihood that we get clobbered by a random piece of space rock. Of course even if we did know this to a better degree...it's unclear whether that's a benefit or not. I'm assuming for the purposes of this comment however that knowing our degree of mortality is a benefit, but ymmv.

In general, the more tangible benefits of lhc are probably going to come from stuff related to anything in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_beyond_the_Standard_Mo..., and nanoengineering efforts yet to come.

Not yet, but similar fundamental scientific research has led to the inventions of extremely beneficial technologies like TV, GPS, CAT scans and nuclear energy.

All of these technologies based directly on fundamental research came years or decades after the discoveries. Science is often a game of patience.

Yes, humans now have a better understanding on how the fundamental building blocks of the universe work. Has this directly affected your quality of life, no. Do you derive enjoyment from knowing that your fellow man now has a better understanding of the inner workings of every atom that make up the mass around you? I do. Could it possibly benefit you in the future, that is unknown.

I'm not sure which come directly from the LHC, and which predate it (but probably still benefit from the research) but a lot of medical techniques rely on particle interactions and acceleration which benefit from the research such as PET-scans, and particle-therapy.

There is also research being performed at cern into new superconductors and new ways of coating various materials with thin layers.(as a direct resut of building the LHC).

You could ask that of any basic scientific discovery in the history of humanity, with the answer of "eventually".