CERN physicists recieving death threats from anti-science terrorists

[ristin]

CERN scientists recieve death threats
http://www.giagia.co.uk/2008/09/06/cern-scientists-receive-death-threats/
Anyone following the CERN switch-on in the media may have seen the article in the Telegraph this week about how some physicists have been getting death threats. Brian was quoted as saying, “Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a twat.”

As of this writing, teh interwebs is alight with conversations about his quote and - again as of this writing- it’s the fourth most popular Digg. Brian’s been getting requests for interviews from all over the planet.

There are about three people behind these scares. They have no knowledge, but very loud voices. Anyone who has been following blog posts about CERN and the LHC will have seen JTankers pop up everywhere spewing shite. He always refers to the main centre of this crap, the LHC Concerns site.

The other day the “death threats” article was written about there. Brian responded:


More text, links and references in the original article.

Comments

[arakinuk.livejournal.com]

I had seen Engadget referencing that there had been death threats against the scientists :/

I'm hoping things work well and the experiments are productive - as much fun as it has been to make light of the apocalpytic predictions, it's scary to find that there are some folks taking it to heart (or twisting it to gain recognition/standing)

[ristin.livejournal.com]

It's the same motivation behind these threats and these efforts to inhibit scientific progress as have always plagued mankind. Like burning scientists at the stake for saying the earth is round, and again for saying earth orbits the sun. The efforts to combat the teaching of evolution because science debunks creationism.

Long story short, the more people learn the less superstitious the population becomes and the less power churches have over the people.

[tjfoxx.livejournal.com]

Personally, I hope it destroys the whole universe.

That should show those lousy scientists what's what.


(Actually, I think CERN is a gigantic waste of money that could be spent in ways that benefit humanity.)

[whyrl.livejournal.com]

Because no good ever came from learning about how the universe works and expanding our knowledge.

[tjfoxx.livejournal.com]

And this feeds the impoverished people in the world, how?

[ristin.livejournal.com]

Well for starters it will hopefully undermine the anti-science luddites that oppse the LHC as well as stem cell research, vaccination, and genetically modified crops. Well pretty much all science really.

When this theology-based opposition to science is weakened we might see advances in other areas as well as in particle physics.

By the way energy is a likely side effect of improved knowledge of physics. The benefit of cheaper and/or cleaner power is easy to see.

[tjfoxx.livejournal.com]

But I don't want flying cars. The idiots around here have enough trouble in two dimensions.

[sebkha.livejournal.com]

Outvoted! :D

[canid-anubis.livejournal.com]

http://www.hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com :)

[ristin.livejournal.com]

That's great. Thanks.

Two Good Things (depends on perspective)

[guma-kawauso.livejournal.com]

As I see it two good things can come from the LHC, no matter what.

First is that we learn something from it.

Second it that it will solve all humanity's problems.

How does #2 work?

Well, if people aren't around, let alone a planet we can fuck up, then I guess we figured out how to fix politics, AIDS, poverty, war, drugs, religion, famine, and energy crises.

So either way you cut it, collectively, we can learn, or we can solve all of our issues. Of course, to solve all those issues, we'd be dead, but who cares so long as we solved them all in one fell swoop. XD

[antayla.livejournal.com]

I don't think the LHC will destroy the world, but that it MIGHT destroy the world. I guess that makes me a semi-twat. Oh well, nothing new there.

Frankly, if it did they might be doing us a favor. I mean, a nice quick death by being sucked into a black hole, or slow death by famine and war for lack of oil and water supplies? Hmmmm... and then again, maybe they'll stumble over a new energy source that rocks and solves both those problems. Still, guess we'll find out tomorrow, huh.

The alternative to trying out new things (genetic engineering (even food!), stem cell research, etc) is never going anywhere new. Who wants to live forever if they don't do anything new? Should we revert back to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle cause it's "safe?"

[ristin.livejournal.com]

Well during the dark ages the churches ruled. And a lot of the time it looks like that's what they (some radical elements of the religious community) want to take people back to.

[ristin.livejournal.com]

I understand your argument. But don't believe it is an excuse for threatening violence, or for anti-science groups to try to manipulate a gullible public.

[archdukechocula.livejournal.com]

To add further to that line of reasoning, it's fair to say "hey, lets have a cost benefit analysis here"

Ok, so on the one hand, the HSC could provide us with increased knowledge of the building blocks of matter, which will, generally speaking, improve our mastery of all things matter. Down the line that may mean yet more efficient ways to convert matter into energy and kick entropies ass, an increased insight into the nature of the big bang, and better high definition TV sets, none of which will make any of us happier, nor will it make us work less (technology never really has) although it will make us have more material stuff and more control over our environment.

On the other hand, you have a one in a billion chance that it destroys the world. That's a pretty hefty cost, even weighed against the odds. At some point, you do have to ask, what is the point? Does it justify threatening people? No, I don't think so, but the concern is perfectly valid. Somewhere along the line, science and morality interact, and you have to be willing to know when to draw that line clearly. Is it moral to risk the entire world on a one in a billion chance, or even a one in a trillion chance? Yes, we are at much greater risk of all sorts of other catastrophes destroying the world, but the difference is, this one has human agency, willingly putting us at that risk. This isn't an indifferent asteroid flying through space. It is curious scientists willing to, in essence, gamble the world to satisfy human curiosity and desire for material control. Frankly, that set of values makes little sense to me.

And I also don't think this scenario is comparable to, say, genetic engineering or nanobots or even nuclear holocaust, or other such "scary science", because those are all things we can react to, and all things which we control on a fundamental level. The cost, even in a worst case scenario, is measurable and is something we can anticipate and mitigate. The sudden appearance of a black hole, however, is pretty much an unstoppable doomsday scenario.

[ponypig.livejournal.com]

tiny tiny black holes the size of pinpricks with matter so small it cant be seen except by computers, has the world ended yet coz its hell listening to idiots on the bus talking about it ending! Plus if you really believe the world is going to end, go shop at RogerMeToo.com coz your money is worthless with no world to spend it in, go on i dare you!

[archdukechocula.livejournal.com]

Of course, by that reasoning, I should go invest in multi million dollar real estate, because I have a one in 200 million chance of winning the lottery. Neither conclusion makes the slightest bit of sense. The odds are radically small. I stated as much. Consequently, any rational betting man would bet in favor of the likely odds. Since I acknowledge the odds as being radically small, how would that equate with me thinking the world is going to end? You must also conclude I don't drive cars because 50,000 people die in accidents a year in the US. That would be an equally fallacious conclusion.

But the odds being radically small do not negate the consideration that one must weigh the meaning of the radically unlikely conclusion. It is comparable to playing Russian roulette with a ten billion barreled gun, only the gun is big enough to destroy the Earth. Does the benefit outweigh the risk? That is a perfectly reasonable question. It is not at all reasonable to berate someone for asking that question. Instead, one should make the argument either that, indeed, it is worth the risk to do this, or that, indeed it is not. Ignoring that question entirely in favor of making nonsensical straw men attacks is hardly a sign of your superior reasoning on the subject.

[ponypig.livejournal.com]

That is because you are logically aware of the facts and as such have a perfectly valid opinion, however the people on the bus this morning were stupid school kids whom were saying the same thing when i was in school about some other random date. You I like and respect, annoying kids on the bus i dont!

[ristin.livejournal.com]

I agree about #1. The chance of the LHC destroying the world is nonexistent. It would not have been built if there were a risk to the entire planet, and it would have been built somewhere remote if there were any level of localized risk.

The chances of the LHC operating outside of the established theory are vanishingly small, and if they do then the chance of destroying the planet are about the same as the LHC summoning forth the hypothesized "invisible pink unicorn".

http://www.geocities.com/ipu_temple/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/ipu/home.html


Anyway the "ending the world" claim has been made before. When the theory of gravity was being developed people said we would fall off the earth if we questioned god's will to keep our feet planted on the ground. People were burned at the stake for suggesting the planet was round, and other people were burned at the stake for suggesting the Earth orbits the Sun. When people split the atom for the first time we had the same hysteria. Vaccinations remain under attack for violating god's will (even though the gospels tell us Jesus was a fan of healing the sick). Evolution is still being challenged by religious groups, some masquerading as 'scientifically motivated' and renaming creationism as intelligent design to try to win credibility.

Or in other words...theists claim to already know the answer to all the mysteries of the universe, and to try to preserve their control over a superstitious populace they oppose any effort to either increase the population's understanding of the universe (as that diminishes the public's reliance on the church for answers) and also any effort to discover the truth behind these mysteries (even though doing so has hugely benefited mankind).

Religion gave us the dark ages, science lifted mankind up from the dark ages. I know which method I prefer.

[ristin.livejournal.com]

The flaw in that argument is the idea there is a risk. That's just been cooked up to scare people.

If there actually were a risk factor for the planet then the project would never have gone ahead. If there actually were a risk factor for the area near the LHC it would have been built somewhere expendable just in case.


And technology definitely has improved our quality of life and reduced how hard people work.

For example serfs in the middle ages worked dawn to dusk on the land trying to tend their land...a modern farmer can use a tractor or similar to do the same work much faster and much more easily than manual plowing.

Literacy and the printing press have brought information to the masses. Back in ye olde days books were copied by hand and it stifled the availability of information...now thanks to the march of science and technology I could zip and email a book to you and we could both read it since we didn't need to spend our childhoods trying to scratch a living out of our parents fields.

This isn't the dark ages. The one primary factor separating us from that time is that mankind has been gradually freed from superstition thanks to reasoning, rational thought and scientific process.