The mere announcement of what might be the first signs of a new particle, delivered at the end-of-the-year LHC seminar on 15 December 2015, sent theorists into a frenzy. Expectations are so high that there are already 338 scientific papers on the possible nature of this new particle.
But how is this possible if the world is supposed to be an ‘idiocracy’, as some insist it is.
This is one of a handful of topics where some on the ‘alt right’ may be logically inconsistent. They gaze in awe at technology, mathematics, and physics discoveries but then advocate ‘collapse-ism’. But collapse of society would grind this math and science progress to a halt. But you can’t have your collapse and get to keep your innovation too. I imagine in a collapsed society the first proprieties will be rebuilding, not abstract cerebral endeavors.
Maybe there are a couple ways around this:
Collapse-ists rationalize that the short-term inconvenience and disruption of collapse is offset by the long-terms gains engendered by a new, better regime. This is a consequentialist argument.
Maybe even in a collapsed society scientific output will not fall too much. This sounds like wishful thinking. However, there is evidence that the Middle Ages, which followed the collapse of the Roman Empire and preceded the Renaissance, was not stagnant.
Perhaps a collapsed society will have a greater appreciation for the sciences.
It’s hard to imagine a billionaire like Peter Thiel, who has voiced criticism of democracy, trading his wealth and status for a hypothetical, post-collapse society where everything is reset, democracy is gone, but all or most of his money is gone. Many of of those on the right who seek collapse may recant when they realize the consequences it may entail.