Fundamental Research and a Fundamental Problem
Dismantling the capitalist realist insfrastructure strangling our science and propping up our institutions is essential for a sustainable future
I recently attended the Sustainable HEP conference hosted (online) by a group of individuals working in high energy theory / phenomenology at CERN.
The conference was a giant first step into, what seems to be, uncharted territory for high energy physicists and, as is a theorist’s wont, covered grandiose topics spanning from inclusivity and broader global participation in research to building sustainable colliders. The discussions were lively, informative, and detailed; watching professional thinkers and solutionists go back-and-forth on these problems was more entertaining than watching Switzerland beat France this week. Though, less soul-destroying.
The C-word
Unfortunately, it would seem, apart from repeated mentions by two courageous young physicists of McGill University, capitalism was an unworthy adversary for this particular bout. That exploitation (of the natural and human) is not a consequence or by-product of capitalism but necessary for its functioning need not be said; so surely, a mere nod of acknowledgement to the main villain of the piece would be worthwhile. Apparently not. Let me be clear: I am not suggesting a bunch of hepsters try to overthrow the global capitalist system. Afterall, it pays the bills.
However, acknowledgement of such an overwhelming, all-consuming system of exploitation permits some insights into its various insidious guises. And this is where our heroic hepsters do have a role to play: if addressing the impacts of the climate crisis within high energy physics necessitates discussion on inclusion and energy consumption, it so too necessitates discussion on the necropolitical infrastructure that brought us here.
A major take-home message (at home, is it still a take-home?) from conferences focusing on socio-political issues within STEM, such as the effects of the climate crisis or lack of inclusivity, is always that a ‘cultural shift’ is required. But without identifying our current cultural paradigm, how do we shift? Too often these discussions fail to address the fundamental reliance of our field on its hierarchical, patriarchal, capitalist infrastructure. The requirement of junior scientists to constantly publish, becoming ever-richer in the currencies of citations and papers is, as with all races-to-the-bottom within our exploitative systems, wholly detrimental to every participant and component of the production process, not to mention the end-product itself.
So as our science depletes in quality and our institutions remain stubbornly ivory in their demographics, do we continue to ask what we can do differently? Or do we unite with the growing youth-led progressive movements of the world and ask how we can do things differently?
Science should lead progress, yet we remain woefully behind.
