February 19, 2025 06:38 EDT
Check out our comment feature!
- Subscribe
- Past Issues
- RSS
- Translate
- English
- العربية
- Afrikaans
- беларуская мова
- български
- català
- 中文（简体）
- 中文（繁體）
- Hrvatski
- Česky
- Dansk
- eesti keel
- Nederlands
- Suomi
- Français
- Deutsch
- Ελληνική
- हिन्दी
- Magyar
- Gaeilge
- Indonesia
- íslenska
- Italiano
- 日本語
- ភាសាខ្មែរ
- 한국어
- македонски јазик
- بهاس ملايو
- Malti
- Norsk
- Polski
- Português
- Português – Portugal
- Română
- Русский
- Español
- Kiswahili
- Svenska
- עברית
- Lietuvių
- latviešu
- slovenčina
- slovenščina
- српски
- தமிழ்
- ภาษาไทย
- Türkçe
- Filipino
- украї́нська
- Tiếng Việt
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
Dear FO° Readers, Let me take you to a regular Saturday night in Switzerland — one that captures the essence of our democracy, lived and enacted by its citizens. This past weekend, I found myself in a salle communale in a wealthy countryside municipality near Geneva, where Swiss and French citizens gathered, crossing borders to discuss an issue that concerns them all: the Future Circular Collider (FCC). Two local nonprofit groups, Noe21 and Co-CERNés, organized the event. Among the attendees were elected officials, worried residents, a philosopher (two, if I count myself) and passionate speakers. The atmosphere was a testament to how democracy is not just a set of laws but an ongoing practice of dialogue, engagement and resistance. Noe21 has spent over three decades educating the public about nuclear power and carbon credits, the latter of which they consider rife with corruption. Co-CERNés, meanwhile, is a citizen collective standing up for those who will be directly affected if the FCC is built. This massive project, proposed by CERN, envisions a 93-kilometer-long underground particle accelerator. Local residents have received little to no information about its implications. At the gathering, the mayor of a nearby small town voiced his frustration, saying he had not been informed or consulted about major territorial policies that would reshape his community. Not to mention, of course, the enormous energy consumption it would entail. A representative from CERN, Arnaud Marosllier, took the stage to make the case for the FCC. He spoke with passion about the unknown — 95% of the universe remains a mystery, he said — and how fundamental research has historically led to groundbreaking discoveries. From the birth of the World Wide Web to advancements in medical radiology, CERN has changed the world before. Why stop now? 
Van Gogh, night sky over the Rhone
(via Shuttestock)
It’s a thrilling vision, and as someone who once dreamed of becoming an astronomer before studying philosophy, I understood the pull of the cosmos. Later, a speaker from Noe21 laid out the staggering consequences of the project. Excavating a 93-kilometer tunnel, 8 meters in diameter, at 200 meters underground would generate debris equivalent to two or three pyramids of Giza. Moving that debris would require an estimated 90,000 truck trips, clogging an already-strained road system. The project would expropriate farmers, encroach on nature preserves and significantly impact underground water systems. A geologist, summarizing the work of his colleagues, spoke about the bedrock underlying the landscape. The area is part of a karst system, consisting of permeable limestone and traversed by faults. Even today, CERN already pollutes some amount of the groundwater — though, to their credit, they’ve reduced this by 70% over the years. A holdup on democracy It was not just the project itself, but the way it was being handled that angered the audience most. The Swiss federal government has issued a sectoral plan that limits the ability of cantonal and municipal authorities to reject new construction, effectively silencing those it will affect most. For a country that prides itself on direct democracy, this feels like a betrayal — and even the French citizens, who are accustomed to a more centralized system, were enraged. And yet, there we were, Swiss and French citizens alike, sitting together, debating and voicing our shared concerns. It was democracy in action — unfiltered, passionate and necessary. The speaker from CERN had his time to speak and explain his motivations. So did all the others, including a member of the public who supports the project, and not one was booed. Delphine Klopfenstein Broggini, a member of the national council for The Greens, explained what the usual procedures should be and are expected to be. “How do we want to evolve as a community, as a society for the next 10, 20 or even 50 years? We are not opposing science. We are supporting and encouraging an ethical debate about what world, what reality, we want to leave for our children.” A baby promptly began wailing in the background. A philosopher offered a challenging alternative: Instead of spending 15 billion Swiss francs on the FCC, why not use that money to restore polluted land, invest in sustainable technologies and strengthen our democratic structures? Why not regenerate the planet we already have before chasing particles in the void? And yet, 15 billion francs is a small sum in the grand scheme of global finance. To billionaires like Elon Musk or Marc Andreessen, it's practically pocket change. This leads to a disturbing revelation — CERN is now considering including private investment in its funding model. If the world’s most powerful collider falls under corporate influence, what kinds of scientific questions will take precedence? Who will own the discoveries? Who will benefit? I almost wish I believed in a god — any god — to pray to that this does not happen. But faith alone will not solve this. We need action. We need scrutiny. We need to make sure that when decisions of this magnitude are made, they are made transparently, with the consent of those whose lives will be affected. 
Paul Klee, The Hypocrites (Via
Shutterstock)
This isn’t just about Geneva or Switzerland and France. It’s about the relationship between science, power and democracy. It’s about who gets to decide our future and whether that future will serve the many or the few. So I ask you, dear friends and readers: Is this a conversation worth expanding? What aspects should we explore further? What do you think about the collision (both literal and figurative) of scientific ambition and civic responsibility? We need your help. We need voices. We need to ensure that democracy, the real kind, the kind that happens on Saturday nights in local meeting halls, remains alive and strong. Yours in the search for truth, Roberta Campani Communications and Outreach |
||
|
We are an independent nonprofit organization. We do not have a paywall or ads. We believe
news
must
be free for everyone from Detroit to Dakar. Yet servers, images, newsletters, web developers
and
editors cost money.
So, please become a recurring donor to keep Fair Observer free, fair and independent. 
|
||
|
||
| About Publish with FO° FAQ Privacy Policy Terms of Use Contact |
Support Fair Observer
We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.
For more than 10 years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent. No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a reader-supported nonprofit. Unlike many other publications, we keep our content free for readers regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to pay. We have no paywalls and no ads.
In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles, we publish a plurality of perspectives from around the world. Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a rigorous editorial process. So, you get fact-checked, well-reasoned content instead of noise.
We publish 2,500+ voices from 90+ countries. We also conduct education and training programs
on subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. This
doesn’t come cheap. Servers, editors, trainers and web developers cost
money.
Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a recurring donor or a
sustaining member.
Will you support FO’s journalism?
We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.
Comment