I thank you for your point about advances made from pure scientific research before. However, I think in many of these cases some applications of the pure research were hypothesized as well, long before the pure research was actually completed. I worry that we are simply picking examples of blue sky research that ended up being practical, and ignoring examples that were not because they are less available. (Which makes sense, since research that had no practical use would probably not come to mind when you try to think of examples where research ended up having a practical use.)
Of course, even such a conclusion would not suggest that we should cease all blue sky research. Obviously that would be very silly. But it might make sense to think about whether it is possible to guess ahead of time what research is likely to have practical benefits and what research is not. This way we can spend more money on research likely to have benefits and less on research that is probably useless except for the knowledge's own sake.
I'm baffled by your last paragraph ("it might make sense to think about whether it is possible to guess ahead of time what research is likely to have practical benefits and what research is not").
You seem to think that a $10B collider was built just because it was possible, not as part of a deliberative/strategic process, partly influenced by a European/American contest for intellectual leadership in this area?
Surely you know that the worldwide particle physics community has been contemplating the value of this research for about 20 years? (Since the SSC planning stages.) And that European political bodies have deliberated it at length?
I'm not in that community, but my friends who are, are spending a lot of time in Geneva the last couple of years! The value of bringing all that talent in to contribute ideas, and some of them to stay for years, is hard to estimate, but it must be huge. I'm sure Europe is a great place for physics PhDs and postdocs these days.
Of course, even such a conclusion would not suggest that we should cease all blue sky research. Obviously that would be very silly. But it might make sense to think about whether it is possible to guess ahead of time what research is likely to have practical benefits and what research is not. This way we can spend more money on research likely to have benefits and less on research that is probably useless except for the knowledge's own sake.