3 ms·

TBH I think engineering solutions (fusion, carbon sequestration, perhaps also genetic engineering) are the only viable paths forward. Quite obviously we won't b

by m0zg 7y ago

TBH I think engineering solutions (fusion, carbon sequestration, perhaps also genetic engineering) are the only viable paths forward. Quite obviously we won't be able to do anything through political or regulatory means without ruining the economy and forcing people to adopt a much lower standard of living (no cows or Hawaii vacations, no stuff from abroad, no cars, no plastics, etc, etc). What I don't get is why fusion research is so underfunded. Let's make it a "going to the moon" or "manhattan project" kind of thing and let's get it done in 10 years. Get all the smartest people under one roof and let them have at it, without any funding constraints. $100B/yr oughtta do it. This will completely upend the world, and solve a lot of the problems we have. With clean, essentially unlimited energy, there's a lot you can do. The US doesn't even have to pay for all of it by itself. I'm sure industrialized countries will all be glad to chip in proportionally to their GDP for a world-saving project of this kind.

effie 7y ago
Apart from the obvious reasons governments don't want to put "us military spending" amount of money into fusion research (very expensive, unclear benefits, potentially changing global economy, hurting oil companies), it is also not clear that putting more money at the problem would help. Look at the mess ITER has been organizationally. It hardly seems putting more people in that project would help.
- m0zg 7y ago
  Pretty sure it would. After all there are multiple precedents: at least three "unlimited budget" attempts at changing the world worked fine: WW2, Manhattan Project, Apollo program. The first ended the British imperial ambitions and established the US as the undisputed world leader, the second did the same in the nuclear arms race, and the third repeated the feat in space. This doesn't have to be super complicated like ITER.

by m0zg 7y ago

effie 7y ago

Apart from the obvious reasons governments don't want to put "us military spending" amount of money into fusion research (very expensive, unclear benefits, potentially changing global economy, hurting oil companies), it is also not clear that putting more money at the problem would help. Look at the mess ITER has been organizationally. It hardly seems putting more people in that project would help.

m0zg 7y ago
Pretty sure it would. After all there are multiple precedents: at least three "unlimited budget" attempts at changing the world worked fine: WW2, Manhattan Project, Apollo program. The first ended the British imperial ambitions and established the US as the undisputed world leader, the second did the same in the nuclear arms race, and the third repeated the feat in space. This doesn't have to be super complicated like ITER.