3 ms·
>A rough estimate is that it would take $30 billion and 20 years to go from the current state of research to the first working fusion reactor. But put in perspe
by bluedanieru 15y ago
>A rough estimate is that it would take $30 billion and 20 years to go from the current state of research to the first working fusion reactor. But put in perspective, that sum is equal to about a week of domestic energy consumption, or about 2 percent of the annual energy expenditure of $1.5 trillion.
Millions of years from now after the human race fails and alien archeologists are picking apart the carcass of its long-dead civilization, they are going to find an enormous number of exactly these circumstances. From education to space travel and power generation this kind of folly is so ubiquitous that it is more newsworthy when it doesn't happen. There must be some aspect of human and group psychology that ensures it. As such it's hard to have much hope for the future.
Just kidding about the aliens though. It's unlikely any would ever discover our ruins.
- jerf 15y agoIf you assign a 100% probability that $30 billion and 20 years would produce this 100% certain fantastic payoff, it looks irrational. If you put more realistic probabilities in (hint: substantially less than 100% in both cases), and then realistically account for all the other things going on and their realistic probabilities of success and the values when they succeed, human behavior looks a lot less irrational. Maybe not entirely rational, but certainly not blindingly stupid.
- iwwr 15y agoLarge infrastructure projects are wasteful no matter how you cut it, so at least they should have precise objectives (much shorter than 20 years) and per-objective pricing (rather than cost-plus).
- bluedanieru 15y agoHow are they wasteful 'no matter how you cut it'? What if the cut is more efficient energy production, or access to plentiful resources, or freeing the fate of humanity from the fate of its home planet (everyone here should appreciate separation of concerns). And why twenty years? Why rule out a concrete multi-generational goal (assuming humanity can ever achieve that level of social organization first) which has a large payoff and reasonable chance of success?
- iwwr 15y agoWhy rule out a concrete multi-generational goal? The project would be doomed to failure without intermediary objectives. Long term planning is difficult as it is and politics adds to the implausibility.