Worth making some additional points about why greens absolutely *hate* this possibility.
1. It absolutely deprives environmentalism of any political claim. Greens claim that necessity underpins its designs for a social and political order.
1. It absolutely deprives environmentalism of any political claim. Greens claim that necessity underpins its designs for a social and political order.
But just the possibility of fusion reveals that the principle of managing scarcity that drives green ideology is a nonsense. It shows that dogma, not 'science' drives the ecological perspective.
2. Decreasing society's dependence on natural processes (land, rain, resources and sunlight, in this case) seemingly creates a chaotic, undisciplined, unconstrained society, which "loses" its connection to "nature". Blood-and-soil mysticism persists in green ideology.
3. Without scarcity, how do idle rent-seekers (the actual masters of green useful idiots) turn their advantages into revenue streams? Green ideology sustains ancient social orders. Greens are not progressive. They are the worst kind of reactionaries.
4. Imagine if just a fraction of the £trillions already wasted on green energy subsidies throughout Europe, N. America and beyond, had gone instead into next-gen fission/fusion and hybrid R&d experimental pathways. There would be hundreds, maybe thousands of ITERs.
That explains why so much wealth got behind the green agenda. Scarcity cements its position. Innovation is not in the interests of people who are doing very well just the way things are, thank you very much.
5. When energy scarcity is abolished, land scarcity and resource scarcity are also on their way to abolition. Ethical and political frameworks that define the human condition and history begin to dissolve. That's a frightening prospect for ideologues.
6. What the above also shows it that though he is vilified for his privileges, Matt Ridley argues more forcefully against such privilege than his critics are capable. ...
They claim he is motivated by coal, but he argues for fusion. They claim he is motivated by his class, but he argues for a technology that deprives land-owners of their assets, not through appropriation but by technological development. ...
They claim he is motivated by profit, but he argues for abolishing scarcity.
They really are the regressive movement. Greens *really* want to take us back to the past, in very many ways, to avoid the future.
They really are the regressive movement. Greens *really* want to take us back to the past, in very many ways, to avoid the future.
Isn't that something: a land owner, capitalist, "coal mine owner" {sic}... has done more to understand environmental problems, scarcity, and poverty than all of the green movement. The only possible conclusion is that greens hate solutions because they need problems.
Footnote: I have understated every single point in this thread.
