Hehe I’m not saying I am pro-Global Warming. If I was, I wouldn’t be interested in Focus Fusion. I would be interested in New Uses For Clean Coal. (I am from Kentucky.)

As for Ice Ages, one could call them a calamity, but a geologist would say they were necessary for the rich soils of Europe, Asia, and North America. The key in deciding whether a phenomena is positive or negative is to define what nature is, what role the phenomena plays in nature, and define our place in nature along side the phenomena. I think the problem in many scientific circles is the assumption that the world we have today is the way it should be and it should not change. I look over what we have so far discovered about nature, and I see continual yet gradual chaos with occasional events of massive chaos. Change is the nature of Nature. I believe that we humans need to tune our adaptiveness to the point that we no longer have to create huge impacts to live well, and let nature take its course, within defined limits. (Focus fusion is a key to this goal.)

I have noticed that many scientists, as humans, tend to make the mistake of tying a few new discoveries together and creating entirely new world-views from the implications of their new revelations. Sometimes this is valid; sometimes not. The argument over the Big Bang Theory is based on such observations and links. But Big Bang Theorists speak as if the whole picture has been revealed, and the small pieces yet unresolved are of no real value or will be found over time, so we don’t need to bother with it. I don’t find such arguments very scientific. All aspects need to be looked at of a world-view before it can be accepted at the same level as the facts that are used to derive the world-view. Until a complete set of facts can be assembled, the world-view is not yet valid.

Take the asteroid problem you bring up. There is a body of scientists who are very upset about this issue. Here are the facts they speak: Asteroids have, and can, cause catastrophic damage to the Earth, and we need to develop the capacity to detect and deflect asteroids capable of causing catastrophe on Earth. These are true facts, and I accept them. Now, despite what many panicked scientists who have researched this subject say, the odds that the Earth is going to get hit by a massive killer asteroid capable of wiping out civilization in the next 100 years is slim to none. So, while we do need to develop the technology, we also need to build up to it, not bankrupt economies to relieve the night terrors of a few scientists. All the close calls are close according to astronomical distances. “Scientists believe such-and-such asteroid will come within a million miles of Earth!” They don’t mention that the Earth is only 8,000 miles wide, and has a thick atmosphere that deflects most objects. The Apollo spacecraft had to be careful during reentry so as not to skip out into space. What are the real odds that a large object has of hitting our small planet at the right angle to do the damage they are so afraid of?

Now, with Global Warming, there is enough evidence for us to take immediate action, but what action? On the website for An Inconvenient Truth, there are a lot of things we can do, many of which don’t seem that hard. The problem is human inertia. Half the world believes adolescents shouldn’t dance together or God/Allah/Buddha will smite us; the other half won’t recycle their plastics because they might have to drive it to the recycling center, and you KNOW how much time that takes. Getting people to change their culture before they are up against the wall is nearly impossible, and is only possible via education, and time. And time we do not have.

So, what we have to do instead is work for what I call a One Person solution. It goes back to the concept that one person can make a difference, and others of a like mind following that concept can create a wave of change. The hard work ends up going on to that small group, but that small group also is unhindered by the bureaucracy necessary to get everyone to do tons of small changes. The small group gets to define the change, and set it in motion. The change then becomes seemingly self-evident, and the rest of the world follows it.

I’m hoping the one person in this case is Eric Lerner, and those he works with and we who visit this site are the kernel of the small group. With Focus Fusion as the catalyst for solving Global Warming, we will have an energy source that will let us stop producing greenhouse gasses, live through the effects we cannot avoid, and repair some damage that would otherwise go unrepaired. It may bring about technologies, so far unthought of, that may cure the problem before it gets out of hand. Since Focus Fusion can touch on so many things, it is extremely important to do the research, but the one thing we don’t need to be panicked. Panic is never the solution.