Reply To: Iconography

[Glenn Millam]

So, what should be the goals?

The over-arching goal should be securing the energy future for mankind practically indefinitely. Broken down, this means that everyone on the planet should benefit, not just the current winners. It means that new possibilities should be opened that were not even thinkable before. It should also, by shear force of its existence, be a positive change agent in the lives of everyone around the world, in fact, every thing living on it.

It is important to set your goals so that you can see the obstacles in your way of achieving them. Here is my set of goals. See how they compare to yours.

1) Elimination of fossil fuels as an energy source. (Really obvious one, here)

As Eric Lerner has written, oil is actually a really important resource. Think of all the things we do with petrochemicals. Plastics, lubricants, medicine, you name it. We need this resource to last as long as possible and we need to recycle it as much as we can. Instead, its going up in smoke. It is also driving us to slit each others’ throats.

Here is a good book to read, if you are here simply out of curiosity and still haven’t gotten that sense of urgency: The Coming Economic Collapse, by Dr. Stephen Leeb and Glen Strathy. Leeb is a psychologist and financial analyst who usually writes investment books. It was in his research on future trends that he found something very disturbing about the future and oil. He also found that the oil companies knew all about it, but they see themselves as the winners and care nothing about solving the huge problem we face. Important stuff.

2) Cessation and reversal of global warming and global dimming.

Tied to the first goal, global warming is a planet killer. A lot of people are panicked over this. I am myself, but I am a bit more optimistic than others.

The reason why is that, as a college student, I worked for the university as a graphic designer for the Media Resources department. My job was to help professors publish their research. I got a good indoctrination to the politics of research, and to the motivations of researchers. One of the best things I did there was a powerpoint presentation for Dr. Thomas Coohill, who was involved in the effort to rid the world of CFCs that were depleting the ozone layer. This presentation was used by Coohill to travel to the various capitals around the world and show the danger we faced to world leaders. When he came back, he seemed pretty happy, and felt that his work had done some good. He even told me about about how the graphic I made of the “smoking gun,” with a Colt 45 with smoke snaking out the barrel, elicited gasps from the audience, since most places around the world don’t let people own firearms.

A few years later, CFCs were banned globally by international treaty. Recently I read that the ozone layer has now stabilized, and by the time my future grandkids get out of college, the ozone layer will likely be back to where it was before. I am not saying that I saved the ozone layer, by any means. I am just saying that it really feels good to know I did my share, and that we humans can solve our problems if we put our minds to it. It is also means that any contribution, no matter how small, helps.

As a side note, it was this experience with researchers that convinced me that the focus fusion project is real, and is based on real science, and is worth the effort.

3) Reducing global poverty

In my previous posts in this thread, I made the point that the success of the focus fusion project would mean the creation of sudden, vast wealth in the form of practically free, clean energy. This wealth must be spread, and the best way is to make use of market forces to defeat the current energy winners and let everyone else win. Focus fusion energy is cellular, and can be afforded by small communities and entrepreneurs who formerly could not hope to break into the energy market. At the same time, who will put up the cash to let the poorest get the benefits of this technology?

The common theme is for rich Western countries to give money to poorer countries to help them develop their energy infrastructure. The problem is, the west has been giving handouts to the governments of poor countries for years, and in general, it has not worked. Why? Because the mindset of the leaders of poor countries is to enrich themselves, and give just enough to their people to keep themselves in power.

Another solution must be developed to side-step, yet again, the current winners and let everyone else win for a change. A good book to read is The Future of Freedom, by Fareed Zacharia. It will explain the relationship of liberalism, democracy, taxation, and resources, and how they play in explaining the problems faced by people around the world. Between the lines, it also explains the problems faced by anyone trying to attack poverty.

I think the answer is to give locally in countries. Come into a community and offer to build a plant and a grid, no charge, using profit from selling the technology in the West, where we can afford it. This bypasses a lot of red tape, and if the community is denied by government officials above them, it will create a shockwave that will embarrass the government into letting it happen.

(Remember too that poverty is a relative term. “Real” poverty is not being able to sustain your basic existence. Food, shelter, cooking fuel, clean water, basic hygiene. Anything above that isn’t poverty, it is keeping-up-with-the-Joneses. My kids think we are poor because I couldn’t rush out and get them a new XBox 360 when they first came out. Like they need another video game.)

(Cont. in next post)