Reply To: The recent "discovery" of Dark Matter

[Warwick]

Aeronaut wrote: So, how do you propose to change human nature so that all this power is used for the good of all? After all, we’re just the third Industrial Revolution, following steam and steam–>electric.
Btw, you may want to google “third industrial revolution”. A group of higher profile advanced thinkers think they can pull it off using fossil fuels…

I don’t think it calls for a change in human nature. Human nature was no different, for example, when the post-war societies of Western Europe were striving (and mostly succeeding) in creating property-owning democracies, with public ownership of public goods and the development of the welfare state. Huge advances were made. Human nature is an obstacle to utopia, not always an obstacle to progress.

But the question of how to do the most good with an invention (which in effect it is) like focus fusion, is a deep and complicated one. Not one that I can answer immediately even superficially, but here goes.

It’s unlikely you’re going to be able to twist anyone’s arm even if you tried. It’s not so obvious how you can help someone in a country that’s basically in the grip of a corrupt military regime that swallows everything, of which there are plenty.

BUT, there are a lot of poorer countries that have quite a reasonable government. So for a start, maybe you could give preferential terms to people depending on what they can afford – price discrimination, as with airlines. It’s fortunate that in many poorer countries, there are universities with a DPF programme. That means there must be people there that could be developed as Focus manufacturers, developers, maintainence engineers. (In fact, selling cheap to the poor is a very aggressive sales tactic – stacking high is imperative if you want to be sure of out-competing the less clean alternatives.)

What about the nature of ownership? Is there something to be said for that ancient idea, the democratic cooperative? – either for producers or operators, depending on how you envisage production?

What about harnessing the abilities of international voluntary organisations, or starting one, to make the most of an energy supply in regions where capital development is not at a point where it could otherwise make the most difference? Another thought – there are a lot of industrial places in the world that are hurting badly right now and for the foreseeable, which fortunately means there is a potential untapped resource of engineers and technologists. It’s just a question of what leverage will see them gainfully employed in places that need it.

Don’t be afraid to be bold.

I looked up the 3rd industrial revolution and got Jeremy Rifkin… not sure where you’re going with that. But it’s true that the 1st industrial revolution mostly turned into creating new ways to conquer and enslave, and at the height of it the average lifespan for an urban worker was less than 20. The paradigm then was very much one of unenlightened self-interest; there’s no need for history to repeat itself.

I’ll write more if I think of something else.