Hacker News Reader

Comment by goodpoint | Hacker News Reader

> fusion is just going to increase the rate at which we are transforming this planet into a giant pile of garbage

Thank you for saying this. Unlimited almost-free energy makes energy-saving measures moot, including building insulation. People would heat or cool even open spaces with little regard for the environment.

And all the heat is eventually released into the atmosphere.

Consumerism would be supercharged as well. Indeed we need a huge shift of societal priorities.

(Needless to say, when I point that out HN downvoted me. Here technology is always and only good.)

edit: there you go, already downvoted at -2 for saying the same thing as the parent.

View on HN

So the problem fusion is that is will be too good? Interesting take.

No, it's not "too good".

So the fear is we’ll use the extra energy to literally warm the planet? Seems like a scale mismatch. Climate “engineering” like blocking out the sun seems like a much more real danger

Not "warm", because with fusion filling this cache, energy usage wouldn't lead to CO2 pollution. They're suggesting it would lead to increases in consumption which means waste. Notwithstanding that a) life won't necessarily get more affordable for people, and stuff costs money, b) there are innovations now, and expected in the future, which would drastically curtail waste, though some regulatory measures might be necessary to do better with this.

So I'm also skeptical.

I don't see why it goes without saying the extra energy would necessarily go towards consumerism. There is still a long way to go towards getting every human a decent life and opportunity to reach their full potential. There's no way we're getting there without the extra energy. For providing healthcare, nutricious food, education, etc.

So far, extra energy has been entirely targeted at increasing consumerism: it's the famous "such and such country is finally getting a sizeable middle class".

Translation of "middle class": class of mass consumers.

I guess my idea is most cultures have moved on or are in the process of moving on having realized that "things" is not what they need most, but that's a phase that a culture must pass through. Again, there are plenty of other things to do with that extra energy, it's not like we don't have a choice.

Exactly we agree: the problem is doing the right choice!

The graphs of energy availability/consumption and emissions of garbage are correlated. This is a historical fact.

Life is literally as affordable for people as the amount of energy that is available to them, that's the main factor (a bit of optimization of processes also plays but at a more minor order). Food used to be 25% of households' spending early XXth century, when someone would go buy eggs from the local market or farmer. Today it is 10% if you count the margins of industrials, distributors etc. But if you just look at the price of the eggs, then it's probably less than 1%.

What allowed this? Energy! Energy allowed for abundant food, a long life, studying and the general tertiarisation of the economy (giving birth to tech) and of course consumerism. The more energy the cheaper everything is the more people consume, at least as long as we persuade people that buying things is the greatest pleasure in life.

See my response to your other post.

Why people keep asking the same questions? felixmeziere wrote it very clearly in the parent post.

The evidence clearly shows that humanity is not acting rationally and we are letting consumerism run unchecked.

A good example is plastic: we are aware of the health impact of particulate and yet we can't even have a conversation around stopping using plastic worldwide. Rather than a choice it looks like an addiction.

felixmeziere wrote about cultural change.

Additionally, it's very likely that fusion will be viable primarily in developed countries, further increasing energy inequality.

Fusion will not produce "almost free" power.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com