Re:After years of doubts, hopes grow that nuclear fusion is ...
by ncmncm on Sunday December 26, 2021 @02:25AM
(#29690446)
No, it is because money is fungible, and every cent wasted on dead-end crap is a cent not spend fending off imminent climate catastrophe.
Long before the natural world experiences a phase change, civilization will collapse. While that will radically reduce carbon output, it seems like a thing to prevent.
Re:After years of doubts, hopes grow that nuclear fusion is ...
by vidarh on Sunday December 26, 2021 @03:36AM
(#29690740)
You're assuming if we stop spending it on A it will mean more funding for B, and that is not at all clear or even likely - if all the funding isn't going to B already, there's little reason assume you can convince those who believe funding for A today is justified will suddenly all accept it should go to B if A is shut down.
Is anyone actually saying “let’s not do anything and keep pumping carbon into the atmosphere because fusion is almost here!” ?
I mean I’m sure you can find someone saying it (like anything) but there’s no reason to argue against an imaginary opposing viewpoint which isn’t being expressed.
What’s actually happening is people like to argue against things because naysaying is fun and people genuinely don’t really have a solid concept of what progress is being made and what progress is still needed, but go on with their vague impressions and defend their ideas anyway (and often against imaginary opponents).