Drawbacks of fission, No Fusion Today, No Fusion Tomorrow

Peter D. Tillman wrote:
With some unavoidable dangers: Plutonium and other weapons-grade
fissionables by the *tonne*...

That's only a problem if they get into the wrong hands.

Since there are non-democratic countries with nuclear weapons already,
I have no problem with *every* democratic nation of free men having a
nuclear arsenal if it feels a need.

Israel, Taiwan, Australia, the Czech Republic, Poland - why not? Only
aggressors would fear.

Global warming is a *real* danger, and the economic consequences of
shutting down industrialization are real as well. Build as many nuclear
power plants as are required to:

- return our own economies to full employment status, and

- enable us to produce enough to wipe out world hunger.

Our proper goal - which we should exert ourselves to achieve *quickly*,
before there are any more needless deaths as a result of its not being
achieved - is a world where *every* child can look forward to the kind
of life a typical (i.e., white) child looked forwards to in America in
1950. No danger from war. The opportunity to receive education to the
limits of one's ability, and the opportunity to obtain meaningful
employment making full use of one's talents. Secure supplies of
adequate food, clothing, and shelter. Political freedom and personal
liberty. Safety from crime, which is a rare, pathological, and
exceptional event.

Produce abundant material goods for everyone, and put all the tyrants
and dictators behind bars (or six feet under) where they belong, and
how could this goal fail to be achieved?

Of course, we know that it *could* fail to be achieved.

1) We might be able to churn out "one laptop per child", but growing
food typically requires arable land. Even with thorium breeders - or
fusion reactors - or solar power satellites - multi-story farms lit by
efficient LED lights involve a capital investment that, at any
reasonable rate of return, would produce food only at prices
outrageously non-competitive with conventional farming.

Of course, this isn't a *physical* limit. If the human labor and
materials exist, the government can just subsidize food - and then tax
away the "windfall profits" of conventional farmers. The free market
would simply continue to exist, but subject to the constraint that
everyone must have enough to eat.

But physical limits do mean that if we set people free to have as many
children as they want, exponential population growth cannot be
accomodated indefinitely. If, though, this can be made a problem for
'later' rather than 'sooner', then we *can* let the 'demographic
transition' solve the problem noncoercively.

2) Many people doing dull, boring jobs are *qualified* to perform
interesting, creative work. But the competition for such work is
intense. Identifying this as a correctable injustice, however, misses
some realities.

If every soldier who was competent to be at least a *passable* general
*was* a general, each general would have a command no bigger than a
sergeant's.

Do we need 50,000 different computer architectures, running 150,000
different operating systems?

If everyone who could sing at least as well as Britney Spears was out
there producing albums, how many copies of each would be sold?

Although I can see some advantage in having every ambulance crew
include a full M.D. (since if having a paramedic on board is helpful,
clearly this would be even better)... having the country awash in oil
paintings and books of bad poetry seems to have no discernable
advantages, except to the painters and poets diligently subsidized.

And if even 10% of the country's engineering graduates were working for
NASA, what would this mean for the ozone layer?

Remember, I'm talking about a *worldwide* state, so this means that
even the Chinese aren't doing the 'day jobs' for the rest of us.

In other words, I'm talking about the future as depicted in comic
books.

All the dull, ordinary jobs are done by an army of robots. Human beings
who work for a living do so in managerial and creative roles - only -
and, of course, hiring a human being to do something for you costs a
*fortune*. Just like hiring a doctor, a lawyer, or even a plumber does
these days. But the robots even repair the plumbing.

In this future society, education is very important. The minds,
talents, and abilities of children have to be developed, so that they
will be qualified for what the economy (?) demands of them. Of course,
there will still be _some_ positions that only a very few people can
hold. Thus, politicians who are elected to office will be honored, as
being the best of the best - and they'll deserve it, because voters
*will* have a choice.

But, basically, if you stay in school, pay attention, and don't drop
out - and aren't a victim of incurable mental retardation, of course -
then you'll graduate with your Ph.D. or equivalent, and be ready to
take on meaningful and creative work, perhaps managing a factory where
robots labor, perhaps performing in the ballet or playing in an
orchestra, perhaps as an actor or director, perhaps as a stand-up
comic, perhaps pushing back the frontiers of ignorance, and pushing
forwards the frontiers of knowledge, as a scientific researcher,
perhaps as an author, poet, or playwright (this latter includes
scriptwriters, of course), or designing new tools to further enhance
the prosperity of humankind as an inventor or engineer, or working as a
painter, sculptor, or architect.

In other words, it's all "Mister Ed" (architect) and "I Dream of
Jeannie" (astronaut) and no "The Honeymooners". Of course, it may be
argued 'tis but madness to take _seriously_ what even the comic books
treated as if it were a matte painting, part of the background, but not
able to withstand the attempt to construct or flesh out in any detail.

On the other hand, with what microprocessors are doing, it may also be
argued that we *are* progressing to such a future - just a lot more
slowly than we might like.

John Savard