The Green Lantern Corps, man! Live to see it!

Military action is (and ought to be) an extension of political objectives by other means.

And I would have loved if this- or any prior – administration would have stepped up and committed to a working, commercializable fusion reactor with 10 years. I get why it hasn’t happened- but if a candidate (Dennis Kucinich?) would have stepped up and said- end the war in Iraq, restore fiscal sanity, and working reactor in 10 years – that candidate would have had my support.

Especially if that candidate would have also committed to a cabinet level secretary of robot overlord relations.

>>I suggest the attitude behind this kind of overstatement will facilitate the take over by the robot overlords.

As long as they’re friendly and competent!

Let’s look at this list of problems that politics has solved:

American revolution — As good a political solution as we’re ever likely to get to anything, but it assumed the complete failure of the then-current political infrastructure and required no small amount of bloodshed.

US Slavery — see above.

spread of German Nazism — see above.

Using military means to achieve your goals can be highly effective, and I won’t say that it is a misuse of the word “politics” to include this kind of activity, but I don’t think that’s how Josh was using the term.

universal public education — Yes, that’s a good one.

the interstate highway system — Good one, although I would have to describe it as at least partially a technological solution.

public libraries — Good one, but many of the most needed ones were established by private initiative, not through the political process.

So we will update Josh as follows:

“…the problems that technology has addressed have gotten solved, and the ones that were dependent on politics and so forth have not — with the exception of going to war and kicking the other guy’s butt. Also, sometimes government is good at dispensing knowledge and implementing the technological solutions we need.”

Much better.

Also, government and politics aren’t exactly the same thing (although they are of course pretty tightly linked.) The Apollo program was government in action — also another great example of a technological solution being implemented. Dismantling the Apollo program was politics in action.

>>First- we should blame everything on the Obama administration.

Not attacking or blaming the president here, just suggesting that the US Government would do well to get behind fusion. Seems like I’ve heard you say something similar.

I knew I was taking a risk mentioning the president by name. (I once got some hyper-sensitive Bush fans all upset, too.) To balance things out, I have added the now-irrelevant question about the previous administration. Expect to see the letters “BDS” in a subsequent comment in this thread.

>>Then we should reconcile the CV position that the administration has anything to do with anything with JOSH’s position that political solutions are a waste of time.

Or we can simply note that the three-quarters-of-a-trillion-dollar stimulus package just passed had a bunch of energy stuff in it, but nothing about nuclear fission technology (much less fusion) and see that Josh is pretty much vindicated.

Then we could read the Navy explanation and assessment. It’s possible- though no more likely than not -the Navy observers have no idea what they are looking at. In my experience those guys know their nuclear power. But this is fusion – and while I would whole heartedly support an expansion and acceleration of the Navy program to prove or kill the Bussard model- at least long enough to put a believable price on the R&D to production- I believe that the Navy would love to see this work sooner not later. We all would, even if we don’t know it.

BTW- I don’t see fusion as an either or with solar, pv or thermal. In fact, I think achieving critical mass in one will give us an easier path to the other. Not that you were suggesting otherwise.
I support a strong US global naval presence. And I can’t imagine how they run the sibs on solar. Ships either- but subs are a more obvious example

Well- I think I get the point he’s making and his frustration with the crush of humanity think. But this seems to be a vast overstatement – and in context of his article, I suggest the attitude behind this kind of overstatement will facilitate the take over by the robot overlords.

Political problems and solutions that had political resolution
- American revolution
- US Slavery
- spread of German Nazism
- universal public education
- the interstate highway system
- public libraries

Solar thermal is nothing new. In India, most homes use low-tech solar thermal (using mirrors) to heat their bathwater. This has been the case for decades.

What kind of reason were you thinking of? If the reason is that the species wasn’t viable due to predation, then I think we have the option of bringing it back — but need to recognize that it is no more likely to survive in the wild than it did before. If you mean God’s Will or Nature’s Plan or something, how do you know that our bringing the species back is not a part of that plan? Why is it that God (and / or Nature) are always assumed to act independent of, and generally contrary to, what human beings do?

I am sure it is not popular to say this, but is it possible that the Ibex went extinct for a reason? Why should we be bringing it back to life?

Hasn’t about 99.9% of all extinct species become extinct before mankind was a factor?

OK, serious question: there’s a night shift at the solar plant?

I don’t know whether to say “Great Scott!” or “Save the Clock Tower!”