I’m not convinced it would be a good thing if we did. Natural systems find homeostasis that keep the system balanced. Human intelligence have systematically removed these natural barriers (tool use, agriculture, division of labour, metalurgy, medicine, industrial revolution, fossil fuels, green revolution, chemistry, computers etc…) as such, we blew past all semblance of sustainability. Each time we lifted a barrier that was a limiting factor, our population and environmental footprint grew exponentially.
Now we are in a state of severe ecological overshoot. We have crossed 7 of 9 planetary boundaries. and our crisis is that we are converting our planet into something that can’t sustain us.
If we figure out cold fusion, there is a better than not chance we will just lift one more barrier that will allow us to further destroy all the rest.
I’m not against fusion energy if possible, I’m just not convinced it won’t be another nail in our coffin. I don’t see humanity’s maturity growing to accomodate our current technology to alter our likely fate, and near limitless energy solves humanity’s problems like carfentanyl solved the heroin addicts problems.
Apologies for poetic license in the name of brevity.
The problem with your thinking is that you thought I used the term homeostasis as if it meant unchanging, rather than the dynamic rebalancing that keeps a system viable. The system being the ecosphere.
the planet is a lot more likely to survive than humans are.
My point exactly. The planet is a rock. The ecosphere is a complex system that is in deep, deep trouble. It’s only a problem if you value humanity and the flora and fauna that nurtured us into existance. It seems you don’t.
2 thoughts.
Might be never.
I’m not convinced it would be a good thing if we did. Natural systems find homeostasis that keep the system balanced. Human intelligence have systematically removed these natural barriers (tool use, agriculture, division of labour, metalurgy, medicine, industrial revolution, fossil fuels, green revolution, chemistry, computers etc…) as such, we blew past all semblance of sustainability. Each time we lifted a barrier that was a limiting factor, our population and environmental footprint grew exponentially.
Now we are in a state of severe ecological overshoot. We have crossed 7 of 9 planetary boundaries. and our crisis is that we are converting our planet into something that can’t sustain us.
If we figure out cold fusion, there is a better than not chance we will just lift one more barrier that will allow us to further destroy all the rest.
I’m not against fusion energy if possible, I’m just not convinced it won’t be another nail in our coffin. I don’t see humanity’s maturity growing to accomodate our current technology to alter our likely fate, and near limitless energy solves humanity’s problems like carfentanyl solved the heroin addicts problems.
The flaw in this thinking is that massive destruction and extinction is one of the ways natural systems maintain themselves.
The earth has never been in homeostasis, 99.9% of species are extinct, and the planet is a lot more likely to survive than humans are.
our conduct is perfectly natural and playing out a lot faster than most natural systems that take millions of years to extinct a species sometimes
Apologies for poetic license in the name of brevity.
The problem with your thinking is that you thought I used the term homeostasis as if it meant unchanging, rather than the dynamic rebalancing that keeps a system viable. The system being the ecosphere.
My point exactly. The planet is a rock. The ecosphere is a complex system that is in deep, deep trouble. It’s only a problem if you value humanity and the flora and fauna that nurtured us into existance. It seems you don’t.