The race for nuclear fusion

[moinsdewatt]

.....
If it is because of the use of abundant energy to exploit and transform the planet, this may seem a risk but experience shows that once a certain standard of living is reached, demography stabilizes, The resources consumed also from the blow.
And then it would give the means to exploit mineral resources from other planets, for example.

There would be no need to go to another planet for mineral resources.

It would suffice to treat deposits with a low rate of metal which are for the moment unprofitable because of the energy cost.

Deposits with a low metal content are abundant.

[izentrop]

The "certain standard of living" to which you allude and of which you suppose or hope the generalization is unfortunately incompatible with terrestrial resources ...

will say that to emerging countries

[sen-no-sen]

Why do you say that ?
If it is because of the use of abundant energy to exploit and transform the planet, this may seem a risk but experience shows that once a certain standard of living is reached, demography stabilizes, The resources consumed also from the blow.

The increase in the dissipation of energy within a society leads to a certain number of phenomena including the increase in the level of abstraction, which translates socially by a higher level of study and effectively a decrease in the natality.
So we go from family to model r family modelK:

the K strategy (the letter K refers to the carrying capacity of a habitat), based on a long lifespan and a rare and late reproduction.
strategy r (the letter r refers to the reproduction rate, “reproduction rate”), based on the production of a large number of young people, as soon as possible, usually with a very high mortality. It is an adaptation to unstable and unpredictable environments. This is particularly the case for microorganisms, which are subject to this kind of conditions because of their size.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le_%C3%A9volutif_r/K

However, this increase in abstraction * retroactively leads to a growth in energy consumption per inhabitant, thus, if the fertility rate in France is 2 children per woman it is a little more than 7 in Niger.
Conversely, the consumption per inhabitant in KW / h is 7300 in France against ... 49 in Niger! (World Bank data:http://donnees.banquemondiale.org/indicateur/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC

This energy consumption is obviously to be compared with the extraction of very large quantities of raw materials, outside, and taking into account the technological progress curve, this one ceaselessly requires more materials.
The resources consumed are therefore not at all dependent on the fall in the birth rate, since it is actually the strictly opposite phenomenon that occurs.

Another fundamental point, and we can never repeat it enough: the more a society dissipates energy and the more it "modifies" its environment, apart from the more it is modified and the more it is necessary to readjust to the modification by dissipating even more. energy, once the loop is closed, it's off again for an even faster, farther and stronger lap, that's what we call the effect of the red queen.

What will happen if humanity comes to master thermonuclear fusion?
We note that with access to fossil fuels, we have completely transformed our environment and that we are now entering the 6th phase of extinction, and those despite all the negative externalities specific to its energies (water pollution of the air and earth).
With access to an unlimited - and clean - energy source, what is more, there would be no limit to our ability to modify our environment, why should we care? Recall that the entire ecological discourse is to be compared with the notion of visible pollution and not of transformation.

Socially this time we should see the appearance of currents (transhumanist type) favoring the lengthening of life in procreation, a sweeping of traditional culture in favor of an ephemeral culture, a technological explosion and an increase in the phenomena of collapse * *.






* Technical abstraction I hear.
** Societies that dissipate a lot of energy oscillate violently between the point of thermodynamic equilibrium, which leads to a shortening between the boom and crash phases ... something hardly favorable to our species.

[eclectron]

Ahmed et sen-no-sen, I do share your pessimism.
At my level, I would have available inexhaustible energy generators, I would supply my home with heating and electricity, I would power my vehicle and I would not change anything in my current way of life which is quite frugal.
Maybe I would move a little more willingly.
In short nothing changed in my life, just much less pollution.
nothing to be afraid of, if everyone behaves reasonably.

You have a lot of value judgments that only hold if the current conditions do not change an iota: humanity's relationship to money, availability of resources, awareness of the population or decision-makers in life, etc. .

Robotization powered by inexhaustible energy does not seem to me a bad thing in itself.
if there is a lack of resources on Earth to build these robots or if we do not wish to degrade the existing biotopes, an asteroid where a dead planet will do the trick.

there is an answer specific to each problem from the moment when the population no longer believes and the energy is inexhaustible.
I believe that you do not imagine what it opens as prospects, you project only more energy in the current world, organized on the shortage of everything.

Earth can be a paradise, have a high standard of living thanks to inexhaustible energy, possibly through robotization, without destroying anything here below.
On the contrary, the abundant energy would allow greenhouse cultivation in cities or in places that are improbable today, no longer cutting wood for cooking or heating, etc.

Allow optimism to bloom in your mind and on Earth.
The rest is only organization of society, organization of the relationship to money. It is up to Men to do better than today.
Seek and find societal solutions rather than saying that it is going in the wall, that I think everyone understood more or less.

Everything can only progress together, the energy, the minds, the organization of society.
The key condition remains the inexhaustible energy that we do not have today.
Please do not reason petty, be positive, progress at all levels is inevitable, better to accompany and direct it than to refuse it.

[sen-no-sen]

Ahmed et sen-no-sen, I do share your pessimism.
At my level, I would have available inexhaustible energy generators, I would supply my home with heating and electricity, I would power my vehicle and I would not change anything in my current way of life which is quite frugal.
Maybe i would move a bit more willingly.
In short nothing changed in my life, just much less pollution.
nothing to be afraid of, si everyone behaves reasonably.

It is not a question of pessimism, but of observation based on historical and scientific studies.

Your remark is quite symptomatic of the bias of individual reasoning (don't take it badly, because we all commit this kind of amalgam):
-This is a personal reasoning of the type "if everyone thought like me there would be no war in the world"(truism!).
-You consider your lifestyle to be frugal. It is a subjective, frugal vision in relation to which lifestyle? An American, a Nepalese?
-You would move a little more, very well, multiply the "a little more" by 7 billion and you have the current situation ...

As far as "reasonable behavior" is concerned, the 150 years of existence of homo sapiens demonstrates how human societies are anything but reasonable, and civilization (so fragile!) Has in fact contributed nothing.

Robotization powered by inexhaustible energy does not seem to me a bad thing in itself.
if there is a lack of resources on Earth to build these robots or if we do not wish to degrade the existing biotopes, an asteroid where a dead planet will do the trick.

This is again a simplistic vision, a robotization powered by an inexhaustible energy would quickly lead to the disappearance of the human race, it is besides the goal of transhumanism, there is only to follow the current events.
The simple fact of wanting to export the problems means, in fact, our incapacity to manage them, except how to solve problems if we create others continuously?

Everything can only progress together, the energy, the minds, the organization of society.
The key condition remains the inexhaustible energy that we do not have today.

This is unfortunately false, human development has largely contributed to the disappearance of many species,progress (so much vaunted!) has in reality no objective existence and is a myth.
In addition, we have had unlimited energy (humanly) for a very long time: the sun and geothermal energy.

[Ahmed]

It is recent history which shows us what gives access to unlimited resources, even if these energies have manifested this aspect "unlimited" only over a limited period of time.

Izentrop, you write:

will say that to emerging countries

This is not a value judgment on my part, but a simple observation: the fact that we have temporarily reached such a way of life implies that others can never have access to it.
I readily admit that this is an inaudible discourse for them, just as the renunciation of this frenzied extractivism can be for the central countries ...

[lilian07]

One thing is certain, with a "super" energy, the natural environment would find itself irremediably further modified because this modification is indeed the result of the energetic "boolimia" of man.
This profound modification would then go so far as to reach levels irreversible for the environment.
Unless we can temporarily colonize other planets, the fate would be sealed for our cradle of humanity .... and more energy would be more imprint of humanity on a larger part of the universe. ..
I would believe then that it takes more sobriety so that the human species does not leave its cradle and that it has to happen quickly ...

[izentrop]

Izentrop, you write:

will say that to emerging countries

This is not a value judgment on my part, but a simple observation: the fact that we have temporarily reached such a way of life implies that others can never have access to it.
I readily admit that this is an inaudible discourse for them, just as the renunciation of this frenzied extractivism can be for the central countries ...

However, the energy consumption curves of these countries bear witness to their progression ...

[lilian07]

Izentrop, you write:

will say that to emerging countries

This is not a value judgment on my part, but a simple observation: the fact that we have temporarily reached such a way of life implies that others can never have access to it.
I readily admit that this is an inaudible discourse for them, just as the renunciation of this frenzied extractivism can be for the central countries ...

However, the energy consumption curves of these countries bear witness to their progression ...

A gold mine this link. Perhaps the explosion of renewable energies will come from Africa ....

[eclectron]

Well no, my dear sen-no-sen, this is not a reasoning bias on my part but simply a demonstration by analogy starting from a concrete case that I pretty much master, that is to say myself and not smoky theories of futurologists.
Common sense if you prefer.

No one can predict the future but it is to say that the abundance of energy will not change anything in my current lifestyle and by extension, will not change anything in my neighbor's lifestyle, etc ...
It is therefore very likely that this will be the case for all populations in developed countries.
With clean energy in abundance and an equal standard of living, I would be cleaner than today, like the majority of people in Western countries.
at an equal standard of living there will simply be no more CO2 emissions.
what are you complaining about

Do you need more televisions, refrigerators etc ...?
I don't think so, at least not me.
Consequently, as can be seen in the statistics, once a certain standard of living has been reached, all consumption stabilizes, as does demography.

Then comes the sacrosanct question, is the western way of life sustainable all over the planet?
with fossil fuels, no!
Clean and abundant energy does not prevent from changing or improving certain points like agriculture etc ... nothing prevents Man from being intelligent.
Whether the iron used to build vehicles, refrigerators, etc. is in the basement or in vehicles, refrigerators do not change anything in the face of the world. (If it is extracted properly, always a question of will. )
and if there is a shortage on Earth, the energy in abundance will allow us to seek it elsewhere.

The future will tell us who was right, so I think there is no point in continuing this exchange.
but be aware that the abundance of energy does not necessarily imply productivism, does not necessarily imply capitalism or necessarily the exploitation of the environment and neither necessarily the exploitation of the human being by his fellow men.
Nothing prevents being intelligent in addition to having clean energy in abundance.