I talk about that in Post 2. There are many ways to improve how we use energy indeed, without necessarily making a dent in human well-being. However, this depends on 2 important things:
How the remaining energy is shared. If the 10-20% wealthiest still manage to get a good chunk of energy production for non-essential items (like using planes or eating meat every day), then less energy will come at the expense of the poorest.
Using only what we really need (and removing stuff like planned obsolescence or luxury items) would certainly damage economic growth. But a society without economic growth would certainly be very, very differentâthen again see post 2 on systemic risks.
I point the limits of nuclear fusion hereâI think itâs best to see it as a âbigger and safer nuclear plantâ. An interesting prospect (if it exists), but still dependent on complex supply chains, finite metals, alot of funding, and very slow and complicated to build.
I also think that having more energy would be dangerous. Indeed, we are already having a lot of trouble managing correctly the power we haveârisks of nuclear wars, AGI, biorisks, and the ongoing destruction of the natural world. So infinite energy would be worse. More about that here.
I talk about that in Post 2. There are many ways to improve how we use energy indeed, without necessarily making a dent in human well-being. However, this depends on 2 important things:
How the remaining energy is shared. If the 10-20% wealthiest still manage to get a good chunk of energy production for non-essential items (like using planes or eating meat every day), then less energy will come at the expense of the poorest.
Using only what we really need (and removing stuff like planned obsolescence or luxury items) would certainly damage economic growth. But a society without economic growth would certainly be very, very differentâthen again see post 2 on systemic risks.
I point the limits of nuclear fusion hereâI think itâs best to see it as a âbigger and safer nuclear plantâ. An interesting prospect (if it exists), but still dependent on complex supply chains, finite metals, alot of funding, and very slow and complicated to build.
I also think that having more energy would be dangerous. Indeed, we are already having a lot of trouble managing correctly the power we haveârisks of nuclear wars, AGI, biorisks, and the ongoing destruction of the natural world. So infinite energy would be worse. More about that here.
Excellent, I wondered after i wrote that if I was going to get a reminder to read your other posts.
Very cool.
Thank you, Corentin.