{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
12/31/2015 3:39:36 AM
2
Eventually we need to stray from the idea that we can't let people lose jobs for the sake of advancement.
For example, the older energy industries that are on the way out due to lack of resources anyways need to be replaced by cleaner and more advanced energy sources, but a lot of people, particularly in my state, get mad about losing jobs because of the coal industry.
Stagnation is worse than sacrifice. Sacrifice is just life. Stagnation is death.
English
-
Yes. I have my own tin-foil hat driven theory that we're only so far away from achieving practical nuclear fusion, because it would literally relinquish the need for all hydrocarbon fuels. Therefor, big oil companies aren't exactly giving governments an incentive to fund research, thus something that is very expensive to research (nuclear fusion), falls short of what is necessary.
-
Edited by Kamots: 12/31/2015 4:04:28 AMIf I recall correctly, I think Lockheed Martin claimed they would have usable fusion reactors the size of an average truck in about 15 years. I find it hard to not have some level of trust in them, but I bet it will be at least 30 years, being generous. If I ever find out that greed is keeping us from fusion, I'm going to get rich, learn to fight, and become Batman just to kick around the people involved.
