This new Fusion energy breakthrough has really unearthed some cleavages in a discussion group I am part of. First there was the question of whether this breakthrough actually mattered, of which the consensus was mostly, “yes but…” because there are many huge hurdles left to overcome, particularly producing more energy than just enough to power a microwave, scalability on mass to have an impact, and the containability of the energy. While there were different temperatures in the discussion about whether these facts about the future should dampen the enthusiasm, I believe everyone came to the similar consensus that overall this was a good thing—not without everyone adding their takes of course, of which only one person in the group works in the energy field and can be considered smart enough on this in regards to the higher-level functionality and deeper level conversations.
But things took a turn from there. I pasted this Defector piece from a scientist who is an expert on the topic. It was a good take with solid insider knowledge to paint the picture of an incredible breakthrough, while also giving the realistic picture of fusion’s future, if it even has one. But what got everyone up on their hind legs was the last part of the piece, which I singled out:
On the other hand, let us take a sobering moment to be realistic about our fusion future. The race to commercialize fusion energy has pulled ahead of the science. The extremely well-meaning engineers and physicists building SPARC, for example, as we speak are manufacturing the parts for a commercial reactor and bolting them together, despite not having proven in their experimental reactors that their model achieves breakeven, to say nothing of the hefty surplus yields needed to be truly commercially viable. This is all taking place inside the same psychotic top-heavy late-stage capitalist economy that recently spit out Tesla, Netflix, DoorDash, WeWork, Carvana, Bird, Uber, Twitter, Airbnb, and Theranos, to say nothing of the whole insane Ponzi-structured cryptoeconomy. The ultra-rich and insanely over-leveraged investor class is in ever more deranged pursuit of opportunities to multiply surplus wealth; it is perhaps no coincidence that fusion commercialization is, to a really alarming degree, the undertaking du jour of frantic venture capitalists.
Enthusiasm about an impending fusion-powered future should be tempered with a certain amount of skepticism about who is building what, and for what purposes. The scientists doing the research are extremely earnest and cool and brilliant, but the commercial projects are being funded in too large a part by the same people who are fucking everything else for anyone to feel too confident that the commercialization dollars are being spent well, and with the proper expectations. Andrew Holland, CEO of the Fusion Industry Association, told a White House audience back in March that the people paying for all these projects “want to figure out a way to return their money,” and are therefore operating on “a limited time frame.” The pressure to turn promising experimental developments in fusion science into commercialized energy is coming not just from a warming planet, but from a ravening class of profit-minded investors.
Which means even if this thing works, and humankind finally achieves clean energy from endlessly abundant natural fuel sources, there’s a very strong likelihood that the various extremely serious governments of Earth will just leave it in the hands of, like, Elon Musk, who will only use it to power a new globe-spanning fleet of single-passenger go-karts that can only be piloted remotely by an app and often burst into flames.
Now, the group I put this to has various degrees of hedging Left to quite-a-bit Left political persuasions. The ones who talk the most tend to by myself, another who is a real Democrat centrist, and another who is a fairly-close-to Democratic Socialist who was yelling at me to Defund the Police in 2020.
But at my insistence that in the world of market fundamentalism ideology it’s important to worry about the way this may get taken over by the bad guys, I was told it was an obtuse point and petty to point out right now. That it is too early to do so, and that it is veiling the pure positivity of this breakthrough toward a positive energy future with a bleak outlook.
After trying to explain further with a criticism of how Capitalism is an encompassing way of life and that this fact could make it less just than it should be, I was yelled down, called Comrade, and even called a hypocrite because I live my life within Capitalism too. Just to point out, I was not saying that this breakthrough isn’t important for scientific discovery, I was offering critique that a just transition to cleaner fuels is a major challenge in the face of investors and billionaires with power who want a return on an incredibly expensive technology—you know like they do with every other man or nature made creation that is meant to make everyone’s lives better.
To be clear these responses were both from a reliable supporter of people like AOC and Bernie, and from our Centrist Economist-reading friend who votes for the practical Democrat every time. I went to bed a bit shocked reflecting on the idea that the points I made were controversial for left-leaning and a relatively normal Democrat. Am I just some high-minded critic who can’t see the wonder in things because Capitalist Realism (the idea that Capital has become so integrated with our lives and psyche and Being that we can no longer escape it) has made it so that it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of Capitalism?
I mean, it was virtual and in a group chat and male humans don’t tend to disagree well in these online environments, but these are close people who have a lot of shared ideas about the world. And they said I was wrong. So I had to take it seriously.
Thus I come here to work through the self-reflection and the idea of critique, or critical theory, as something that any news of discovery should be filtered through.
To me, critical theory does something that we do not find often in traditional media. It looks to unearth the structures, ideologies, or theories behind the surfaces we see in the world. At best, in some of the critical arguments you may see in the New York Times, for instance, it’s typically an ideological argument or one of tactical differences. I see that being a close reader of theory and philosophy not as high-minded or one of some better perception of the self but as a tool and techniques that brings to our attention and reveal the essence of things that are concealed.
So when a technological breakthrough of this scale hits the front page, we don’t always have to wait for the next take or expert to tell us how to think about it. Instead having a foundation of theory and philosophy we can look to long-standing investigations into the essence of technology and how humans interact with it to think about how to understand it; or maybe pull out psycho-analytic arguments about how as Capitalist subjects we may or may not be able to benefit from it; or maybe we can look to philosophers who do well to argue caution about Science as the replacement for God and religion. I could go on… Building these foundations in our thought bring us beyond the surface and the rush of headlines and takes.
Having this foundation of critical theory also helps us to simply critique something on its own merits as well. Perhaps it’s through critique that something can truly become itself. As in, if society had more wise critique of science and technology we could shape a public will that can help fusion truly fulfill itself both scientifically and sociologically. Through critique we could steer the decision makers with a public will that can ensure the real benefit of fusion gets cordoned off from the barons in order to benefit not just through its green opportunity but through a just economic transition for the vulnerable who need that most.
Being told that there is no room to point toward Capitalism here and its potential role in screwing this all up is a repeat of the century of mistakes human beings have made through all of our modern technological advances. Internal combustion, flight, nuclear fission, the military industrial complex, the internet—you name it—have all both helped to make the standard of living in this world incredibly better for humans but also has been, and can continue to be, used for total destruction of ourselves and other species. Critique needs to be part of the topic of technology so more of the Barbara Lees of the world don’t have to be alone in the world when they say, ‘hang on, don’t forget about the physical or sociological dangers our response to the existential crises may create.’
So with all the being said about the idea of the critique, so that my opinion which matters not in the world is not misinterpreted, here’s my bottom line on this fusion breakthrough:
Fusion technology can be an amazing thing for the massive endeavor to rid this world of fossil fuel usage and mitigate climate destruction.
This breakthrough is one small step toward those goals. The science still does not suggest this will be viable in my lifetime.
Because of the way Capital is poised in the world, if there is not enough focus on just transitions Capital will likely have an unjust hand in fusion’s future, which may dampen the overall positivity of it as a viable global catalyst for good. We should be ahead of that as consumers of the breakthroughs rather than simply marveling at them.
I think, in the end, it’s honest to say that this response from friends also kinda hurt a little… When someone you consider to be one of your best friends characterizes the critiques you make as some kind of egotistical show of force and unsolicited wisdom trying to be imparted on the group, and completely mischaracterizes the argument as someone making the illogical jump that this breakthrough only means destruction, it becomes personal suddenly. It pushes me to reflect on myself in wonder of what went wrong. Why when even the LA Times the next day is asking “Can Capitalism Solve Climate?” I’m painted as a phony.
These discussions can ignite when you’re persistent in chats because of the nature of it—we all have seen it or experienced it or been the fuel to the fire at some point, likely. But when they pop up it’s always a reminder that critique of the underlying structures that impact our lives is uncomfortable but should remain even if people don’t want to hear it. Even friends. As long as we remain civil we can tire them out with reasoned criticism and let them make the decision to listen or not. If they’re friends, they should welcome it even if they disagree. Well, except for when it’s discussions of crypto, conspiracy theories, or reactionary politics, lol!
Didn't Marx say something about the means of production?