Quote Originally Posted by PBI View Post
I would quite agree that the question of energy supply is perhaps the most pressing issue of our times and one worthy of a great deal more attention than it currently recieves. Aside from the climate change issue, the fact is that as long as we are reliant on fossil fuels we are essentially avoiding the question of whether it is possible to create a sustainable, energy-intensive industrialised society and are instead building our entire society on a finite resource which is inevitably going to run out. The solution to this problem you seem to favour is to find some new source of energy based upon an as-yet undiscovered physical mechanism. However, I don't see how exactly we can go about finding such a mechanism in a more efficient manner than that we are already employing, that of pursuing research purely for the sake of advancing our understanding of nature, even if it does not have an apparent immediate application.

I must say, I find deeply disturbing the apparently increasingly common view that only scientific research that yields an immediate useful application is a worthwhile investment, and that research undertaken purely to advance our understanding of the natural world is essentially pointless and can be safely discarded. I would argue it is nothing of the sort, and that neglecting more esoteric research in favour of fields which yield greater economic return in the short run is deeply irresponsible, the scientific equivalent of running up a huge debt and leaving it for your children to pay off.
Kukri-san is not saying that we should bag basic research forever -- you'll find he's well aware of the value of such research.

He's arguing in favor of a "Manhattan Project" level of effort on energy -- perhaps harnessing fusion power or truly making solar power cost effective -- so that we can address basic energy needs with less emphasis on consumable forms thereof.