On Reading Sun in a Bottle
Rather recently I enjoyed reading Charles Seife's Sun in a Bottle : The Strange History of Fusion and the Science of Wishful Thinking (New York : Viking, 2008; 294 pages). The subtitle is indicative, although I'm not sure just how strange the history of fusion is.
Of course, what he means by "the history of fusion" is not so much the discovery of nuclear fusion, nor really much about its exploitation to build "H-bombs". Although these topics appear in early chapters to set the fusion stage, the book is mostly devoted to what happened subsequently on the quest for the practical fusion reactor that would fulfill the dream of "unlimited power".
Well, the quest still goes on and commercial fusion reactors have been just "20 years away" for at least the last 5 decades. All of the "hot fusion" projects are here: "pinch reactors", magnetic bottles, Tokamaks, and "inertial-confinement" fusion (the name for those giant, multi-laser devices Lawrence-Livermore labs build to zap deuterium pellets), as well as the "cold fusion" wannabes, including Pons and Fleischmann and the later "bubble fusion", both of which, in the author's words, have since been "swept to the fringes of science".
Anyway, my book note is here, but I thought I'd share this one short excerpt that dramatizes why "people of faith" should never be allowed to set policy: anything they really want to "believe" they end up thinking came from their god. By the way, Lewis Strauss was also the guy who was J. Robert Oppenheimer's principle antagonist during the struggle to take away Oppie's clearance as some sort of "punishment" for being too liberal.
The paranoid, anti-Communist Edward Teller was the man who most desperately tried to bring us to the promised land. He and his allies lobbied for more and more money to figure out how to harness the immense power of fusion. Lewis Strauss, the AEC chairman and Teller backer, promised the world a future where the energy of the atom would power cities, cure diseases, and grow foods. Nuclear power would reshape the planet. God willed it. the Almighty had decided that humans should unlock the power of the atom , and He would keep us from self-annihilation. "A Higher Intelligence decided that man was ready to receive it," Strauss wrote in 1955. "My faith tells me that the Creator did not intend man to evolve through the ages to this stage of civilization only now to devise something that would destroy life on this earth. " [pp. 59—60]
8 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Tuesday, 24 March 2009 at 00.05
Permalink
"My faith tells me," he said. That is really scary. What if he had awakened
one day declaring his faith just told him we better nuke the Soviets before
sundown, because they're going to nuke us tomorrow?
I have faith but I guess my receiver must be off the hook for some of these
amazing revelations.
No, actually it's not a fault of faith. Rather, it's that some people cite faith
to embellish or fortify arguments where they fear their facts don't measure
up and/or their logic is weak.
on Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 01.18
Permalink
"My faith tells me,"
Every belief system is underpinned by some belief. Facts and logic work off beginning definitions. Pure Practical Reason hasn't shown itself to be a world beater.
I don't find much comfort in the current secular belief systems of Liberalism, diversity, and Gaia worship. Give me that old time religion.
on Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 10.47
Permalink
Throw away your cell phones and bring back the inquisition! Let's return to earlier values and burn some witches!
Personally I prefer reality-based empiricism over "truth" by revelation where all comers are accepted provided they claim it's the word of their god. History shows that the former gives better results by most measures sane people would choose.
on Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 14.04
Permalink
Not all earlier values culminated in witch burning.
better results by most measures
Tell us more. Modern Liberalism = demographic suicide. How is this better? I'm sure there will be no shortage of persons anytime soon, but the replacement immigrants largely encompass "that old time religion" (or worse). It seems like we could do better.
on Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 15.33
Permalink
I'm an old white guy myself, despite which I do not subscribe to "America for White People" nightmares about "demographic suicide", although I do realize that it is a strong motivation for dumb-as-brick rednecks to keep having children lest they feel personally responsible for the end of American civilization. How much sleep do you lose worrying that the average American 100 years from now may not look exactly like you?
I'm having trouble, though, following your argument that you want some "old time religion" in order to protect us against an influx of immigrants who, you say, subscribe to that "old time religion".
Happily, rather than being just an old white guy I turned out to be an atheist homo so I can claim me some minority status and join the identity-political forces of Liberalism and help destroy America by inculcating into the heads of unsuspecting citizens ideas of equal legal treatment and respect. Woo hoo!
on Friday, 27 March 2009 at 21.53
Permalink
ideas of equal legal treatment and respect.
I could live under your value system. We can quibble on a few details, such as your ecstasy over flushing public funds down ever more and growing rat holes, but that need not be a buzz kill. But does that value system have the mojo to maintain itself? It's not a white guy thing. Japan has a pretty good society by my lights, but they are fading from the scene pace demographics. If "reality-based empiricism" springs forth only to disappear because its newly empowered and enriched women don't have children, what have we gained?
The replacement demographics appear to be chauvinistic Islam, barrio Latin, and primitive African. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I don't see that cohort building any superconducting super colliders.
on Saturday, 28 March 2009 at 14.47
Permalink
I'm having trouble, though, following your argument that you want some "old time religion" in order to protect us against an influx of immigrants who, you say, subscribe to that "old time religion".
I'm arguing that we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss our home grown religious preceptors. It may still offer some insights into organizing a life. I'm uncomfortable with the European model: remove Christianity and let Mullah Omar come in to clothe the women and close the minds.
on Wednesday, 8 April 2009 at 10.57
Permalink
Fred, I don't know whether a European model would apply or not, since Christians and Muslims dominance has seesawed for the past millennium or more, and the Crusades were rather a nuisance.
Religion evidently serves a need, just most likely not the one many people think it serves. I don't have on hand anything to replace it–I don't think science does that, I don't see how it can or should. But I don't see science + religion as a zero-sum game. I don't advocate for science by trying to subtraction from religion, although personally I would be happy to see humans evolve away from religion as currently constituted.