Dude, Where’s My Flying Car?

The moon is a great place to put a fusion reactor.

By
24

For no particular reason, the Remnant returns to an in-person format today, as Jonah drops by the AEI offices to chat about what the future holds for humans and technology with James “Jimmy P” Pethokoukis. Together, they explore why we still haven’t achieved some of the major advancements that wonks were predicting in the ‘70s, occasionally stopping to ponder the merits of popular sci-fi television shows. AI, fusion power, and space elevators are all discussed, but by the end of it all, an important question still hasn’t received enough attention: Will highly intelligent, taxi-driving super-apes eventually overthrow mankind?

Show Notes:

– Jim’s Substack, Faster, Please!

– Ezra Klein: “The Dystopia We Fear Is Keeping Us From the Utopia We Deserve”

– Jim: “Who taught us to fear Dystopia? Who taught us we didn’t deserve Utopia?”

– Jim: “Paul Ehrlich interview on ’60 Minutes’ shows the need to finally defeat degrowth environmentalism”

– Our World in Data

– Jonah’s review of The Reactionary Mind

– Alvin Toffler’s Future Shock

– Arthur C. Clarke’s Profiles of the Future

– Scientific American: “Space Elevators Are Less Sci-Fi Than You Think”

– Jonah: “Two Cheers for Techno-Marxism”

– Jim: “Billionaires, space, and the Blade Runner Fallacy”

By
Comments (24)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Phil.Ammar

    Excellent episode. Regarding the fusion discussion, one of the coolest startups which is probably the closest to having something viable, Helion Energy, has a design where the electricity is derived directly from the magnetically contained plasma ball through induction. So there is no need to heat up water to make steam etc.

    Collapse
    1. Phil.Ammar

      Oops, I had pressed pause to make the comment above when I was catching up on this episode, and when pressed play again, JP mentioned the direct electrical conversion. Sorry!

      Collapse
  2. Templeton1000

    I’m a paid member of Faster, Please and a huge fan of Jim Pethokoukis, but I think his critique of Klein and the supply-side progressives is counterproductive.

    It’s easy for upwingers on the Left and the Right to exaggerate the influence of the neo-Malthusians. But often our attention gives neo-Malthusians more oxygen than they would get if they were ignored (as Klein does in his piece). I just finished Jim’s interview on this topic on the Remnant with Jonah Goldberg, and I think his desire for supply-side progressives to punch left is politically misplaced. Encouraging the left to naval-gaze about the relatively fringe neo-Malthusians suggests an uncharacteristic (for Jim) preference for hamming home Republican partisan talking points rather than advancing a bi-partisan upwing agenda. Ezra Klein’s politically-savvy approach is to make positive arguments for supply-side progressive policies, persuading the Democratic Party to adopt these positions as the mainstream approach to solving problems progressives care about such as the environment and poverty.

    Democratic voters want environmental problems solved. 90% of them have never heard of Paul Elrich, and have no awareness of the neo-Malthusian vs supply-side possessive debate. The best way to marginalize a marginal faction is to ignore them. Rank-and-file Democrats support whatever ostensibly pro-environment policies are put forward in Congress. Framing this as a left-Malthusian vs right-libertarian debate will push Democrats into the Malthusian camp. Framing this as public and private sector pro-progress efforts to solve the problems the Left cares about (eg. environment and poverty), will lead to more support for government research spending and more receptiveness toward efforts at dismantling the most harmful regulations slowing technological progress. Of course, when 60 minutes gives Paul Erlich airtime, it is helpful when people across the political spectrum mock his ridiculous record. But the last thing we want to do is suggest to the general public that he was or might be in the future representative of Democratic policy positions.

    Let me be clear, neo-Malthusians and NIMBYs are just as much ideological enemies of supply-side progressives as they are of Libertarians. They probably infuriate us more because they (supposedly) share our goals, and come to such counterproductive policy positions. If anyone doubts this, watch politically unsophisticated YIMBYs punch left. But the important question for the future of progress is not to crush the neo-Malthusian fringe, but to persuade mainstream Democrats of YIMBY and supply-side progressive policies.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Hoopman.Ed

    In defense of the economic models of the Expanse and Bladerunner, it's two quite different things to say that problems like climate change CAN be solved and that the wealthy would find it more economical to solve those problems than to simply wall themselves off from them.
    One may find those outcomes improbable, but implausible is a failure of imagination.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Marc Frischhertz

    Hard for me to follow the principle at play in this discussion. Sure, I agree the environmental doomsday crowd has been wrong for decades. Sure I agree that regulations have become ridiculously burdensome in some areas. But beyond that, the conversation was all over the place and hard to follow.

    If the principle is that completely unchained capitalism would have resulted in 150k/year average income, flying cars and moon bases, then I would say that is as ridiculous as the doomsday crowd on the left.

    One need only look to the past, before the excessive regulatory period, to debunk such a proposition.

    A lack of regulation gave us Love Canal, and numerous real environmental disasters. So as opposed to flying cars, no regulation would have given us a horrible world

    As for 150k/year. We have historical examples before the regulations that would cast doubt. Without labor regulations, we had children chained to work stations while the warehouses burned. Mostly men dying at work with no safety net for their families.

    The conversation is suffering from what researchers call recency bias. An overemphasis on the problems of over regulation today, while ignoring the problems of lack of regulation that existed previously.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    George.Skinner

    This was a fun episode to listen to, but I wanted to interject with some physics sometimes. The first thing is heat rejection - the Moon probably *isn’t* a great place to site a fusion reactor because you need some place to reject heat in order to produce electricity. In space, they usually do this with a big radiator, but you’re talking about one big radiator to reject gigawatts of heat. The same problem applies to abundant cheap energy on Earth - environmentalists *already* create a huge fuss about the way power plants warm rivers and lakes and impact wildlife. Trust me - they’ll be talking about a different sort of global warming. Arthur C Clarke wrote about the idea of a “thermal crisis” due to abundant energy in “3001.” The difference between Clarke and environmentalists is that Clarke figured that we’d solve the problem. That’s the team *I’m* on - I expect we’ll keep working on things and eventually crack the problem. I’ve been working on hydrogen fuel cells for 22 years. When I joined my company, big auto companies talked about how hydrogen cars would be production ready in 2004. Well, you can buy production cars from Toyota and Hyundai now, although not sure I’d call them totally commercially viable. I’m still working on this stuff, and still optimistic that the technology will make the difference. I’m just more conservative about the expected pace of progress…

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    WorkDog

    Space evalators are the stuff of science fiction, requiring materials and technology that doesn't exist. Space tethers do the same thing almost and are feasible today:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dqwpQarrDwk

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TlpFzn_Y-F0

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Always great to hear some Paul-Ehrlich-bashing.

    Collapse
  8. Rodrubert

    Jonah has, several times now, asserted that cheap energy would obviate the need for dams. This assertion ignores the value of dams in controlling flooding and storing fresh water. It would be interesting to unleash a herd of AEI gnomes to research how many existing dams are used for more than energy generation.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Tele

    The bit of Star Trek I’d like is the turn style transporters in the first season of Picard. Like public transportation, but you never have to give up your seat…you just walk through.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Toog

    I'm surprised at the idea of Star Trek economics being plausible, because I've always found it much harder to suspend disbelief and to go with the flow on the economics than on the physics.

    When they talk about economics, they always say scarcity has been eliminated, and they usually go on to say money was eliminated along with it. But then scarcity and commerce are everywhere, because life doesn't make sense without them.

    They're constantly on the lookout for dilithium, which is scarce enough that they're thrilled when they find it. They sign trade agreements, even as they mock the Ferengi for engaging in commerce. They store up replicator rations to give gifts. In the new movies, Kirk's stepdad is super-annoyed that his antique Corvette might get scratched -- obviously a rare and valued possession. Picard's family business is making actual real wine from grapes, which is plainly not super abundant. The Enterprise impresses everybody who sees it -- why aren't there ships like that all over the place if there's no scarcity? It's obvious in their wars that they don't have unlimited supplies of weapons. etc. etc.

    I agree with Jonah at a very high level that given the technology, the idea of great abundance is more plausible than some Malthusian poverty like in a lot of sci fi. But for me, anyway, the instant I contemplate the limits of that abundance, the whole thing breaks down into self-contradiction.

    Collapse
Load More