Continuing yesterday's theme of mass media non-attacks, here is a
mention of cold fusion in a Washington Times book review:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/11/recognizing-the-struggle-for-what-it-is/a
This is an article about the conflict between the West and some
radical Muslim movements. The Washington Times is a conservative newspaper.
QUOTE:
"There is no better argument for alternative energy than the
beneficial effect such technologies would have on U.S. national
security. If cold fusion or some other inexpensive and unlimited
energy source were invented tomorrow, the Middle East could return to
being the cultural and political backwater it was for centuries."
I do not think this is intended to be irony or sarcasm. I wrote to the author.
I must say, I disagree with the sentiments expressed. I can think of
lots of more compelling arguments for alternative energy, such as the
fact that it would save tens of thousands of lives every week and
prevent global warming. Marginalizing some anti-western groups in
Arab countries would also be a benefit, but small in comparison.
In any case, I hope the Middle Eastern oil-producing nations are not
marginalized, or turned into a cultural backwater. That does seem
likely, but I hope instead that they benefit as much from cold fusion
as much as anyone else, and also from a renaissance in science.
Naturally, I hope the end of petro-dollars will reducing funding for
terrorism! But I do not blame Middle Eastern nations because they
happen to be sitting on a lot of oil and we have made them extremely
wealthy. I think that was a misguided thing to do but it was our
fault, not theirs.
- Jed
