Remember how Elizabeth Holmes got investors to give her billions of dollars for her secret Theranos blood test machine, ironically called Edison, that didn’t actually exist? I feel like nuclear fusion is another case of wishful thinking like Holmes’ blood test and Tesla’s Tower . The fusion machines are not as secretive, but the results are definitely not very good so far.

If nuclear fusion can be accomplished and scaled to make it a viable source of limitless energy, the technocracy can succeed. If not, it’s much less likely that the tech overlords will be able to create their transhuman dystopia.

Wait? Don’t we already have nuclear fusion? No. Although there was a fusion ‘breakthrough‘ in 2022, don’t get too excited. There are a number of challenges that need to be overcome before fusion power can be used to generate electricity on a commercial scale. One challenge is to find a way to contain the fusion reaction for long enough to produce a significant amount of energy. Another challenge is to find a way to make fusion reactors affordable.

The first successful nuclear fusion reaction was achieved by researchers at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the United States in 1952. However, nuclear fission was used to produce the fusion reaction.

Nuclear power plants use nuclear fission, which is the opposite of fusion. Fission splits an atom and fusion, you guessed it, fuses, or joins, two atoms. Both processes create energy. But fusion requires huge amounts of energy to create that energy, so the outcome must produce even more energy than it uses to make it worthwhile. Plus, it’s a very expensive process, and there are many other steps to actually getting from the point of a successful fusion reaction to providing electricity to your outlet.

There are many videos you can watch on YouTube that explain how fusion might work and how multiple million and billion dollar startups are attempting to produce this possibly mythical cheap and unlimited energy. While entrepreneurs like Sam Altman and Bill Gates are very excited about the possibilities, I am leaning towards the idea that it will either never happen, or if it does, it will be very bad for humans. Call me skeptical, but it seems like a lot of other scientific hype that may take decades to figure out or never be achieved.

But back to my main point, it dawned on me that the idea, if not the actuality, of limitless energy is critical to the narrative of a future world that has overcome all limitations, including death, the human body, communication, and the need for the energy to power this world that will be always ON and connected. This is the technocracy. Whoever controls the technology, controls the world.

Not everyone thinks that is a bad thing. Technocracy arose in the beginning of the industrial age and was promoted by progressives as a way to address inequality. Technocrats believe that the best way to run a society is to have it governed by experts and scientists who have the knowledge and expertise to make informed decisions.

The term “technocracy” was first used by William Henry Smyth, a California engineer, in 1919. Smyth defined technocracy as “the rule of the people made effective through the agency of their servants, the scientists and engineers.”

However, the ideas that underlie technocracy were first developed by Thorstein Veblen, an American economist and sociologist. Veblen believed that technological developments would eventually lead to a socialistic reorganization of economic affairs. He saw socialism as one intermediate phase in an ongoing evolutionary process in society that would be brought about by the natural decay of the business enterprise system and the rise of the engineers.

In 1932, Howard Scott and Marion King Hubbert founded Technocracy Incorporated, a group that promoted the technocratic ideology. Technocracy Incorporated proposed that money be replaced by energy certificates and that the economy be managed by a group of experts who would use scientific principles to allocate resources.

Technocracy never gained widespread support, but it has had a significant influence on the development of modern society. Many of the ideas that were first proposed by the early technocrats were later adopted by mainstream Progressives. For example, the Progressives’ focus on using scientific evidence to make policy decisions was influenced by the technocrats’ belief in the importance of science, and many governments have established agencies that are staffed by experts in order to advise them on complex issues. However, there are ongoing power struggles between tech elites and political elites.

Progressive elitist technocracy is not really possible within the current narrative of climate change because they will need much more energy to power a world with its internet of things, electric vehicles, and retrofitted and new electric-powered buildings. So they have to create this myth that we can overcome our dependence of energy from the earth or sun and be able to create a NEW SUN that they could control. Nuclear fusion is the same type of energy that the sun makes. This would theoretically break God’s power over man if scientists could truly control life and energy.

We do not currently produce enough clean energy to meet the ambitious goals of deploying electric vehicles and converting buildings to all electric heat and cooking. Getting to that point will require trillions of dollars and new technology for energy storage, as well as the materials and labor. Renewables like wind and solar only provide a fraction of the energy we use today. This gap between climate goals and reality makes the achievement of nuclear fusion as an energy source that much more urgent.

If they do not succeed by their own deadlines, I would not be surprised if they simply claim to be able to create clean energy while still using fossil fuels. After all, billions have been invested in fusion, both privately and publicly. In the meantime, it will be interesting to observe the propaganda and marketing that is guaranteed to be pushed out regularly and designated as scientific truth.