dimreepr

That's got nothing to do with the question I'm asking; we're never going to forget that fusion is possible, it just takes a lot more gravity than we have avaliable. I'm suggesting that our resources are better spent, before we run out...

This is an ethical question, the numbers don't matter if it's not part of the solution.

That's doesn't answer the question, I'm not suggesting we shut down humanities R and D department, just the one that doesn't seem to work, after all this time and mental efforts. Our time and efforts are better spent on projects that do work, you know the clock is ticking, right?

The problem is, all the evidence you present does nothing to change mainstream/conventional thinking which thinks you're wrong; this is my last hint mate. 😉 Just for clarity, I mean you need a better argument. 🖖

It takes vast amounts of energy to even get a second or so of actual fusion and how costly that energy is, in terms of cost to the planet. The money is better spent on something achievable in terms of clean energy, perhaps fission. I'm not suggesting we entirely give up on the potential benefits, we mothball the project until the energy cost is not on the planet.

There's always a "catcher in the rye" that people don't want to understand.

Do you have a better idea?

Well, wadda ya know, proof that a paradox can't exist, congratulations on your logical side of reason, where x = bollox...

Have you??? You can't force people to have sex, that's illegal; so the best solution, is to relax and hope for the best, if you want to avoid a sentence; that you won't want to hear. 😇

As far as I'm aware, there has never been a war, between nation's, that was started specifically to depose a dictator, it's always a civil matter; I dare you to say "Iraq"... There's a reason culture's are victims of stereotyping, nurture v nature explained. We're all humans that react in basically the same way, and culture provides the mould that shapes our thinking...

Imagine if this was meant literally, with soz being text speak for sorry and the emoji being an expression of innocents; you could be accused of overthinking, imagine that...

Well, as long as this little parlour game of ours, lasts long enough for the edit. 🖖

As am I sometimes, didn't see the emoji, soz. 😇

If that was sarcasm, then yes I missed it; perhaps next time you include an emoji... And you can avoid my poetic nature. 😉

It's a question of balance, while enough of the populous can feel relatively comfortable, then the minority can look out for themselves; while the majority pat themselves on the back for putting a quid in the collection box. I think @TheVat is correct, even in the face of blanket propaganda, enough people are savvy enough to keep hold of the fundamental truth of humanity; so that when the balance shifts revolution often results.

Sensing when someone is looking at you without seeing them, is literally mind reading without, even, a clue from text; 'from future past'. Even hyper-vigilant criminal's can be spied on, without their knowledge.

Perhaps, but we could be recognising a word we heard the day after yesterday, when normal conformed to the words I know and surprise is a word I'll hear tomorrow...

India, where Muhatma's dignity defeated the British or South Africa, where Nelson dignified forgiveness and Russia on a couple of occasions. Indeed, the problem is that they manage to keep most of the people fed and sheltered, just well enough to feel comfortable; while keeping them just scared enough to feel uncomfortable with any other solution.

That sounds exhausting...

So, do you think that it's not mad to test the bonderies?

Only everywhere in history, as Huxley suggested in "It's a brave new world" and Orwell suggests in "1984"...

Sometimes it's hormonal... 🙄

It's not weaponry that defeat's them, it's human dignity...

Well, you've succeeded in that...