-snip-
And I'm tired of people assuming the human race currently knows everything about everything.
If we start by assuming that basic scientific understanding of the topic at hand is false, we might as well give up.
And people putting words into toher peoples mouths. No one has said 'X technology could solve all problems'.
The beauty of nano-tech is that, theoretically, they can do whatever you want them to do.
Forgive my misinterpretation...
Why are you and Ebbor so certain that humanities understanding of science will not change in the next 500 years? Our understanding of science and its 'laws' have changed many times over the last 200 years. The fact of the matter is, we could debate fusion, nanotech etc until we are blue in the face but the fact of the matter is men (and women) far more intelligent than us know, to put it bluntly, fuck all about these technologies or where they could lead to in the future or even how they fit into our current understanding. People would be naive to think that the scientific laws are solid. CERN has already documented dozens of instances of interesting happenings that dont fit into our current understanding of the 'laws' of physics and science.
To be perfectly blunt?
It's the only way we
can argue.
To say, as you and Ebbor are, that 'Oh, it isn't possible today so it wont be in 500+ years' is a ridiculous stance. I'm sure people 100 years ago never thought they'd have computers invisible to the naked eye, and materials that are waterproof etc.
From what I'm reading of ebbor's statements, there are fundamental issues with the physics of fusion that prevent it from being efficient at small sizes. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but if I'm not no advances in technology are going to get around that, any more than advances in technology will get around the Laws of Thermodynamics.