&gt; &quot;Should we succeed at controlled, sustained, net-positive fusion, we would qualify it as a new face at the table. I might characterize it as the most expensive way to create electricity ever devised (and electricity is not the hard nut to crack).&quot;<p>It&#x27;s not even been developed, yet the author is convinced it will be &#x27;the most expensive way to create electricity ever devised&#x27;.<p>The article is riddled with statements like that, that twist history to serve the author&#x27;s narrative. In the list of developments unfamiliar to the person from the 19th century we have the toaster and the blender, listed as if these would be modern marvels. In comparison, the push into space over the last 65 years is downplayed, as if the fact we aren&#x27;t all taking space holidays is some indication that the field has been stagnant. Whilst it&#x27;s a shame there haven&#x27;t been any manned missions to moons and planets since the 70s, there&#x27;s been a ton of development in the field... satellites, telescopes, space probes, space stations, etc...<p>I&#x27;d also suggest that a lot of the developments in technology over the past 65 years have been too small to see. Semiconductor manufacturing, bio sciences, etc... Does it really matter if developments aren&#x27;t immediately obvious to the eye?