They actually don't know that they are "securing humanity's industrial course." Our global engineering capacity is finite, and we could have spent all this time, money, and brainpower on tractable problems. Regardless of whether they think they are lying to us for our own good, it's not their decision to make. If anything, time has shown that it has not been for our own good.
It is a bald faced lie. They know exactly what we think they mean when they talk about energy gains.
>They know exactly what we think they mean when they talk about energy gains.
Indeed they do. They think "the metric we've been using to gauge relative fusion reactor performance for the past 50 years". You're suggesting not changing the metric as breakeven is approached is a lie.
Really? When talking to the laypublic, they think we know they are talking about a metric that most people don't even know exists? If you asked 10 people on the street, how many of them would even know high-energy plasma is involved in a fusion reactor?
It's so absurd when talking about an energy generation technology to talk about any energy metric other than energy in versus energy out, it's unfathomable to me that you could possibly believe it's not intentionally deceptive. Either these people can't be trusted with public communication from demonstrated incompetence or intentional deceit. Which one is worse?
They are using this metric in public communication because they know it gets them funding. Full stop. Do they not stop and wonder "why does this metric get us funding?" Your take is incredibly naive.
It is a bald faced lie. They know exactly what we think they mean when they talk about energy gains.