As someone who was working at a fusion startup when Musk was doing PayPal, your post hit a bit close to home for this particular idiot. Had I known back then that I would have been better off doing an internet startup and then later do a fusion startup with the petty cash fund, I would obviously have chosen that route. But like most founders, I thought I could actually succeed, or why else try?
The real issue with incentivizing long-term investment is one of distributing risk and reward over both participants and time. The great advantage of the web startup space is the quick time to expand the market - even if working fusion were here today, it would not have the growth curve typical of successful web companies. Add this to the long and risky development time for things like fusion (or AI, or space launchers, etc.), and what you say seems obvious.
So, why did I choose to follow the risky route rather than the more assured Big R&D route? Well, competition is the main answer. Big R&D projects often start with the idea that developing something is expensive, and since you can't afford to build more than one, this idea morphs into the One True Design (e.g. ITER/Tokomak in fusion). Then big R&D turns its back on other, possibly cheaper development paths. Taking the VC route may put the risk on to the participants, but at least it is open to new, cheap ideas which may be able to bypass the big R&D route.
For the record I'm a die-hard scientist at heart and hold individuals who attempt to tackle the greatest scientific and technological challenges (e.g. fusion) in the absolute highest esteem. I understand that at the moment, the VC funded route is undoubtedly the only logical path. However, that doesn't change the fact that it is extremely sub-optimal in the long run. In a different era, you would have your own lab after a quick run through academia and ample funding to pursue your research. You would not be restricted to working on an ITER style mega project.
I would be willing to accept the end of those times if the alternative (VC funded startups) was superior. Alas, when it comes to large problems, I fear it may be a massive step back.
The oncoming wave of labor automation should spark a new debate about how we want to reorganize our societies to adapt to such drastic changes. I'm hoping that at this point, we can begin to emphasize the importance of research as a fundamental human endeavor.
The real issue with incentivizing long-term investment is one of distributing risk and reward over both participants and time. The great advantage of the web startup space is the quick time to expand the market - even if working fusion were here today, it would not have the growth curve typical of successful web companies. Add this to the long and risky development time for things like fusion (or AI, or space launchers, etc.), and what you say seems obvious.
So, why did I choose to follow the risky route rather than the more assured Big R&D route? Well, competition is the main answer. Big R&D projects often start with the idea that developing something is expensive, and since you can't afford to build more than one, this idea morphs into the One True Design (e.g. ITER/Tokomak in fusion). Then big R&D turns its back on other, possibly cheaper development paths. Taking the VC route may put the risk on to the participants, but at least it is open to new, cheap ideas which may be able to bypass the big R&D route.