Undiscovered technology that would have changed the world

[elman46]

Hello people
If at all times it is authorized to do so here, here is the question that I have been asking myself for some time and I expect answers from you, if you will, here is the question.
"What would become of our society, if suddenly a major invention by its simplicity of application, allowing the production of electricity permanently, abundant, non-polluting and "free" (free, apart from the fact of the purchase of the machine producing it and its maintenance) came to dethrone coal, oil and nuclear power, wind and solar power and hydraulics, all these sources of energy, being more or less financed by banks, on the scale planetary?"
I remind you once again, this question having more to do with the economic or social impact and not with the possibility or not of the existence of such a technology.
Thank you for being broad-minded, I await your answers.

[Ahmed]

This is what is called a thought experiment, an experiment in which one exempts oneself from a factor (here the real possibility of such a device) to see what happens.
Given that the goal of energy is the transformation of the world, an abundant source of energy, inexpensive and easily accessible to all, would result in the current context, certainly in the bankruptcy of the majors of the oil industry, but above all by an acceleration of the destruction of the World*; which destruction is not, in the present state, a mere accidental consequence which it would be possible to partially remedy, but consubstantial with the process of accumulation of value.

* I specify that this includes man, at least in his psychic dimension, but not only...

[humus]

but above all by an acceleration of the destruction of the World*

In capitalism (growthist by definition), the destruction of the world is a possibility.
Although a "revival" in time may occur.

Nothing prevents us from being wise.
For me, it's a package that is necessary: ​​the inexhaustible source of energy and another economic system than the current one.
I don't know which of the two is the most difficult to achieve?
As Obamot rightly pointed out in another topic, the Covid episode showed that it was easy to stop the economy and that smoothly.

For me there are more chances that it will go well and a weak that it will go badly.
It is up to "us" to be vigilant.
The human being is not that idiot.

[Ahmed]

The destruction of the World in the current context is not a possibility: it is in progress... Wisdom would not change anything within a framework which does not lend itself to it.
Finding another mode of social organization remains very difficult, because of the conditions that result from the current situation, such as demography, for example...
The covid parenthesis showed nothing at all except what I described in the thread "Understanding the world we live in?"...
It would be interesting to know the position of Elman46 on the subject...

[elman46]

The destruction of the World in the current context is not a possibility: it is in progress... Wisdom would not change anything within a framework which does not lend itself to it.
Finding another mode of social organization remains very difficult, because of the conditions that result from the current situation, such as demography, for example...
The covid parenthesis showed nothing at all except what I described in the thread "Understanding the world we live in?"...
It would be interesting to know the position of Elman46 on the subject...

(Dsl, but I land on this site, I do not know if I will answer where it is necessary = and as it should be )
I don't really want to interfere, I just want to have opinions on the question posed at the start that would almost end up tormenting me.
But even though I'm going to say a few words, I think, am I certainly naive, that it would be an excellent thing, if such an energy could make itself known so that humans can finally start off on the right foot, even if for the "old" quoted on the launch of the subject, the banking economy especially would be a disaster and suffered by many as a punishment, but for me it would be a return to normal to go much further, to follow our normal course, with beings that we are supposed to be equipped with a brain capable of the best but also of the worst, knowing that the worst often comes precisely from this lack of clean and unlimited energy without danger for the one who uses it. (putting your fingers in the gears of a mechanism, not being recommended either ) the war in Syria demonstrates that energy can be the cause of conflict.
the countries where it is cold are more inclined to run after them, knowing that they in general, in the beautiful days, have the ground which gives them good harvests that the free solar energy offers them.

[Rajqawee]

but above all by an acceleration of the destruction of the World*

In capitalism (growthist by definition), the destruction of the world is a possibility.
Although a "revival" in time may occur.

Nothing prevents us from being wise.
For me, it's a package that is necessary: ​​the inexhaustible source of energy and another economic system than the current one.
I don't know which of the two is the most difficult to achieve?
As Obamot rightly pointed out in another topic, the Covid episode showed that it was easy to stop the economy and that smoothly.

For me there are more chances that it will go well and a weak that it will go badly.
It is up to "us" to be vigilant.
The human being is not that idiot.

I'm just clarifying what Ahmed is saying.

Using any form of energy means transforming the environment. Not in the "biological environment" sense, in the physical sense.
This is, in fact, the definition:
"In physics, energy is a quantity that measures the capacity of a system to modify a state, to produce work resulting in movement, electromagnetic radiation or heat."
So if you get a source of say, virtually infinite energy, what you do with the aim of change current state. From this moment, you therefore accelerate the modification of the existing one. It could go in different directions than today, but using this energy ultimately comes down to faster and more massive transformations.
The discovery of such energy could solve short-term problems (which are real), but would not at all solve the fundamental problem: what place should man have in his environment? To what extent do human societies have to modify their environment (in the physical sense)?

[sicetaitsimple]

As Obamot rightly pointed out in another topic, the Covid episode showed that it was easy to stop the economy and that smoothly.

Is this a joke?
The tens of billions injected into support for businesses, their employees, businesses, the self-employed affected in their activity, have you forgotten them?
"it without clashes", it is the result of "whatever the cost".

[Ahmed]

He wants to say that this injection allowed this suspension without too much breakage... But suspension of short duration, let us not forget it.

[elman46]

but above all by an acceleration of the destruction of the World*

In capitalism (growthist by definition), the destruction of the world is a possibility.
Although a "revival" in time may occur.

Nothing prevents us from being wise.
For me, it's a package that is necessary: ​​the inexhaustible source of energy and another economic system than the current one.
I don't know which of the two is the most difficult to achieve?
As Obamot rightly pointed out in another topic, the Covid episode showed that it was easy to stop the economy and that smoothly.

For me there are more chances that it will go well and a weak that it will go badly.
It is up to "us" to be vigilant.
The human being is not that idiot.

I'm just clarifying what Ahmed is saying.

Using any form of energy means transforming the environment. Not in the "biological environment" sense, in the physical sense.
This is, in fact, the definition:
"In physics, energy is a quantity that measures the capacity of a system to modify a state, to produce work resulting in movement, electromagnetic radiation or heat."
So if you get a source of say, virtually infinite energy, what you do with the aim of change current state. From this moment, you therefore accelerate the modification of the existing one. It could go in different directions than today, but using this energy ultimately comes down to faster and more massive transformations.
The discovery of such energy could solve short-term problems (which are real), but would not at all solve the fundamental problem: what place should man have in his environment? To what extent do human societies have to modify their environment (in the physical sense)?

At the question
what place should man have in his environment?
he must have his place, see occupy the place where no being can live permanently and must respect the beings around him, that's why he has a brain to be able to adapt

To what extent human societies must modify their environment (in the physical sense)
Clean energy allows us not to put ourselves in danger and also those around us, I am thinking of animals, and I forgot on the subject that I launched, that this energy would be usable here on earth and elsewhere, because having a infinite energy (sustainable), interstellar travel becomes possible to conquer other spaces, and if already occupied, go where the human can make his hole without disturbing anyone.

All of this seems logical to me.

[Ahmed]

...beware of holes like the plague!