Talk:Free energy suppression
Surely it would be capitalist sense for the companies to invest in the technology and then flog '57 varieties of devices' to the public - most people have more than one 'cheap writing implement', 'buy the latest conspicuous consumption item' etc — Unsigned, by: 220.127.116.11 / talk / contribs
- Yes, it would. Which is why most conspiracies that state that big companies are suppressing information will be BS, it's same for free energy as it is miracle alternative medicine cures. If a company can make a profit from something, it will jump on it. That's just a fact. sshole 17:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Note complaints from alt-med that Big Pharma is suppressing its treatments while it steals folk remedies to market them. While it does do the latter, it does so when they work provably. And as for the former, it doesn't suppress them - it sells them. Water, £5.99! Same for industry. If there was some super cheap source of energy, hell. Sell it to Google, their entire business is commoditising their suppliers and complements - David Gerard (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the biggest hold-back in all of scientific progress (or any kind of progress) is the sheer number of mediocre minds in the science community that block progress because of a) envy, b) their minds just can't comprehend anything new/they are educated beyond their ability, c) vested interests ("you're good, you're going to put me out of a job").
As Einstein said: "The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly".
Or: "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds".
The truth is, the vast majority of degree (and above) educated people are regurgitators, just there making up the numbers, stumbling through life making very little contribution. Their only actions is to block those better than them. So sad. This kind of pathological entitlement culture (the smart arse, know-it-all type who carps at anything they didn't do), goes with the (usually) hot-housed, ex-smart kid type, who showed great promise but burnt out in life when they found out how devoid of ideas there were. They usually vote Democrat/Labour, masturbate thinking of Hillary Clinton and find Stephen Colbert deep and very funny - the type that gets stuck in middle management whilst younger better people leapfrog over them, as they are given severance at about age 45. Why you wanna wear your neurosis and inadequacies on your sleeve so much and make it obvious you are jealous? Too many notes Mozart?? — Unsigned, by: 18.104.22.168 / talk / contribs
- .. Are you trying to make a case for or against this 'free energy suppression' thing? In either case, scientific progress is held back by the lack of funding. It's the reason we don't make leaps and bounds in R&D in medicine. People don't want to publish papers that say they couldn't repeat experiments. So they put all the funding into bulletproof research in order to get published, so that they can have more funding. Problem is though, bulletproof research A) isn't always helpful and B) doesn't help us make lots and lots of progress. You wanna help us make progress? Yell at your congressman for funding. And by the way, there isn't anything wrong with voting Democrat (it's probably better anyway, as Clinton would have put less money into the military and more into infrastructure and - guess what - funding for science). Vive Liberté! 03:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
- Do you call "Hot fusion" (or hot fusion woo, or the heavily subsidised, commercially unviable windmill or solar panel woo) and the 10s of billions spent on it "bulletproof research"? It certainly hasn't made lots of progress since the early 1950s. If you wanna make progress, you might rationally convince the public that big science and the cliquey peer review system is a drain and cancer on progress. Mind you Democrats/Labour, pro-Washington, pro-EU types love big government and big spending, as the academic elite (I class myself as a member BTW), always know better than Johnny Taxpayer and how to spend his money and condescend to him in a sado-masochistic relationship loved by Big-Staters.
Wait! Wait! Don't lie to me!
As someone who works in the energy field in general and the development field in particular, I must say that I had to read this a couple times for it to sink in. People actually buy this nonsense? Really? The Goonie Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 22:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Reasons for suppression
section seems empty of information (other than the sci-fi I moved to its own section):
"An interesting reason proposed by proponents for the suppression of free energy technologies is that a capitalist system would crumble if the technology was introduced."
How and why? ħuman 03:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I believe it's a reference to "babylon". You couldn't have the sheeple running in cycles etc. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
YOU FOOLISH CAPITALISTS WILL LICK YOUR MASTER'S BOOTS ALL DAY, EVERYDAY ENERGY IS FREE DOWN WITH THE SYSTEM ANTI-SEMITES, CAPITALISTS, YOU'RE ALL THE SAME: ALL IGNORANT, LOW INTELLIGENCE
All capitals, abusive, racist, unsigned - how many drinks?
Post-scarcity straw man
The In fiction section claims that the lack of fictional technologies is the reason post-scarcity societies don't exist in real life. However, post-scarcity in general claims to neither provide absolute abundance of resources, nor require such technology for such a system to exist. Yes, there is plenty of futurist fiction that couples post-scarcity with fictional (if not impossible) technology like replicators and free energy, but that does not disprove post-scarcity operating in the real world under much more realistic technologies. Chrstphrchvz (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Energy and capitalism
Capitalism would not collapse in a world of 'free energy' - people would find other things to buy and sell (water is available at 'the costs of the networks' and yet people buy all sorts of expensive drinks, including 'bottles of messed around water'). Anna Livia (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think you'll see that that's the exact point the article already makes. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Not directly.
- There is a difference between 'flavoured water' and 'messed around water' (chiefly price and claims made for the latter). Anna Livia (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)