Unlimited energy: the solution for all the worlds troubles?

[Damrod]

Is it? I had this discussion recently with a friend, and his idea was the following:

"Imagine this: Someone invents a working cold-fusion reactor. And the plans for this are then 'open-source'. Everybody can build it. With a minimum of costs for the reactor material. Everybody, every nation would have enough energy for everything the need.

Countries in which people starve because there is no food as there is not enough water to grow stuff. Just as an example. You can build filtration facilities that can treat sea water and transport it with pumps to where you need it. Even into the middle of the Sahara desert. You don't have to care about the costs for energy to transport, as you have all the energy you need."

That was his basic idea. Why he thinks that it would solve all the worlds problems (or current problems so to say) is that there would be no wars for resources. He is absolutely confident that most, if not all of todays wars are fought because of lacking certain resources. With religious reasoning or similar stuff just being 'excuses'.

I was wondering what you folks think about it? Might bring up interesting discussion

[PerpetualBurn]

I don't know why he'd suppose that cold-fusion reactors would be cheap and easy for everyone to build.

And just because you have sufficient energy, doesn't mean you have sufficient supplies of everything else.

[Damrod]

Well, it was basically just an example or scenario he thought of to better explain what he thought of. His point was that a seamingly endless amount of energy could solve a lot of problems. He thought of wars that are fought for resources (which are today mostly of energy delivery purpose -> oil), and it could solve problems with food etc. Energy to efficiently run growhouses in places like the antarctic or desserts would be no problem anymore in terms of bringing up the energy to run air conditioning to grow food there. That was basically his idea.

Maybe that does not come clear enough from my initial post

[griftadan]

Originally Posted by Damrod

Someone invents a working cold-fusion reactor. And the plans for this are then 'open-source'. Everybody can build it. With a minimum of costs for the reactor material.

lawl

[pixiesfanyo]

I doubt we are going to find anything that's cheaper than the price of oil right now.

[AKid2]

I'll bet there would still exist allocation problems. In many ways I bet it would mirror the food situation. There's plenty of food for everyone, but some aren't entitled to it. Just because we have an unlimited power source doesn't mean everyone has the cash to plug into it.

Also, building a nuclear cold fusion reactor with a minimalist mindset seems like a poor idea.

It is an interesting concept though, I just think the initial investment will be overwhelming.

[Kragen]

I disagree, most wars are fought because people can fight. If the plans to some miracle reactor were suddenly put on the internet, then people would quickly see some military or strategic advanatage to this technology (maybe some sort of high powered bomb, or an energy weapon that was previously considered worthless due to high power needs (perhaps some sort of rail gun), or superfast fission powered tank or something).

There would instantly be a large arm's race, where people realised that unless they developed these new weapons and armed themsevles first, someone else would arm themselves and they would be defenceless.

People seem to have the need to fight and take power just for the sake of it. Someone will decide to try and stop other people building these reactors, so they can sell energy and make profit from it, Someone else will have religous beliefs which clash with someone elses.

The idea "if there are enough resources so that everyone can coexist, then no-one will fight each other" just doesnt work - if there are enough resources for everyone to coexist, then that means that if some people have slightly more of the resources, then they can coexist in more comfort than everyone else.

We already have plenty of resources on this planet to feed and shelter everyone, but half of the people want to have 3 course meals every day, drive around in 7 seater car's live until they are 90, have huge breasts, and generally speaking want other people to do all the hard work for them.

[Jude]

It would reduce wars, probably, but they would still go on.

[Reaganista]

global revolution is the solution to all the world's problems

[Ghostfire3]

America would never allow this to happen. It benefits the people too much. It's not good for business.

[coheneran]

How about a series of cogs powered by magnets that repel and attract each other, placed strategically to carry on spinning into infinity, or at least until the magnet's energy runs out. I know I'm no scientist, and that perpetual motion is supposed to be impossible, but hey.

[BassRevelation1029]

The obvious problem i see is that not all wars are fought for resources.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

Is there an event in history that may show us the consequences of introducing reactors? Printing Press, something?

[Atomic Rain]

Originally Posted by coheneran

How about a series of cogs powered by magnets that repel and attract each other, placed strategically to carry on spinning into infinity, or at least until the magnet's energy runs out. I know I'm no scientist, and that perpetual motion is supposed to be impossible, but hey.

"In this house, we obey the laws of thermmodynamics!"

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Ghostfire3

America would never allow this to happen. It benefits the people too much. It's not good for business.

And this will be America's downfall. The next 100 years belongs to Asian communism.

[Reaganista]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rain

"In this house, we obey the laws of thermmodynamics!"

thermodynamiks is kkkapitalist bull****

[Ghostfire3]

Originally Posted by The Tway

thermodynamiks is kkkapitalist bull****

Very true. I must admit, I'm liking the new and improved Tway.

[coheneran]

Originally Posted by BassRevelation1029

The obvious problem i see is that not all wars are fought for resources.

They pretty much have. Either that or to stop communism, which boils down to who controls the resources and means of production.

[jurialmunkey]

I think everyone fails to see that PEOPLE are also a resource. Why do you think the English occupied India... Why did they go to Africa??? To get slaves. Most wars and invasions are a way of maintaining a way of life at the expense of someone else. Imagine America in control of something such as China - it will never happen because both are much too powerful, but if it did happen - America would be able to run under a banner of commercialised capitalist democracy whilst running the output of communized slave labour.

[coheneran]

Originally Posted by jurialmunkey

I think everyone fails to see that PEOPLE are also a resource. Why do you think the English occupied India... Why did they go to Africa??? To get slaves. Most wars and invasions are a way of maintaining a way of life at the expense of someone else. Imagine America in control of something such as China - it will never happen because both are much too powerful, but if it did happen - America would be able to run under a banner of commercialised capitalist democracy whilst running the output of communized slave labour.

Umm, the West pretty much DOES utilise the 3rd World's almost slavelike conditions of labour. McDonalds, Nike, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, almost every maker of footballs and basketballs, dozens of toy companies, etc.. If you ever see a tag that says "Made In China/Indonesia/Thailand/Mexico/India/Philippines" or any other 3rd World country, it is almost guaranteed to be a product of slave, child or unfair labour.