/tech/ - Technology

>>11203
I guess the issue is that the existence of suppressed technology is speculative. There's really no clarity on if it exists or if its a bullshit rumor. In principle, I agree though. People who supress technology for profit should be fed to lions in a stadium.

>>11203
I wouldn't call it "suppressed" i would call it neglected technologies, capitalists simply do not fund technology development unless they see a way to profit from it. And we definitely are missing out on some fancy tech because capitalists did not see a business-case for it.

>I'm talking about things like free energy, cancer cures, anti gravity tech.

If you define free-energy as some kind of technology that can reverse entropy (Clark tech named after science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke) I think that's extremely unlikely that somebody can do this, and it might not be possible at all.

But if you define free energy as, energy that is too cheap-to-meter, yes you are right about that. If we had, for the last 50 years, spend half of the worlds military budgets on fusion power, we would now be able to produce so much energy that electricity for households would basically be free of cost.

As far as cancer cures go, i think you have to broaden you view. There is a open conspiracy to not develop one-off cures that fix an illness for good, and instead focus on perpetual treatment, to get captive customers and "recurring revenue".
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/wall-street-admits-curing-diseases-is-bad-for-business/

>anti gravity tech
To be fair that is being funded.
I know of several research projects that could be a precursor to anti-gravity-tech.
Nasa has 2 projects, one based on creating a device that can warp space, and one that exploits inertia-frame-shifting.
Those look somewhat plausible to me, but I think we would need fusion-power to make a device that is powerful enough to have more than a few niche applications.

>>11204
I'm fine with a discussion on that so long as it includes something actionable that the left and right could come together on in the furtherance of such a future. Clark Tech, post-scarcity, these would make many of the gripes between the right and left irrelevant.

>>11205
>I wouldn't call it "suppressed" i would call it neglected technologies

A little of Column A, a little of Column B.

As for free energy, I don't rule out the reversal of entropy, but free energy can also mean energy that is so cheap that it's practically free.

>As far as cancer cures go, i think you have to broaden you view.

Cancer is just one of the more blatant examples of suppressed science. Back when I used to binge on walls of text, one of my favorite haunts was https://ahealedplanet.net/ which goes into a lot of detail about this, and lots of other things.

>anti gravity tech

Viktor Grebennikov

>>11205
>capitalists simply do not fund technology development unless they see a way to profit from it
You're forgetting that governments control immense amounts of money and have zero interest in "profit". Same with central banks and their cronies on wallstreet, the people who actually print all the paper money we use don't need to worry about what's "profitable".

>>11213
>A little of Column A, a little of Column B.
Governments can prevent their citizens from acquiring technology but not each other. USA lost their atomic weapons monopoly after like a year. The idea of "Suppressed Technologies" existing in a globalized multi-polar world is unconvincing.

Apply occam's razor:
[_] all these psychopaths at the top of the world's government, military and financial institutions are all in perfect cooperation and none of them have ever been tempted to exploit the super advanced technology for their own benefit
[_] the super advanced technology simply doesn't exist