I think what he means here is that even if one prove that P=NP, the result itself will have little to no consequences on our daily lives. That is, except if the

I think what he means here is that even if one prove that P=NP, the result itself will have little to no consequences on our daily lives. That is, except if the proof is a constructive reduction from an NP-complete problem to a P problem, but that's highly unlikely. However, the proof itself would be very interesting, because it is likely to involve new technics that would surely be appliable somewhere else and help science in general solve other problems. Also having such a proof would certainly mean that the original question has been reformulated, for instance in something which correspond better to real life than the current, theoretical P vs NP separation. And that's of course also worthy in itself because it means we understand this problem, and surely some other more or less related problems, way better.