Exnihiloest wrote:Remundo wrote:...
the "resources", precisely, if you do not "plunder the planet", are very limited, and what there is to share ...
This is what they want us to believe. Resources are unlimited, for the good reason on the one hand, concerning raw materials, that atoms do not disappear (or at the margin with nuclear), and on the other hand, concerning energy, because of its availability in phenomenal quantities for millions of years knowing that E = MC².
Of course if resources are limited ...
the fact that the atoms keep themselves is not enough, when you have rust in front of you, you do not have pure iron. When you have a mountain in front of you, you don't have crushed ore, when you have a slick of crude or gas under your feet, you don't have gasoline in a can or a propane cylinder , etc ...
ACCESSIBLE resources are scarce, and in a world with potentially energy scarcity, resources with an EROEI lower than 1 are no longer accessible.
So if at some point we ran out of something really important, lithium, iron, neodymium or whatever, we would always have the solution to dig into our past waste. Even if the extraction may be more difficult, we trust technical progress and future generations to find the solutions of their time.
since recycling is never done at 100%, it pushes the problem of shortage to a later date without preventing its occurrence. And this under the optimistic assumption that there is always cheap energy to run the recycling industry.
One would have had to be very stupid in the 19th century to give up coal in the name of future generations. They needed it for heating or to move their trains. On this principle, not only would progress, for example thanks to industrialization, have been no longer possible, but people condemned themselves to vegetate and to live in winter in unhealthy housing because they were poorly heated.
The question of "progress" is indeed not settled. For example currently the overconsumption of fossil hydrocarbons allows 8 billion humans to live, including a few hundred million in wealth. It is a digital and qualitative progress, but it is also a huge setback for the environment, and the irreversible destruction on a human time scale of important resources (biological and mining in the broad sense)
Environmentalism and its rehashed messages of "limited resources" is exactly that, wanting to sacrifice people today, for the planet and future generations. Needless to say that future generations, faced with this resignation of one or a few generations that will have preceded them, the future will say how many, will not benefit from anything at all from us, while we took advantage of our ancestors, for example with electrification of countries.
to say that resources are limited is an indisputable fact. Afterwards, I'm not too much of a “Khmer Greens” fan either.
Contrary to the appearances it claims to give itself, ecologism is incapable of daring anything for the future. It is the ideology of heritage conservation as if it were necessary to stop at that of the present without creating a new one, the ideology of the management of a sustained shortage, the ideology of conservatism, of the lack of faith in man, and fear of the future. Environmentalism is an anti-humanist ideology which will sacrifice future generations by collapsing current generations.
In fact, we have to find a middle ground between frenzied decline and excessive extractivism. For this we need to limit demographic growth, to lower consumption per individual, and to make our sources of energy and materials mainly renewable ... a whole program! Technically it is not impossible ...
technically and to a certain extent, huh ...