ABC2019 wrote:that's what I actually thought. You play the one who does not understand but you understand the realities very well. You don't accept them, that's all.
Lost. I do not play the one who does not understand, I understood the situation very well, I know the real.
Well done you finally understood that I do not accept reality current Hence, we do not revolt enough.
I find it takes a while to get up there, but after all, you must have been a sheep all your life, so conceiving of imaginaries opposed to yours is difficult for you.
Remember that I don't accept reality CURRENT and I consider the realistic POSSIBLES.
and you, obviously the current reality suits you, even you endorse it. ( criminal in addition! )
Your strong argument being that you do not see what else we can do by dismissing out of hand everything we can present to you as an opening or as a contradiction.
I call this the "old jerk" mode of communication. Is this your case?
This is why it is unproductive to exchange with you since there is no exchange, you do not listen to the other and twist almost everything.
ABC2019 wrote:So your "in theory it's doable", I don't understand the meaning.
This means that nothing is opposed to it in principle with current technologies.
ABC2019 wrote:For me, if nobody knows how to do it, I say that it is not doable.
Isn't it feasible to build a gigantic ring in space? nuclear powered in space?
You'll get your antimatter, even if it doesn't seem rational to me to do so.
You might as well use nuclear energy directly, right?
Everything I have just described is technically feasible, but at what material cost, at what energy cost, at what financial cost?
It is therefore theoretically feasible but in practice it is of no interest.
Well, it's not me who wants an antimatter spaceship, it's you
ABC2019 wrote:Except that everything I say is more basic, theoretically feasible and the technique allows it to be done.
We know how to make H2, we know how to make vehicles with H2, there is nothing extraterrestrial about it.
but MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE. And much more expensive, that means that we would produce much less, because much less people could afford it. It's like yachts or private jets, no problem, we know how to do it.
But not for everyone.
https://www.hyundai.com/fr/modeles/nexo
Don't be kidding, you know very well that it is the volume of production that drives prices down.
ABC2019 wrote:Again, the goal is not to divide resource consumption by 4. That's easy, you just have to make people 4 times poorer, basically. The goal is to know if we can have the SAME wealth with 4 times less resources; Do you understand that it is VERY different? and that if it is not possible, it will be necessary to considerably reduce its consumption, and that nobody really wants that?
And always to twist the reality: it is not to divide by 4 the consumption of resources but to divide by 4 the consumption of resources non-renewable.
But I am aware that this would have caused a drop in the average standard of living.
It is the price to pay to be sustainable for more than a century, it is a choice, we did not make it.
But today this scenario is dead, even if we wanted to, it's too late!
In theory it's always possible
But in practice, the consumption of non-renewable resources should be voluntarily divided by X >> 4.
So we won't do it, but nature will do it for us without qualms. in suffering and chaos for us.
Unless Gunter Pauli's blue economy offers other perspectives produce negative waste.