François Roddier, thermodynamics and society

[sen-no-sen]

In principle, it is not complicated to solve, it suffices to raise awareness of our actions.
On the other hand, we cannot force anyone to raise awareness, whatever the repetition ends up doing its work.

Conscious of our actions ... It smacks of personal development!
People in industrialized countries are probably much more aware of ecological problems than a peasant in the Middle Ages would have been.
We have a gigantic amount of knowledge that would have made more than one emperor envy ... and yet.
In fact consciousness plays almost no role in the process of transforming the world. People are aware that using their cars pollutes but they use it because it is necessary to go to work, while in other peripheral countries people don't give a damn about ecological problems but ultimately live as such!
It can also be easily demonstrated that the biggest polluters are the most committed to ecology (which is perfectly in line with the principle of infinite correction).

Mr ego / striatum and Mrs conscience are not actually of much use within the super anthropotechnical organism. Nor would having a woman in power change anything. To be polite I think that this kind of argument is close to the zero level of thought.
One could very well imagine a cyborg world without striatum, without ego and without consciousness and arrived in exactly the same situation as today.
This is well demonstrated with the experiments on elementary cellular automata. Within the System, we are relegated to switching elements and we become zombies ...

[humus]

In fact consciousness plays almost no role in the process of transforming the world.

As long as one is aware on the surface, it is true.
Did I not say yesterday that if those at the top of the pyramid were aware of their actions, they would stop exploiting on their own?
Like the one who crushes ants for pleasure. Why is he stopping?
Knowledge of history? knowledge of thermodynamics? or some other knowledge whatsoever?

[humus]

You say:

I do not see how considering the basis of all our actions would prevent serious thinking.

It is only an apparent base, history and anthropology refute this hypothesis ... Therefore, how do you want to build something which is thus distorted at the base? Lots of "serious" people (at least more than the collapsogs and other current hucksters) have already addressed these questions and it would be a good start to start by critically examining their proposals, just to move the process forward. schmilblick and not to become encysted in easily avoidable conceptual errors. ]

Apart from talking in the negative and remaining very vague, what do you actually propose? I do not understand.
please be more concrete.

"Cutting off the legs" to capitalism, as you wish, is it possible in practice?

I don't know, it's a lead. The only one that seems quickly feasible to me that would allow a rapid implementation of the virtuous.

Assuming so, is this not implicitly recognizing the legitimacy of its specific categories? ]

What categories, what are you talking about?

Another possibility, there are those who recognize the difficulty of bringing down capitalism and who think that it is enough to wait painfully for its natural death,

Too long, it will almost all end up in a coffin with the system and nature. Meadows.
What ABC2019 promotes the butcher

[humus]

As you like the videos, here is one (she has a sequel) fromAndré Gorz:

"Excellent", if I may say so. Mr more at work over time, becoming more and more inhuman.
I could not say if before the beginnings of capitalism, the systematism of competition and less social distancing, were stifled by a real (moral) conscience or if it was simply a question of respecting an ancestral social order?
On the other hand, clearly, the beginning of capitalism is the fruit of a human unconsciousness (unconsciousness of human values) in favor of a "consciousness" of profit of certain Mr Plus.

If I may say so, we can clearly see the absence of an energetic cause at the initiation of this process.
Only the greed of some Mr Plus, taking advantage of their power, is at work.
Again and again: Mr more vs conscience.
everywhere, the man at the center.
his desires, his unconsciousness.

[Ahmed]

There is a contradiction in your words, either man is at the center, or he is unconscious (because the consciousness of profit is only an energetic determinism).
To answer your question, before capitalism, individuals (although this notion is anachronistic) submitted to other fetishes, specific to the society of the time. The transition to capitalism is a new type of alienation; what you backproject like a "Mr plus", is none other than the real subject of the commodity: the abstract value, or if one prefers the energy flows. The individual does not exist, except as an indifferent agent of execution of an undifferentiated work (since all the works can be compared independently of their variety).

[humus]

There is a contradiction in your words, either the man is in the center or he is unconscious

No contradiction. It's not either, it's both.
Man is at the center of all decisions, of all acts and man is oblivious to certain consequences of his actions (less and less, fortunately) and very unconscious when he is the plaything of his Mrplus part (this concerns an intimate part that few accept to see).

[humus]

To conclude on the subject, if we observe without prejudice, we see that the desire of man is at the center of all problems on the planet.
To consider that living like an Amish is unacceptable is a human cultural problem.
That we live as an Amish does not disturb the animals, the plants, the river, the genuine Amishs, or the original peoples. It only bothers someone who has experienced a much more comfortable lifestyle.
It is the loss that bothers Mr more in himself, and man suffers from this present or future loss.
Energy, resources, climate are just parameters in the hands of human desire
(Mr plus and Mr minus more satisfaction, and less suffering).

Desire arises spontaneously in the human brain. It is the response of everyone's own culture.
One will want to see a bullfight show, the other will want to eat vegan. Everyone taking pleasure in their favorite activity.
With the Western way of life, we have experienced what can be considered the highest standard of living comfort ever.
Going back down is a problem for us, it generates suffering, going back down is inevitable and can be dramatic.

The system that we have put in place, our Western capitalist way of life as a whole, is only held together by perpetual growth of activity and consumption of resources.

It would be naive to believe that this could go on for a long time.
We intuitively know that the party will come to an end.
The Meadows team showed this in the 70s.
The western way of life, coupled with growing (now high) demographics causes the system to implode at one point. Demographics are falling very sharply due to the scarcity of resources, environmental degradation and pollution.
Currently we would be few on the planet, the Western way of life would be perfectly sustainable for a long time and there would be no global warming.

When we want to preserve life, which includes the current world population and its current environment, we must ask ourselves the question of the human way of life.

Are we forced to return to an Amish way of life to last or do our current scientific and technical knowledge allow a way of life with a better level of comfort that of the Amish and sustainable over time?

Science and technology today are what they are.
I proposed a convention of scientists and specialists from all fields, so that they develop an economic highway code with rules of good conduct to follow and bad ones to avoid.

A code of what it is possible to do best according to the constraints of resources, the environment, demography and the sustainability of all that.
Either an economic highway code according to the physical reality of the world.
The financial aspect is not a parameter to consider given its totally artificial character. Just look at the ease with which we have created Billions recently.
It would be an economic code like the highway code which certainly constrains but does not prevent going where you want, and saves lives.

Since we cannot get out of capitalism, I also pointed to the idea of ​​strong taxation in order to redirect money from the top of the pyramid * towards the establishment of this virtuous world which will not be done without money. and without carbon energy.
For energy, we still have rights to pollute, but they are counted.
* this systematic trimming will also have the consequence of calming the natural ardor of capitalism.

There is only human desire and nothing else.
Either we want to change nothing to the current and live comfortably until a near end, or we want humanity and its biotope to live as well as possible, as long as possible.

Everything is unchecked human desire, the rest is just a parameter.
Desire, either we follow it without conscience and we have the current capitalism ** which is certainly leading us into the wall, or we temper it by awareness of the consequences of our actions.
Desire is autonomous and the fruit of the culture specific to each one so it is cultivated, it is educated.
More awareness leading to more and more awareness.
** in fact we follow the desire of those who initiated capitalism a few centuries ago.

In order for everyone to temper their own desires, everyone should share the most realistic level of information possible, which would allow everyone to be aware of the consequences of implementing their own desires.

The problem is unchecked human desire and therefore education, not energy, sugar or oats etc.
The problem is internal to man and not external and we are all responsible for it, individually.

Resources are a problem as long as the desire is unreasonable and is followed without consciousness.

[Obamot]

Well isn't it with you that the 'theory'de Roddier * would have worked precisely (?) since starting from energy it would be (without wanting to advance me too much) supposed to make us understand this kind of'finiteness'conqueror of man - this'disease'which hinders him from properly managing the inheritance of the Earth that does not belong to him - this ”Finitude” (if it is the only one?), to better exceed it?

It remains to be seen whether it is the “desire”Or“ego”, Even narcissism ... Or something else (sacrificial?)

*) linked to the whole debate that it suggests (Kant, etc.)
(And that aside from the fact that the approach via “abstract values” and energy seems to me accurate and defensible on its own.)

[humus]

It remains to be seen whether it is the “desire”Or“ego”, Even narcissism ... Or something else (sacrificial?)

You just have to observe your internal motivations to have the answers.

What prompted you to respond rather than not?

Absolutely everything is reducible to a satisfied or unfulfilled desire.

[Ahmed]

If everything is reducible there, then it is urgent to look elsewhere!