Non-journalistic approach to the war in Ukraine

[humus]

it is generally replacing fossils with something else, or consuming less of them when they remain in use. This at equivalent "comfort".

But I think that the current situation can (should) only strengthen us in this desire to move forward.

This is all great, except we don't necessarily put the same solutions in response.
It is obvious that the current world (capitalism) will not be able to be satisfied with renewable energies to satisfy itself et guarantee equivalent comfort.
Currently too much energy is wasted to satisfy productions that quickly become obsolete, all this to satisfy the economic need for the continuous production of wealth (growth) that capitalism demands.
Otherwise it's a crisis.
Are you sure of the consequences of what you say? You describe the basic assumptions for a truly sustainable world, which by definition will be much more economically stagnant than the current one.
Moving forward being moving towards a sustainable world, therefore moving towards a certain technological stagnation.
Are you open to this?
That does not exclude progress, but much less rapid and superficial than today.

Only Melenchon had a foot (a toe ) towards sustainability, already with its section on agriculture.

[humus]

There is therefore never really a goal but rather the expression of determinisms within a global process.

Except that the human mind, by its possibly disruptive nature and its voluntary nature, can set goals and ignore determinism.
It's not disruptive, but for example a company only spends its time doing that, setting goals.

[Ahmed]

Thank you all for your interest and your many contributions, I'll try to answer in order...
@Sicetaitsimple ; you write:

CO2 is certainly a problem, but it is global. [...] Increases in CO2 emissions are mostly happening elsewhere.

This is exactly the observation I made above, glad we agree!
I would have thought that you were referring more to the decline of fossil fuels and the urgency of getting rid of them, at least if we want to maintain a thermo-industrial "civilization" (overly positive name, in my eyes!). As for energy independence, you do well to qualify it as relative, because it finds its supplies outside of France...
As for the reduction of CO2 emissions, I doubt that it will follow...

Further, you challenge Sen-no-sen:

Stop with this entropy bullshit, there is plenty of renewable and non-renewable but abundant energy available on earth to meet the needs of humanity, provided we know how to collect and use them, whatever the entropy generated by this use...

I'm afraid you don't quite understand his purpose, which is not to underestimate energy availability, but to dread its effects. On the contrary, it is because the possibilities of dissipating energy in mass remain that the real danger lies. The role of energy is to change the World, the more energy will be implemented, the more the World will be upset and the more we will have to adapt to these changes, as we are already seeing now: I think it will be very, very hard since we don't control everything, far from it, and there are tipping points...
It would therefore be a mistake to consider that only the problem of energy supply arises and to forget the other aspect: if so much energy is required, it is to supply a multitude of devices which themselves require the extraction of mines and a whole technical and institutional environment to be created, transported, used and then recycled...
It was a similar mystification that led the Russian revolutionaries to build state capitalism, since they had focused solely on criticizing the distributive aspect of capitalism, forgetting that the production of value was itself the other facet which was inseparable from it.

[humus]

Conversely, this places climbing in Ukraine as a real paradox in the face of its narrative. And then I really want to believe that he was forced into it and that the Russians no longer had (and could no longer have) confidence in the West or any other choice, it is perfectly plausible (and proved again this year in April, when we learned that France itself had violated the Minsk Accords in 2014, by already supplying arms to Ukraine! Yes, that's crazy...!

all the crazier since Putin via "unlabeled" militias was already in Dombass.
The Russians lie outright, they know we know but they persist.
They are right to do so since it works on some, from forum in particular, what you call "the line of the fofo".

In 2017, Hollande to Putin, "we know you are in Dombass", and Putin replied "but we are not in Dombass", when all the information proved that he was there.

If you and your friends enjoy giving Putin the limelight, and wallowing in the lies of Russian propaganda, good for you.

Believing Putin (the Russians) would be like believing Colin Powell with his vial of weapon of mass destruction from Iraq to justify the invasion.

There are only interests behind any invasion, humanitarianism is a decoy!
How can we believe it????

[Ahmed]

@ Remundo who says:

and at least in speech...just look on the road and remove anything that runs on fossil fuel...it'll make room!
the same in the sky, in the seas, and the same for construction sites of all kinds, including agricultural ones...

I totally agree, which is why I took care to mention that this was an ongoing project, not that it was accomplished.

@ Obamot: what thinks or says poutine probably doesn't matter at all and I'll have the opportunity later to elaborate on what motivates Russia's actions and so answer you more fully.

PS: The argument that poutine would have shown good will on several important points does not demonstrate anything, because one can just as well write that he did what he considered to be favorable to him at a given moment and not did what was not in his possibility ...

[Ahmed]

Humus, you write:

It's not disruptive but, for example, a company only spends its time doing that, setting goals.

It's so non-disruptive that these objectives must (it's not a real choice: it's adapt or disappear) be constantly readjusted under the effect of the determinisms that act on all companies, and we call it competition...
As agents, individuals are forced into action and not just any action, from which to deduce their freedom, there is a world. We are at a point where the pressure is extreme because the human groups who may have existed in the past or in remote corners and who showed greater freedom from determinism (to put it quickly) have been exterminated. , marginalized or converted...

This in no way prevents persisting in the process of empowerment and emancipation, just that it should not conceal the difficulty of the undertaking; I in no way draw the idea of ​​a renunciation, since it is not really a question of a choice: either we try to get out of it, or we agree to pursue a trajectory which will not be favorable to us in the medium term (since we are only the agents, not the "beneficiaries" of a process which, moreover, has no finality).

[Obamot]

@ Remundo who says:

and at least in speech...just look on the road and remove anything that runs on fossil fuel...it'll make room!
the same in the sky, in the seas, and the same for construction sites of all kinds, including agricultural ones...

I totally agree, which is why I took care to mention that this was an ongoing project, not that it was accomplished.

@ Obamot: what thinks or says poutine probably doesn't matter at all and I'll have the opportunity later to elaborate on what motivates Russia's actions and so answer you more fully.

PS: The argument that poutine would have shown good will on several important points does not demonstrate anything, because one can just as well write that he did what he considered to be favorable to him at a given moment and not did what was not in his possibility ...

I was not so much looking to demonstrate anything with Putin, not qualified enough for that (you already have to understand Russian at least, the translations are not very reliable, they have great subtleties in the narration...) as rather correct some directions that are misleading. And besides, we could just as easily consider at first that “Putin is right” to then find correlations with the facts (historical or current). I tried with Zelensky it didn't work, this guy is a liar by trade! I tried with the USA, either, it's Las Vegas! I tried with Macron, well he should be in jail for life and in solitary confinement without remission. Compare between him and the Western crooks and we'll talk about it again!

[Ahmed]

...and a KGB guy would be scrupulously sincere?

[Obamot]

Compare between him and the Western crooks and we'll talk about it again!

For lack of sarcasm, here is a comparison:

...it probably doesn't matter what Putin thinks or says

This is what Westerners have thought for 30 years, and we see the result....

[sicetaitsimple]

I would have thought that you were referring more to the decline of fossil fuels and the urgency of getting rid of them, at least if we want to maintain a thermo-industrial "civilization" (overly positive name, in my eyes!). As for energy independence, you do well to qualify it as relative, because it finds its supplies outside of France...
As for the reduction of CO2 emissions, I doubt that it will follow...

The risk of a more or less long-term physical shortage (peak oil, peak gas) only reinforces the "urgency" for Europe to wean itself off fossil fuels.
PS: to be perhaps more clear and that one does not take me for a utopian, I see that like a continuous effort on tens of years. The figures sometimes announced for 2050 would only be a stepping stone.