Understand the world we live in?

[Ahmed]

The consequences of the "peak value" (which dates from the beginning of the 70s) will have much greater effects than the shortage of metals, which moreover results from this first consideration. It results from this in two ways, first because it is necessary to remedy the peak oil (CO2 has good back!) Which makes it possible to boost the economy and then to find new profitable outlets for the masses of accumulated money, this which can only be envisaged by rendering entire sections of the industry obsolete.

[humus]

The consequences of the "peak value" (which dates from the beginning of the 70s) will have much greater effects than the shortage of metals, which moreover results from this first consideration. It results from this in two ways, first because it is necessary to remedy the peak oil (CO2 has good back!) Which makes it possible to boost the economy and then to find new profitable outlets for the masses of accumulated money, this which can only be envisaged by rendering entire sections of the industry obsolete.

We can see it like that, indeed.

Personally, I have more and more the feeling of living the simulations in Meadows.
Everything that was foreseen by the model, happens.
Peak oil, peak on metals, awaiting peak on population 10 years later

[Ahmed]

I do not think that Meadows, from the depths of its meadows, has perceived the slightest "peak value" ...
As for the decline of the population, it is much less linked to what it is materially possible to produce than to the condition of the profitability of this production. Indeed, producers do not seek in any way to satisfy above all the needs of their customers, but to increase the funds which they have invested in their particular activity. If this last point is no longer fulfilled, it does not matter whether the goods are piling up in the stores or the factories are in working order: everything stops ...

[humus]

I do not think that Meadows, from the depths of its meadows, has perceived the slightest "peak value" ...
As for the decline of the population, it is much less linked to what it is materially possible to produce than to the condition of the profitability of this production. Indeed, producers do not seek in any way to satisfy above all the needs of their customers, but to increase the funds which they have invested in their particular activity. If this last point is no longer fulfilled, it does not matter whether the goods are piling up in the stores or the factories are in working order: everything stops ...

It seems that I did not understand what you mean with the "pic value"?

[Ahmed]

Normal, it is wanted!
The beginning of the 1970s coincided with the beginnings of financial industrialization, the Bretton Woods agreements which dematerialized the currency and the saturation of "prosperity" economies (end of the glorious thirties "), not to mention the cyclical increase in oil prices. .
In short, the so-called (rightly wrong) "real" economy is struggling and logically should have known a "big crunch"; the increasingly massive injection of cash out of the hat, however, made it possible to generate a mini "re-bounce" which temporarily postponed the problem, without resolving it in the least. Since then, we have experienced a gradual and very unevenly distributed collapse, which can make it invisible to many people.
We are therefore on the downward slope of the Gaussian curve (to give a representation) and this explains why the governments of the corner (developed countries) are actively working to use normative obsolescence and to encourage the most damn projects, like space exploration and other nonsense which at least have the merit (so to speak!) of employing capital, running the machine and "creating jobs". Except, of course, that the condition for the proper functioning of capitalism is only simulated, since no value is thus generated (it is only the recycling of imaginary profits supposed to occur in a future sufficiently accommodating to solve the problems of here! ).

[humus]

Normal, it is wanted!
The beginning of the 1970s coincided with the beginnings of financial industrialization, the Bretton Woods agreements which dematerialized the currency and the saturation of "prosperity" economies (end of the glorious thirties "), not to mention the cyclical increase in oil prices. .
In short, the so-called (rightly wrong) "real" economy is struggling and logically should have known a "big crunch"; the increasingly massive injection of cash out of the hat, however, made it possible to generate a mini "re-bounce" which temporarily postponed the problem, without resolving it in the least. Since then, we have experienced a gradual and very unevenly distributed collapse, which can make it invisible to many people.
We are therefore on the downward slope of the Gaussian curve (to give a representation) and this explains why the governments of the corner (developed countries) are actively working to use normative obsolescence and to encourage the most damn projects, like space exploration and other nonsense which at least have the merit (so to speak!) of employing capital, running the machine and "creating jobs". Except, of course, that the condition for the proper functioning of capitalism is only simulated, since no value is thus generated (it is only the recycling of imaginary profits supposed to occur in a future sufficiently accommodating to solve the problems of here! ).

I have a little trouble taking all of this seriously, even though it is in our lives.
Whatever the cost has shown that with regard to money, we do what we want and this is quite normal, given that money is a convention in relation to reality (real = matter . I place the services in the subject because without subject, no services).
What you describe is a problem as long as we decide to stick to the convention of the moment.
I worry more about the real shortages of non-renewable materials with which we do not negotiate. We can only bend and drastically change our way of life.
Dying being an option

[Janic]

Dying being an option

it is even the only one that no one escapes!

[humus]

Dying being an option

it is even the only one that no one escapes!

Yes of course.
I did not mean "sweet death of old age" but death from a lack of non-renewable resources, which are necessary for survival today. This lack can lead to famines or a drastic drop in living comfort and sanitation (drinking water, sewers, heating, etc.)

[Ahmed]

However, what you call a convention (and that I call "social report", excuse the little!) Could very well lead to what you fear without there being any "real" shortages. I specify that the fact that you are or not attached to this "convention" would not change anything in the situation.

[Janic]

humus

Dying being an option

Janic

it is even the only one that no one escapes!

Yes of course.
I did not hear "sweet death of old age"

in which movie did you see that? The sweet deaths of old age are more and more so because of the multitude of drugs that they swallow to try to suffer less from the inevitable degradation of their organism. When you get there, think about it!

but dead lack of non-renewable resources, which are necessary for survival today. This lack can lead to famines or a drastic drop in living comfort and sanitation (drinking water, sewers, heating, etc.)

of course in part, but comfort of life due to the plundering of the resources of the poor countries by our industrialists and of which we take advantage by veiling our faces, to give ourselves "good" conscience like the all electric, new current absurdity.