Eco-anxiety: the great discomfort of ecological youth

[eclectron]

I don't know what you understand, nor if you understand something, but emancipation from the "system" is a divergence from the Croatian system, possibly made possible locally, by a common and enlightened will, made possible by a secession.
It is impossible to get everyone to agree on a large scale.

There is absolutely no need to secede to get out of growth, just bad economic policy is enough. Look at Greece, it did very well without leaving the EU.

Sorry but you still don't understand anything .... ou
It is not a question of stopping to grow while remaining in a growing system (Greece, Venezuela). It would be madness to live, it's called the crisis or the recession.
It is a question of extricating oneself from the growing system, to finally allow to live with dignity despite an absence of growth or even a decrease, therefore WITHOUT the very negative counterparts that one necessarily undergoes in the growing framework, when one decreases or stagnates.

[eclectron]

from this sequence until 5:42, funny little passage on growth

Resource Depletion: Can We Survive It?

Another video that does nothing.

What are you guys negative!
This video brings the information, the confirmation, that as long as we stay within the growing framework of capitalism, a sustainable world is not possible.
Even the "low tech" do not have the ambition, the baloches , to get out of capitalism, which would however be the beginning of the solution.
Still a little early to grill professionally? leaving capitalism is a taboo.
Janco must mean it but he can't say it too.

(provided that I am far from having been at the end of his video)

[Obamot]

The aggravating problem that I see is that the pattern of a more virtuous retraining is hampered by the fact that as all human activity is dissociated (as explained) each change initiative creates friction during the transition. search for a new balance with the related cogs, and this causes a set of interactions to the other end of the system. This explains why the resistance to change is relatively due to the current systemic situation. (at least explained theoretically in this simplification).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as long as the system operates on the principle of abstract values, a more virtuous model is unlikely to succeed (something I thought possible before) since the search for a new balance is only a vicious circle which leads each time to new attempts at adaptation, harmful compromises themselves leading to new attempts at speculation then adaptations (and so on through a snowball effect until the next end of the system, over and over again).

Partial mechanism, which you have already explained much better than I currently do.

The interesting point is that is new, it is without wanting to go too far, the flexible side of the functioning of society during this crisis, I am not saying that it would be sufficient “the day when”, but an indicator that systemic change would not necessarily produce social collapse. And that there would at least be the time necessary for part of human activity to be redeployed otherwise.

[Obamot]

PS: I was addressing Ahmed and my post was not “politically co-rated”.

[Ahmed]

Yes, I see that you have well perceived the nature of the problem: every system has an internal logic and its regulatory mechanisms exclude any really effective antagonistic divergence. We see it with ecologism (whatever the particularism of its currents) which is transformed into a revival of the economy: we can be virtuously indignant about it, but the bottom of the question is not moral, since it is not is that the expression of systemic functioning which, itself only translates the tropism towards an ever greater dissipation of energy. Another example: if we are only weakly concerned with providing drinking water to humans who do not have access to it, but rather to conquer the moon and Mars, it is because the second objective is much more energy intensive. than the first.
As for the recent evolution due to the pandemic, it should rather be seen as a reconfiguration of the previous latent crisis which will exclude more and more people out of the sphere of work, will increase social inequalities and correspondingly reduce the production of value. abstract, thus undermining the very basis of the system (so it is not the limitation of resources that matters above all). As much on the scale of a country as that of the international one, of course, the number of "winners" will increase in absolute value, but will decrease in relative value (it will be the "means" which will drink, but it is already the case). The competition will increase even further and in this context, the emancipatory possibilities are slim, especially since they are hardly perceived clearly as such by a majority of people stuck in immanent struggles (something perfectly understandable) for their survival. Thin doesn't mean bad.

PS: I understood that you were addressing me by starting to write this message (interrupted by the meal!).

[ABC2019]

I don't know what you understand, nor if you understand something, but emancipation from the "system" is a divergence from the Croatian system, possibly made possible locally, by a common and enlightened will, made possible by a secession.
It is impossible to get everyone to agree on a large scale.

There is absolutely no need to secede to get out of growth, just bad economic policy is enough. Look at Greece, it did very well without leaving the EU.

Sorry but you still don't understand anything .... ou
It is not a question of stopping to grow while remaining in a growing system (Greece, Venezuela). It would be madness to live, it's called the crisis or the recession.
It is a question of extricating oneself from the growing system, to finally allow to live with dignity despite an absence of growth or even a decrease, therefore WITHOUT the very negative counterparts that one necessarily undergoes in the growing framework, when one decreases or stagnates.

indeed I do not understand the difference between decreasing in a growing framework and decreasing in a decreasing setting.

During the great world crises like in 1929 or 2008, the whole world decreased, I do not see very well how it was better. It just meant that the whole world was in the m ..., not just a country or two.

Sorry for not understanding your subtleties.

[eclectron]

indeed I do not understand the difference between decreasing in a growing context

Greece, Venezuela indeed. They decrease but continue to play with the rules of croissantism, so they lose, they suffer.

and decrease within a decreasing framework.

it is not a descending framework but a framework where growth is no longer THE determining factor. the nuance is there.
So it can grow, decrease or stagnate, it doesn't dramatically impact people, it doesn't create a crisis, that's all.
and it is not necessarily a question of decreasing but rather of stagnating in comfort of life, of stagnating in satisfaction of needs.
There would not be 15000 models of mobile phones or vehicles for example, and a priori because it is to be considered together.

What you don't see is that capitalism is a dynamic system that needs financial and therefore real growth to maintain a stable state. Red Queen effect.
It does not allow stagnation (sustainability) without increasing injection of liquidity, already because all money is doomed to disappear, since all money comes from bank loans which are repaid.

So "we" traffic: rolled up debt (not repaid for life) but in the economy, the determinism of growth remains.

[eclectron]

If we are only weakly concerned with providing drinking water to humans who do not have access to it, but rather to conquer the moon and Mars, it is because the second objective is much more energy intensive than the first .

It is first and foremost the opportunity to make money on a subject that dictates actions.
it is first the desire for money, then the energy that allows it to materialize because there is some.
Not the opposite.
Energy alone, without human desire, wants nothing, does nothing.

[eclectron]

as long as the system operates on the principle of abstract values, a more virtuous model is unlikely to succeed

No chance of hatching, it will take a political leap, otherwise the system always brings back into the circle of "we must grow to have the right to exist".
This jump can come from below (political) or from "above" when they realize that the system continues in a totally absurd way, as with rolled debt (debt for life but not repaid), if it's spreading.
We maintain the determinism of growth! but in reality we no longer believe . It's a bubble ...
That is to say that we can have an economy that no longer grows (so much the better) and monetary infusions from everywhere (rolled up debts).

Unless I'm mistaken, it could be a sustainable world form, stable in the comfort of life.
On the other hand, that does not guarantee to take the right orientations in terms of durable goods, sustainable energy etc ... since the fund of having to be profitable continues.
In fact it seems unplayable to me, who, what activity to infuse financially ????

[ABC2019]

indeed I do not understand the difference between decreasing in a growing context

Greece, Venezuela indeed. They decrease but continue to play with the rules of croissantism, so they lose, they suffer.

it remains just as hermetic, what don't you mean "to decrease without playing with the rules of croissantism"? do you have any examples of a recession that made people happy?
It is also noteworthy that these countries have had governments that have trumpeted wanting to free themselves from international rules ...