50 years of "The limits to growth"

[humus]

a capitalism "with lubricant": it's very trendy...

Yes that's it
It may be better than "dry", have to try

[Exnihiloest]

There is no limit to economic growth. This "growth" is transformation, and transformation is endless, the atoms do not disappear.

There is no limit to stupidity either.
Go live on Venus, or Mercury, no atom has disappeared.
Living is the most evolved state of matter. H. Reeves
It is to forget that the conditions for life are fragile.
Now, if only the immortality of atoms interests you, all ignominy is possible.

Reeves is an astrophysicist. In all other areas, he speaks outside his area of ​​expertise, as an environmental activist, he is no longer in science but in politics.
On Venus and Mercury, no atoms have actually disappeared, and since there is no life either, Venus and Mercury are about the same as they were 10 years ago. The difference between the earth today and that of 000 years ago is not great either, except in anthropocentric minds who are alarmed by a few degrees higher or lower.
As for speaking of "ignominy" about this kind of discussion, it is only the manifestation of an imbecile intolerance to contradictory remarks.
Jobards believe that the earth must follow the path of Venus or Mercury when their situations, if only in orbit, are completely different? By the time they realize they've been stuffed, I'm afraid they'll be long dead. Are you talking nonsense? A bit of introspection would not be a luxury, in addition to an introduction to physics.

[humus]

On Venus and Mercury, no atom has actually disappeared, and as there is also no life

Glad you recognize it. Your remarks on the subject of atoms, inconsistent and without conscience, precisely sweep away life on Earth.
Personally I find that the ignominy is there.
You don't see it, it's your problem and therefore ours too.

As for talking about "ignominy" about this kind of discussion

It is not a story of contradiction but of Inconsistency in your remarks about atoms, ignoring the superior and fragile quality that is LIFE.

If not apart from personal invectives, apart from lowering the level of the exchanges, do you have something intelligent to say?

[humus]

Not yet listened to, a priori possible solutions

[humus]

duplicate, even triplon, but this podcast belongs here
https://podcast.ausha.co/dernieres-limites

50 years ago, a scientific report appeared which had the effect of a bomb. The Meadows report assessed for the first time the impact of human activity on our planet. His conclusion: continuing growth, which goes hand in hand with an ever greater consumption of planetary resources, would inevitably lead to a “crash” during the XNUMXst century.

In this podcast, journalist Audrey Boehly leads the investigation 50 years later by interviewing experts and scientists: have we exceeded planetary limits? What are the solutions for building a future where human activity does not exhaust the resources of our planet alone?

[ABC2019]

duplicate, even triplon, but this podcast belongs here
https://podcast.ausha.co/dernieres-limites

50 years ago, a scientific report appeared which had the effect of a bomb. The Meadows report assessed for the first time the impact of human activity on our planet. His conclusion: continuing growth, which goes hand in hand with an ever greater consumption of planetary resources, would inevitably lead to a “crash” during the XNUMXst century.

In this podcast, journalist Audrey Boehly leads the investigation 50 years later by interviewing experts and scientists: have we exceeded planetary limits? What are the solutions for building a future where human activity does not exhaust the resources of our planet alone?

if the crash happens in the next decade, that's exactly what the IPCC says you have to do to stay under 1,5°C, so at least on that side it will be cool

[humus]

God hear you...
I took care to set the video, Janco answers you
God I don't have access

[ABC2019]

God hear you...
I took care to set the video, Janco answers you

no, he does not answer, or else he says that it is useless to limit oneself to 1,5°C, so that the IPCC is working for nothing. But my comment was only in relation to the scenario proposed by the IPCC.

And it's annoying this way of discussing by posting videos, has it atrophied your neurons to spend your life on Youtube? you can not try to argue with YOUR arguments and with what YOU understood (which would at least force you to think about it) instead of pasting links on Youtube videos for any answer?

[humus]

God hear you...
I took care to set the video, Janco answers you

no, he does not answer, or else he says that it is useless to limit oneself to 1,5°C, so that the IPCC is working for nothing. But my comment was only in relation to the scenario proposed by the IPCC.

And it's annoying this way of discussing by posting videos, has it atrophied your neurons to spend your life on Youtube? you can not try to argue with YOUR arguments and with what YOU understood (which would at least force you to think about it) instead of pasting links on Youtube videos for any answer?

Ah, do you need a text explanation?
The problem is however at the primary level.

Solutions to MCQ version issue for youtubers/forumers because you have to live with the times
you only have to answer a, b, c or d:

By turning off the CO2 tap now, the bathtub world continues to rise by 3 to 6m over the next century(s), which has the effect of placing all port facilities and many coastal cities under water.
So by continuing to emit CO2, even in a decreasing way, will it be worse than 3 to 6 m, or less than 3 to 6 m?
For that I am hard, I do not provide the answer.
If necessary I have it under the elbow.

QCM: Is it cool that the fossils go through a peak, precisely when the RCA is a problem?

answer a) it's cool because I have a villa not very far from a port, I will soon have a sea view.
* or my descendants.

answer b) it's not cool because it's going to cost an arm and a leg to rebuild all that and we won't have the energy means to do it.

answer c) it's cool because it's going to cost an arm and a leg to rebuild all that and it's good for the GDP.
We will find a rest of fossils to achieve this, which will raise the level of the world bathtub even more, which will again force the ports to be moved. Not the cities, because no idiots, this time, we will have built them much further away but not the ports because by necessity, they are often at the edge of the water.

answer d) we don't care, because we will live in a space station and we will no longer need the ports, since we will have aircraft to transport everything, operating with clean and miraculous energy. (still looking...)

[ABC2019]

God hear you...
I took care to set the video, Janco answers you

no, he does not answer, or else he says that it is useless to limit oneself to 1,5°C, so that the IPCC is working for nothing. But my comment was only in relation to the scenario proposed by the IPCC.

And it's annoying this way of discussing by posting videos, has it atrophied your neurons to spend your life on Youtube? you can not try to argue with YOUR arguments and with what YOU understood (which would at least force you to think about it) instead of pasting links on Youtube videos for any answer?

Ah, do you need a text explanation?
The problem is however at the primary level.

Solutions to MCQ version issue for youtubers/forumers because you have to live with the times
you only have to answer a, b, c or d:

By turning off the CO2 tap now, the bathtub world continues to rise by 3 to 6m over the next century(s), which has the effect of placing all port facilities and many coastal cities under water.

already

a) we don't know anything about it, it's wrong to say that the models have sufficient precision to know how far the melting will continue (it's obvious that when we say "3 to 6 meters" it means that your knowledge is insufficient to be sure that it will not be 1 or 10).

b) anyway without fossils all port facilities and modern boats are unusable, will have to do otherwise

c) there is no real problem to move cities in a few centuries, the Indonesians are about to move Jakarta in a few years, and the Chinese built Shenzen in a few decades.

https://www.courrierinternational.com/a ... -du-milieu

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhen

We have to stop acting as if the world of a few centuries from now must absolutely look like ours, that's for sure won't be the case.

and finally
d) I was talking about reaching the 1,5°C scenario as recommended by the IPCC. If we argue that even with 1,5°C we will have to adapt, that's how it is, we can't do anything about it, we will have to do it anyway. So if that doesn't lead to a choice of action, there's nothing else we can do. What I'm saying is that if the fossil peak arrives within a decade, well that corresponds to what needs to be done to stay within 1,5°C.

Nothing you say contradicts that comment.