50 years of "The limits to growth"

Humanitarian catastrophes (including resource wars and conflicts), natural, climate and industrial (except nuclear or oil forum fossil and nuclear energy). Pollution of the sea and oceans.
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: 50 years of "The limits to growth"




by Exnihiloest » 04/05/22, 22:08

 @Humus
The lobbies, you have them of all tendencies, including among the Greens, and even a lot among the Greens, I take this as proof that we are talking about ecology in the next government while their score in the elections was completely ridiculous.
It is normal for there to be lobbies, including and especially in industry, since we depend on them enormously. It is a happy counter-power to politicians, who are generally completely disconnected from economic realities (as far as social realities are concerned, we already knew that).

Looks like you don't believe what you're telling us at all. If you really think "The Limits to Growth" is for the next 40 years, rejoice, you've won, and let the merino pee.
0 x
humus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1951
Registration: 20/12/20, 09:55
x 687

Re: 50 years of "The limits to growth"




by humus » 05/05/22, 18:22

Exnihiloest wrote: @Humus
The lobbies, you have them of all tendencies, including among the Greens, and even a lot among the Greens, I take this as proof that we are talking about ecology in the next government while their score in the elections was completely ridiculous.
It is normal for there to be lobbies, including and especially in industry, since we depend on them enormously. It is a happy counter-power to politicians, who are generally completely disconnected from economic realities (as far as social realities are concerned, we already knew that).

Admittedly the politicians are not at the level and the industrialists are at exactly the same level: how much profit is there?
There is only the legislative constraint which would make it possible to initiate a less shitty exit than the collapse of population engaged for 200 years.

Exnihiloest wrote: Looks like you don't believe what you're telling us at all.

I don't understand why you say that?
"The limits to growth" is now, Since we have not changed anything in the economy, the process is committed to the rapid decrease* of a large part of the world's population.
* faster than natural death so famines and diseases in perspective. The war wasn't on the program, that's a bonus! : Mrgreen:
The collapse is a gradual process, we are still in the up/plateau phase.
Patience for the descent and it will go down slowly at the beginning, if you are still in this world, you can still play Denial.
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: 50 years of "The limits to growth"




by Exnihiloest » 05/05/22, 21:44

humus wrote:
Exnihiloest wrote: Looks like you don't believe what you're telling us at all.

I don't understand why you say that?

Obviously, if you remove the explanation, you cannot understand. I put it back:
"If you really think "The limits to growth" is for the next 40 years, rejoice, you've won, and let the merino pee."

"The limits to growth" is now, Since we have not changed anything in the economy, the process is committed to the rapid decrease* of a large part of the world's population.
...

Degrowth is what I've always seen you wish for, so if it's fast it should make you even more happy, right? Or else it's that your existential questions were only whimsical.
0 x
humus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1951
Registration: 20/12/20, 09:55
x 687

Re: 50 years of "The limits to growth"




by humus » 06/05/22, 08:34

Exnihiloest wrote:
humus wrote:
Exnihiloest wrote: Looks like you don't believe what you're telling us at all.

I don't understand why you say that?

Obviously, if you remove the explanation, you cannot understand. I put it back:
"If you really think "The limits to growth" is for the next 40 years, rejoice, you've won, and let the merino pee."

I cut visually but I answered as if the continuation was there... : roll:
In clearer and more concise, you make the confusion between a date when the collapse would occur and a process spread over time.

Exnihiloest wrote:Degrowth is what I've always seen you wishing for, so if she's fast that should make you even more happy, right? Or else it's that your existential questions were only whimsical.

Changing glasses : Mrgreen:
I do not want decline, I want sustainability and therefore the exit from the economic system (capitalist) designed for growth.
Moreover, your reflection "if it's fast it should make you even more happy" shows that you don't really understand what it's all about.
I will have to repeat: the collapse is the increasingly brutal fall of the world population over decades*.
I don't know what moron would want that, other than a sociopath?

* consecutive to the collapse of non-renewable and renewable resources, consecutive to the increase in pollution and consecutive to the increase in population beforehand.
0 x
humus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1951
Registration: 20/12/20, 09:55
x 687

Re: 50 years of "The limits to growth"




by humus » 06/05/22, 08:43

A trail for sustainability : Arrow: der Kreislaufwirtschaft
Waste is a resource, which means designing so that waste is reusable

The documentary lifts the veil on the concept of the circular economy, an economic system based on the idea that nothing should be thrown away and everything should be reused. A model that could well save our planet, but which supposes breaking with our habits and our consumerist frenzy.

We know we're ruining the planet - and we know what we should be doing about it: zero carbon, zero plastic, zero burgers. So why are we failing to do what will save the planet and save ourselves? There is a very simple reason: our attachment to the linear economy and its credo "buy, consume, throw away".

"What if the world turned round?" offers a solution. The one recommended by the inventor of the Gaïa hypothesis, the scientist James Lovelock: the circular economy. Since in nature, all waste produced is a source of new life, our economy should be inspired by it in the most energy-intensive and polluting areas: design, food, housing, fashion.

Starting from the notion of circularity according to which, from the smallest atom to global ecosystems, everything is interconnected, the biologist Janine Banyus, the designer Arthur Huang and the financier John Fullerton propose concrete solutions allowing our societies to engage in the way to a circular economy. Examples are legion, whether it's Arthur Huang's "House of Trash" in Milan, eyeglasses made from cigarette butts or clothes made from citrus residue.

The idea of ​​circular economy seems incompatible with our modes of consumption resulting from the capitalist model which enjoins us to always possess more. This documentary offers us to change the paradigm so that we are no longer mere consumers, but customers aware of our real needs.


0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: 50 years of "The limits to growth"




by izentrop » 06/05/22, 08:46

humus wrote:I do not want decline, I want sustainability and therefore the exit from the economic system (capitalist) designed for growth.
There will always be capitalists. In the Neolithic they capitalized on huge stones, but it's clear that it will be decline or nothing and that won't prevent happiness...
1 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: 50 years of "The limits to growth"




by Ahmed » 06/05/22, 10:02

"[The capitalists] of the Neolithic capitalized in the huge stones"...
Better to read this than to be blind; what is above all huge is the anachronism and incomprehension of the phenomenon...
1 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
humus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1951
Registration: 20/12/20, 09:55
x 687

Re: 50 years of "The limits to growth"




by humus » 06/05/22, 18:59

izentrop wrote: In the Neolithic they capitalized in the huge stones


+1 for (unintentional) humor. : Lol: : Lol: : Lol:
Finally, how old was Pierre?

More seriously, wouldn't there be a small contradiction between "There will always be capitalists" and "it's clear that it will be degrowth"?
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: 50 years of "The limits to growth"




by Ahmed » 06/05/22, 19:25

Indeed, capitalism cannot be imagined without growth, even if some argue that not all capitalist societies succeed in this exercise, just as not all companies prosper. What is important is not the phenomena, but what connects these phenomena, what leads what I call "minds with drawers" to understand nothing, while explaining everything in a biased way...
It is moreover the progressive generalization of this failure to realize this imperative which leads to the extinction of capitalism and not the shortage or the exhaustion of raw materials, simply because (it is true counter-intuitive) that this could to be a stimulant for this system which adapts perfectly to scarcity, sometimes to the point of simulating it...
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: 50 years of "The limits to growth"




by Exnihiloest » 06/05/22, 21:23

humus wrote:...
In clearer and more concise, you make the confusion between a date when the collapse would occur and a process spread over time.
...

You underestimate me, which is not a sign of clairvoyance on your part :-).
I didn't even try to find out, since it really doesn't change anything. on the assumption that I specified, that you would like the decrease. If the collapse is spread over 40 years, or if it occurs suddenly in 40 years, in 40 years, it's over.

I don't want decline, I want sustainability

Of which act. But what is lasting is stagnation, and stagnation is decline. You want one thing and its opposite.
In addition, your wishes are disconnected from operational criteria, and therefore without much meaning. What should be sustainable? What should not decrease? The whole therefore leaves me with the impression of an inconsistent utopia, it's very electronic.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "humanitarian disasters, natural, climatic and industrial"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 117 guests