Chernobyl: the nature she already takes her rights?

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.
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Chernobyl: does nature take back its rights?




by Janic » 14/08/19, 07:32

when we talk about ecology and saving the planet, we should rather talk about saving humans, the planet will survive us
it is not about the man, nor the woman besides, but of any form of life on this ground and a ground without any life, us the alive ones of all kinds, there is nothing to give up.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
GuyGadebois
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6532
Registration: 24/07/19, 17:58
Location: 04
x 982

Re: Chernobyl: does nature take back its rights?




by GuyGadebois » 11/11/19, 20:48

Janic wrote:
when we talk about ecology and saving the planet, we should rather talk about saving humans, the planet will survive us
it is not about the man, nor the woman besides, but of any form of life on this ground and a ground without any life, us the alive ones of all kinds, there is nothing to give up.

And in French, what does that mean?
1 x
“It is better to mobilize your intelligence on bullshit than to mobilize your bullshit on intelligent things. (J.Rouxel)
"By definition the cause is the product of the effect". (Tryphion)
"360 / 000 / 0,5 is 100 million and not 72 million" (AVC)
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Chernobyl: does nature take back its rights?




by Ahmed » 11/11/19, 23:09

I think that Janic wants to denounce this anthropocentric behavior which makes us blind to what we inflict on non humans (ecocide). However, I do not believe in the disappearance of all these forms of life, even in the hypothesis, quite improbable moreover, of a total self-destruction of humanity.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
GuyGadebois
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6532
Registration: 24/07/19, 17:58
Location: 04
x 982

Re: Chernobyl: does nature take back its rights?




by GuyGadebois » 12/11/19, 00:04

Ahmed wrote:I think that Janic wants to denounce this anthropocentric behavior which makes us blind to what we inflict on non humans (ecocide). <<< a work worthy of Champolion. It remains to be validated! However, I do not believe in the disappearance of all these forms of life, even in the hypothesis, quite improbable moreover, of a total self-destruction of humanity.<<< It's obvious. The disappearance of man would not take all living things with him, even considering the undoubtedly enormous damage that the degradation of our poisoned civilization would inflict on nature for centuries to come.
0 x
“It is better to mobilize your intelligence on bullshit than to mobilize your bullshit on intelligent things. (J.Rouxel)
"By definition the cause is the product of the effect". (Tryphion)
"360 / 000 / 0,5 is 100 million and not 72 million" (AVC)
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Chernobyl: does nature take back its rights?




by Janic » 12/11/19, 11:12

Ahmed »12/11/19, 00:09
I think Janic wants to denounce this anthropocentric behavior which makes us blind to what we inflict on non humans (ecocide). However, I do not believe in the disappearance of all these forms of life, even in the hypothesis, quite improbable moreover, of a total self-destruction of humanity.
your second part is also anthropocentrism because, for the moment, the main victims of our ecocidal behavior do not really affect us, ostensibly. However it is the rest of the living which allows or not our own survival and when we have screwed up all around us, without any chance to start again the pseudo evolution, the earth will become again a planet empty of life like the others.
Why also seek to know if there are other planets where there would have been life or conditions favorable to life? All this money wasted on this illusion while this money could have been used for the whole of humanity and not for a few gogos full of money. : Evil:
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Chernobyl: does nature take back its rights?




by ABC2019 » 08/01/20, 09:38

Janic wrote:Why also seek to know if there are other planets where there would have been life or conditions favorable to life ?:

well, to give yourself a chance to screw them up too for example? : Cheesy:
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
User avatar
plasmanu
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2847
Registration: 21/11/04, 06:05
Location: The 07170 Lavilledieu viaduct
x 180

Re: Chernobyl: does nature take back its rights?




by plasmanu » 08/01/20, 10:07

So-so.
After me the flood.
Flood of blood must be put in context.
I prefer: right in the wall, or a ball in the foot
0 x
"Not to see Evil, not to hear Evil, not to speak Evil" 3 little monkeys Mizaru
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Chernobyl: does nature take back its rights?




by Janic » 08/01/20, 10:14

Janic wrote:
Why also seek to know if there are other planets where there would have been life or conditions favorable to life ?:
well, to give yourself a chance to screw them up too for example?
Eventually! but all of this is a pimply adolescent fantasy that has arrived at the age of adults and wants to transform them into reality, while being well aware that it is unrealistic and impractical.
But the most important part of my sentence and unfortunately skipped is: "All that wasted money for this illusion while this money could have been used for the whole of humanity and not for a few gogos full of money"but how many of these late teens realize it? : Evil:
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Chernobyl: does nature take back its rights?




by Ahmed » 08/01/20, 12:40

All this money wasted on this illusion while this money could have been used for the whole of humanity and not for a few gogos full of money. : Evil:

However, this sentence is itself economic-centered, in the sense that it implicitly admits that the economy, supposedly reoriented, would be able to repair the damage it generates ...
1 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Chernobyl: does nature take back its rights?




by sen-no-sen » 08/01/20, 14:07

@Janic:
Globally, we are one of its "huge amounts of money"which you refer to.
And as for the financial oligarchy, let us recall a fundamental point: they are rich because we consume, it is therefore excluded to operate simplistic criticisms aimed at concentrating the origin of the evil on a few agents of the system, there is interdependence of the phenomena.

Likewise disasters like Chernobyl, Bhopal, Deep water horizon , and so on are not really accidents but completely logical consequences of the world industrial functioning and the transformation of the world.
It is always from a purely subjective point of view that ecological problems are approached, that is to say as an exogenous consequence (therefore external to our will), whereas in fact it is indeed a process of which we are "without the knowledge of our own free will the actors": the artificialization of the world.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.

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

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 103 guests