State of mind for a viable future

[eclectron]

Maintain OUR standard of living? While billions of people are in utter misery? What is "our" standard of living? Continue to produce more, destroy more and waste more? Being able to take the plane to go fuck cheap in poor countries? To afford cruises, Hummers to drive around town, jewelry, luxury items? Helicopter drops for off-piste skiing?
Sorry, but OUR standard of living comes at the cost of a vampiric and destructive model. And do not come to tell me that by saving money, by becoming virtuous and green we would come back to the carriage, the big plagues and the candle ...

Based on the ideas and achievements of Gunter Pauli for a little everything related to agricultural production, on Konrad Schreiber for agriculture and many others including ID67 right here, from my experience as an electronics designer, I still think it is possible to live in a sustainable world with relatively high comfort.
In any case with higher lasting comfort than before the pre-industrial era.
Due to technological and scientific progress made since.

I also have a doubt that such a comfort of life can be generalized to the planet.
On this point I would have a position can be morally questionable and cruel but pragmatic :
We start from where we start at time t, each country manages to move towards sustainability depending on where it is and its local possibilities.
Nothing preventing aid from the most advanced countries, to balance, quite the contrary.

But you have to succeed at least somewhere, prove that it is possible.

[Ahmed]

We no longer speak of growth objectors in this case!
Once again, the definition of what is meant by "comfort" is a prerequisite for evaluating the criteria selected. Personally (and I am not the only one!), I find this society extremely uncomfortable and rather adapted to psycho-pathological cases which do not support the relationship with others.
Consequently, what covers the current notion of comfort is closely linked to the particular functioning of our society which erects a protective bubble (sic!) Around the social monad, as a compensation for what is correlatively lost / destroyed (the bases of sociability and direct interdependence).
You write:

What you see as an intangible of history, "the always more", could fall.
Consciousness is also evolving in the face of a sustainable world, a kind of virtuous circle ...

Indeed, the infrastructures determining the superstructures ...
And also:

In addition, science has progressed since the pre-industrial era, so we should use all the means at our disposal to optimize our chances of building a sustainable world.

Science and power coexisted as soon as science came out of its speculative phase (observatory) to become operational and since then it is out of control: everything that can be done, likely to increase power over beings or things, will be implemented * ... It could be different if we accepted to accept the choices collectively and consciously, but that requires the real will for a profound change.

* And all perfectly anti-democratically ...

[ABC2019]

@ABC2019
I see that you post but sincerely I don't read you anymore you waste your time.
Will pollute elsewhere please.

I nevertheless continue to answer for those who prefer logical reasoning to irrational assertions .

[sicetaitsimple]

Actors of today's society, like you and me for example, decide to consciously desert the system: Conscientious objectors in a way…
Such people create one, or communities, living on the principles of a sustainable world.
I may be extreme in wanting to keep the current comfort but proposing the idea of ​​living in a sustainable world like Quakers may put off more than one, even if others would probably not balk.
I don't like it anyway, question of intellectual stimulation.
Even if I don't mind agricultural stains, I would die slowly doing all that.

And your generation 4 plants, are you and your community "system deserters" who build them during the weekend?

[dede2002]

But no, he will have all week (I am teasing..)

...
I also have a doubt that such a comfort of life can be generalized to the planet.
On this point I would have a position can be morally questionable and cruel but pragmatic :
We start from where we start at time t, each country manages to move towards sustainability depending on where it is and its local possibilities.
Nothing preventing aid from the most advanced countries, to balance, quite the contrary.

But you have to succeed at least somewhere, prove that it is possible.

But currently in "less advanced" countries, the equipment is already much more durable than here, where it is not profitable to repair, "thanks" to purchasing power ...

[Ahmed]

Yes, despite globalization, no real equalization of the "quantities of socially necessary labor", and therefore of the value produced, has not been able to be established since countries with different levels of productivity still exist (at least within these countries). ) ...

[Ahmed]

It's long, but how good ...

[eclectron]

And your generation 4 plants, are you and your community "system deserters" who build them during the weekend?

Absolutely not
Isn't it easy to get into the logic of a transition to sustainability?
Instead of braking 4 irons, I'm in the state of mind as if a sustainable world is possible, and oddly "in that state of mind" solutions come.

The idea would be that the community is empowered to the maximum (therefore very imperfectly at the beginning) vis-à-vis the capitalist world and therefore to minimize purchases outside of said community.
At first, there will be people who will work outside the community, outside purchases and outside sales, until the sufficient dimension and competence of complete autonomy.

Suppose that such a community starts in France.
Since autonomy vis-à-vis the outside is desired (to avoid having to perpetually depend on the wheels of capitalism), there will be a maximum of photovoltaic solar energy, solar thermal, biomass and nuclear electricity purchased from EDF.
It is of course prior investments in money that allow this autonomy, say rather reduction of dependence.
There must not be only poor people in this community, or else sales must be made abroad, which is possible according to the principles of Gunter Pauli. (better value what we have available)

It costs money to break free from the yoke of capitalism.

Then everything depends on the size of the community, but you can imagine ordering a small thorium + molten salt plant.
Or else, since it is success which is targeted by the demonstration of this community, eventually a region, a country will adopt the rules tested in the initial community and there, the means will be very substantial to build such power plants.

You have to be patient...

[Ahmed]

It costs money to break free from the yoke of capitalism.

A little awkward as an approach, right?

[sicetaitsimple]

Then it all depends on the size of the community but we can imagine ordering a small thorium + salt plant

Well yes of course, am I stupid! "" The deserters of the system "place an order for a Thorium molten salts plant", that would make a nice headline in the press!