Energy galore with IEC ...

[Ahmed]

Eclectron, you write:

if it (the energy) is clean, it does not impact the environment.

Not indirectly (pollution), but directly by modification of the environment, otherwise what use?
Further:

How to justify meters, if you can make a device all by yourself in your garage?

No need to justify, only impose it by force!

[eclectron]

Not indirectly (pollution), but directly by modification of the environment, otherwise what use?

The energy currently used in France, a country already "industrialized and built", is not used particularly to destroy the environment but to manage the current (transport heating electricity at home and in the office or hospital) or to transform material and a little to agriculture.
Assuming that we switch to sustainable and repairable, also recyclable, with this clean energy in abundance, the environmental impact should on the contrary be much less than today, for equal service.
But we agree, it is a software change that is necessary.
The solutions that I set out are so obvious that we wonder why we do not change software today?
Fear and conformism ... the mental grip of the existing system and short-term profitability.

In the event of a disaster, we are ready to try everything to resolve. Should we go there ???

Further:

How to justify meters, if you can make a device all by yourself in your garage?

No need to justify, only impose it by force!

Yes but it is morally difficult to justify, for something free, possible that it leads to rebellion, to a collective awareness and possibly to the questioning of capitalism.

When I say that you are not optimistic!
OK, this clean and abundant energy does not yet exist.

[Exnihiloest]

We can clearly see in this thread the politicization of the debate, with the amalgamation of pollution = capitalism. The problem, as usual in ecological reasoning, is among others the inability to take into account something other than ecological questions.

Has life in non-capitalist societies shown that it is less polluting? When we see the ecological damage that there was in the USSR at the fall of the wall, we can doubt it.
Has life in non-capitalist societies shown that it is better there? I challenge anyone to show us an enviable different system.

Capitalism is of course not the cause of pollution. The cause of pollution is, beyond our large number on earth, our desire for a comfortable life which we enjoy, including the trivial, in a general and understandable propensity to reduce the inconvenience and to promote the pleasures everyone remains a judge.

Living in cold and dark caves was painful, we preferred to build huts and then houses.
Hunting and gathering were random and tiring, we thought that farming would be cooler.
Spending your time in the fields breaking your back was not yet cool enough, we mechanized the work.
The cooler life having the side effect of increasing the population, we extracted coal, wood was no longer enough.
It was unpleasant to have to sleep at night with the chickens because the lighting was insufficient or expensive, we were electrified.
Diseases rotted our lives, we fought them, doubling life expectancy.
etc etc

And there I speak only of primary needs.
Did we need to invent the printing press and teach people to read, resulting in these millions of tonnes of polluting paper?
Did we need to move, leading to the millions of polluting vehicles today?
Did we need to invent the Internet, resulting in your TW of energy needed to power networks and data centers?

Anyone who has not understood that the only person responsible for pollution is himself is in denial or unconsciousness. Because that is what it is all about: stop consuming, and you will collapse production, even the capitalist system. Resignation companies and capitalism will fall. It is not complicated and within everyone's will. If we do not do this, or if this movement is very minority, there are reasons:

• or people accept the price to be paid for their comfort, in particular pollution. These people assume, I am one of them, and that does not prevent us from wishing to implement means to reduce it.
• either people knowingly take advantage of the benefits of the system and make the state responsible for their little sores, and they behave like spoiled children who refuse to take responsibility for their actions,
• or they are not aware that they are taking advantage of a system whose necessary setback is pollution, and complain about it while they are causing their own misfortune. This last case seems to me to be widespread, and we now come to the second generation of these irresponsible brayers: these young immature morons unable to understand the slightest scientific study, to which the media of catastrophism have stuffed the slack, and who ask governments today take climate action when they and their parents are the cause of the supposed "deregulation".

Capitalism has a good back! Its excesses are the human faults that exist anyway everywhere, capitalism or not. They count for a tenth of the problem.
I see the radical anticapitalist as a reactionary utopian, promoter of a totalitarian society which would forbid him in the future the kind of progress that I mentioned, on the pretext that he would be too weak or too cowardly to give up on him -even.

[eclectron]

1) pollution = capitalism.

2) Has life in non-capitalist societies shown that it is less polluting?
When we see the ecological damage that there was in the USSR at the fall of the wall, we can doubt it.

Does the fact that 1) and 2) are true cancel one of the 2 propositions?

Let us take a concrete example, a smartphone, we could very well bring together the manufacturers, design a single model of Smartphone "top moumoute" and freeze its design for a while, for 10 or 20 years for example or for eternity if it fulfills perfectly. function.
That would be a rational use of resources, in a rational economy.
(In fact, that's political ecology: the rational use of resources.
Unlike capitalism which displays this speech but does the opposite)

Instead we have a crazy race with the little ones that are continual and very often quite futile, brought by this or that brand.
Not that this little extra is really essential but it is used to stand out from the competition, to capture the market for a while, to make money. This is where capitalism comes in. Make money and maintain a mad race, a permanent competition, produce new, new, not because it is an essential progress but to sell, even if it is futile and this, whatever the consequences on the environment. (mines, biotopes, etc ...) what counts is making money, abstract value as Ahmed would say


So I maintain capitalism = exaggerated pollution and irrational.

We can do better and anyway we will have to one day the other to do better than capitalism.
As Meadows would say, "We didn't stop growth, nature will take care of it"

So you have to be imaginative, yes it tires you to think and build, it's easier to say that the historic competitor of capitalism * has collapsed and therefore that there is no alternative to capitalism .
You amaze me, there have been identified 200 alternatives:
Book you have to kill TINA (There is no alternative)
http://www.ilfauttuertina.net/livre/
* Communism very badly served by despots ... liberalism under Pinochet was not a great success either ... the ball in the center.

In short ecology, the real is rationality, but that's like everything, we cannot avoid the ideological excesses of militancy ...
"As much opinion as all ass" said Inspector Harry, not easy to make a rational world out of all this!

[Exnihiloest]

1) pollution = capitalism.

2) Has life in non-capitalist societies shown that it is less polluting?
When we see the ecological damage that there was in the USSR at the fall of the wall, we can doubt it.

Does the fact that 1) and 2) are true cancel one of the 2 propositions?

This is only a remark. You show great intellectual demands towards others, but not towards yourself which in no way demonstrates that "capitalism = exaggerated pollution", which I will demonstrate.
Only consumption causes pollution, whatever the system that could implement it. But it has advantages. Capitalism allows it, not the other systems put in place in the past nor the one you propose below.
The only question is to know if we are a winner or not, and that is very subjective, just like the "exaggerated" nature or not of pollution. If you think you're not a winner, why take advantage of it ?! For my part, I prefer to enjoy techno and live today rather than 250 years ago where the air was pure (which was not true in Paris), and where we would die at 40.

Let us take a concrete example, a smartphone, we could very well bring together the manufacturers, design a unique model of Smartphone "top moumoute" and freeze its design for a time, for 10 or 20 years for example.

NO.
Or in the same way as with yes, you could bottle Paris.
Technical progress allows significant progress in a very short time, it would be silly to wait 10 or 20 years to implement it. If we had to wait, we would no longer have them for the reason that the research would have stopped, or it would be directed to other markets where these five-year Soviet-style plan regulations would not apply.
On the other hand, no firm would be more concerned with technical progress, since innovation would no longer be rewarded at its fair value. Why get tired, just let yourself be carried by the group, that's exactly what happened with the Soviet economy: it's the negation of the human and the collapse of the economy, the one that makes everyone live every day.
Finally, this catastrophic method would prevent diversity, that is to say to try different paths to then select only what works well, it is a path to the exact opposite of what Nature does, endowed however, according to environmentalists, of all talents.

I don't do political fiction. You just showed that I fell right by talking about "reactionary utopia". What you are advocating is indeed a utopia, and it is reactionary because it is an opposition to what is being done, at the cost of constraints, and not the proposal of something new that would seduce and that its promoters would freely demonstrate by example. consented. Only a totalitarian society can do what you want, except to change human nature, but here you want to put the cart before the horse.

That would be a rational use of resources, in a rational economy.
...
Instead we have a crazy race with the little ones that are continual and very often quite futile, brought by this or that brand.

This is what Hulot also said:
"Each of us must take our share of responsibilities in this cycle of the futile. In this silent complacency, even this gluttony with the frivolous, we reduce ourselves",
Hulot who, like most Tartuffes of the environment, made ballads in family in speedboat consuming up to 100l per hour, not to mention his three houses and his 8 other motor vehicles, hello ecological footprint.
I see that nobody is an exception, you who exercise just like me your futility in messages on forum, powering expensive networks and servers.

So I maintain capitalism = exaggerated pollution and irrational.
...
So you have to be imaginative, yes it tires you to think and build, it's easier to say that the historic competitor of capitalism * has collapsed and therefore that there is no alternative to capitalism .
...
In short ecology, the real is rationality, but that's like everything, we cannot avoid the ideological excesses of militancy ...
"As much opinion as all ass" said Inspector Harry, not easy to make a rational world out of all this!

Ecology is a science, therefore obviously rational.
The rationality you claim is simply your attempt to justify a clan political position. It is just as rational to claim the futile, necessary to satisfy human pleasure, or to claim unhindered technological evolution because it is a synergy (the progress of imagery for "futile" video games will also be used to medical imaging ...), and even social and intellectual progress depends on it.

I understand that we prefer models of society to others. What I hardly admit is that we claim the monopoly of reason to justify one, when these models are only based on grids of arbitrary values ​​specific to each (for example putting freedom before solidarity , or the opposite).
Capitalism is the absence of a system, which is what man goes naturally when he has no constraints. The "capitalist system", an oxymoron, and its framework, liberalism, is only the one which limits this natural tendency the least but regulates it nonetheless. This is why all the systems which opposed it ended up crashing, causing for some, millions of deaths. We must regulate man, of course, but not too much anyway otherwise the remedy is worse than the disease.

[eclectron]

[yourself who in no way demonstrates that "capitalism = exaggerated pollution"

Well no, what did I just do with the example of the smartphone ...
PS: it works with all other consumer goods. thought about economies of scale for 2 seconds.


The technical level of a smartphone today does not suit you? what have you to say?
Would it be embarrassing to agree on a common, scalable, repairable, sustainable and recyclable platform?
it would be embarrassing to have only one GOOD model?
It is sure that to show off in front of the one who does not have the latest model, it is grated.

It is much more rational to make a single design that will evolve if necessary, when a significant need has arisen.
Currently it is the opposite we create the need, often very futile, and regardless of the environmental cost.
You have not yet understood that capitalism was aimed at the creation of abstract values ​​and nothing else.
(Incidentally if humans get satisfaction, so much the better.)
Whatever the human, environmental consequences, unscrupulous to surf on human weaknesses and even to cultivate them (arousing useless, even harmful envy, they are very strong in communication, normal they have the financial means ...) .

The caricature with the stone age ... I drop it, are you really so short of arguments?
Even the USSR had abandoned flint for hunting, I don't know what year, however?

On the other hand, no firm would be more concerned with technical progress, since innovation would no longer be rewarded at its fair value.

We talked about software change, energy galore and clean, the subject what ...
There you do not change the software, normal that you arrive at the same conclusions (from the 19th century ...)
Imagine a world potentially of abundance with abundant and free energy, free energy not to name it.
Do you not think that the individual, thus reassured, will not be more motivated by a task (work) where he can express his full creative potential, feel useful, rather than being a dehumanized, anonymous and interchangeable cog in the capitalist machine?

Of course yes, the individual will always be motivated by the pride to participate in the progress of society and to make the most of their own qualities and / or by helping others. the gift is much more rewarding than selling.

In your current software, you are afraid that progress will stop because without it the capitalist machine will stop and what will I eat without my cash?
How would you mind if we froze the technological level of today? (You will have noticed that we are not at the stone age.)
what are you missing?
I do not propose to freeze but think about your real needs.
I am overwhelmed by current technology and I do not have the whole kit.

short it is fear that dictates your thoughts, look at this fear displayed to return to the stone age, even the null USSR did not succeed, really null .
You are in the most total irrationality my friend.

[Exnihiloest]

[yourself who in no way demonstrates that "capitalism = exaggerated pollution"

Well no, what did I just do with the example of the smartphone ...
PS: it works with all other consumer goods. thought about economies of scale for 2 seconds.
The technical level of a smartphone today does not suit you? what have you to say?

They have FM but not DAB, a simple example. It's funny that you refer to a product from the competition between brands as a reference to say that this is not the way to do it

See my rebuttal. What did you not follow in:
- less innovation since banned for decades
- only one bell, that of the official choice
- no motivation, no emulation, those who have good ideas would benefit no more than the others ...

There is no point in repeating or referring to the same false arguments, without taking objections into account. The funniest thing is that when you hear yourself, 10 to 20 years old, the smartphone would mean that today we would still be at 2G, come on, let's not be mean, let's say the edge.

Would it be embarrassing to agree on a common, scalable, repairable, sustainable and recyclable platform?
it would be embarrassing to have only one GOOD model?
It is sure that to show off in front of the one who does not have the latest model, it is grated.

It is not "annoying", it is on the one hand impossible, on the other hand not at all desirable.

To have "only one good model", how would you know that it is good, without comparison, without alternative ?! Who will decide? A Politburo? Everyone should have the same needs, the same tastes, the same financial means ?!

We need diversity, emulation between actors, reward for those who innovate by taking risks and only the user decides whether to use it or not.
We have already followed your model. Your ideas stuck to the 60s / 70s where the PTT offered only one model of telephone and prohibited that we plug in anything else (which we did not have in the trade, that abroad ). One "good" car too, the Lada? And just one official truth too? What you are proposing is just a remake of the Soviet era. It is time to measure the extent of the Communist failure and to seek to understand why rather than asking us to return to it.

The only acceptable thing which goes in your direction, would be a certain standardization, for example of the batteries or chargers, without however preventing the technical innovations. We already have it for the most part, for example mobile telephone standards, television or electrical distribution standards are common to huge geographic areas, avoiding the proliferation of disparate technical solutions around the world, which would lead to additional production mismanagement. You also have to know how to see what is positive.

[sicetaitsimple]

The funniest thing is that hearing you, 10 to 20 years old smartphone, that would mean that today we would still be in 2G

For 20 years (roughly), it would be "3615 econology". What a foot!

On the other hand, for some on this site that I will not name it would require to be concise!

[eclectron]

It's funny that you refer to a product from the competition between brands as a reference to say that this is not the way to do it

it's not fun, I start from the existing at the moment t.
But you do not understand the logic then what good is it that I insist, I am not against progress, quite the contrary, only if it is rationally useful.
The progress underpinned by capitalism is partly useful, partly futile, whatever, you have to sell and therefore destroy ...

- less innovation since banned for decades

oh no, innovation in the lab while keeping an elbow, communication on the potential of innovation, collection of needs, voting on the usefulness of the implementation of innovation by knowing all the consequences, including environmental.
a bit of a democracy ...

- only one bell, that of the official choice

well no, knowing vote, with contradictory debate before voting, see above.

- no motivation, no emulation, those who have good ideas would benefit no more than the others ...

oh no, you definitely have trouble integrating new software: potential abundance thanks to the energy galore and clean.
Money is starting to become obsolete, it is no longer motivation, everyone has what it takes to live.
Pride and its own usefulness to the community becomes motivation.
it hurts those who have dedicated their lives to earn more ... a shroud has no pockets.

that would mean that today we would still be at 2G, ...

I am not convinced of the interest of watching videos on a smartphone but it would be subject to voting.

It is not "annoying", it is on the one hand impossible, on the other hand not at all desirable.

do not hesitate to explain why, that interests me.

To have "only one good model", how would you know that it is good, without comparison, without alternative ?! Who will decide? A Politburo?

the disc is decidedly scratched.
Either a little bit objective, please a majority will quickly agree on what a good smartphone is.

Everyone should have the same needs

that's a bit the case ... they all do the same thing ...

, the same tastes

superficiality that nature pays a high price for. why not a personalized shell ...

the same financial means ?!

change of pardigma, why not all the same means actually. Is it a problem when everyone lives decently?

We need diversity, emulation between the actors,

In the lab, no worries.

reward for those who innovate

it is currently misplaced.

taking risks

and if there is no risk, is it a brake on innovation?

and only the user slices using or not.

voting, see above.

We've already followed your model.

Absolutely not but obviously you like to believe it, because I am starting your beloved model which is far from being virtuous even if it is currently the best since it is the only one.

It is time to measure the scale of the Communist failure and seek to understand why rather than asking us to return.

How were democracies? And as direct as what I say, while the current means of communication make it possible to make the decisions resulting from the votes light and flexible.
ex: summer / winter time change very recently. Just missed the com and the contradictory debates to inform the voters.

Welcome to a sustainable future. (if the source of clean energy and a galore comes to light)
Capitalism is becoming more and more a utopia ... for lack of real resources to continue the financial cavalcade.

[Exnihiloest]

@eclectron

The saucissonnage of my text makes it incomprehensible and your answer to the word for word becomes illegible for me. In the realm of ideas, responding to the letter and not the mind makes discussion impossible.
For my part I make the effort to try to understand the two or three main ideas developed by my interlocutors, and to respond to them.