Forum alternatives: the local goes on the attack!

[dedeleco]

This for lack of having asked the right question: "should we replace oil", in other words is it simply the means that is harmful, or more fundamentally its purpose.

The finality, the progress animates the man since more 2 millions of years !!
There are 2 millions of years, the first stone tools, leaving piles of cut stones (first destructions of the environment), already a barter of these stones transported very far, and since incessant progress, which made increase our brain, fire there 700000 400000 years, already big action on the environment (disappearance of very large animals especially in Australia, there are 40000 years), art, paintings on rocks there 35000ans, the trade or barter of various stones, flint, obsidian, the discovery of agriculture and breeding, there is 10000ans, with incessant acceleration of progress, which allows the multiplication of the population (max there is more than 10000ans, less a man at Km2 !!) and now much more than 100 / km2, thanks to this progress and especially to the medical, as aseptic 1840, almost nothing, but hyper effective, to lengthen life! It is impossible to suppress this progress which multiplies the population, unless to be criminal !!!

So it's impossible to stop this progress in its best formno one wants to come back to the caverns, (10 to 13 ° C even during very cold weather), nor to the coarse fires of wood, nor to suppress the oil (plus a single indispensable plastic pipe, which lacked the time of Louis 14, with instead of toxic lead !!
It is therefore necessary to improve progress, by suppressing its most harmful effects, but it is impossible to ignore or deny this progress in what is most effective, and we must adapt and correct its harmful effects!

The energy will continue (1000 times more energy than human for the same price as before !!) with any means, simply it will be necessary to block economically, rather than by force or by catastrophes, the harmful effects like CO2, and use the sun and wood stoves (non-zero pollution).

The sun provides us with this free energy, very in excess, just use it well!
Oil and fossil fuels are a form stored spontaneously for almost a billion years by the earth, and therefore in huge quantities, able to burn many times all the oxygen in our atmosphere!

It is enough to continue to store in a controlled way the heat and the solar energy without destroying the terrestrial atmosphere with the C02 and without burning all the breathable oxygen (possible on a few thousand years at the current rate much higher than its speed renewal, linked to the natural disappearance of CO2)

We begin to regulate our population that will not exceed 9 billion !!

[Ahmed]

You use the word "progress" like a club!
Without questioning you about a concept that is very sociologically constructed: you brandish it as if it were something related to human essence.

The history of humanity, in the light of this mystifying simplification, would be linear and obey a kind of implacable necessity.

It is only a quick and a posteriori vision: at each stage of its development, contingent historical choices have been made *, breaks, bifurcations; very different scenarios would have been possible and, from a distance, their coherence would not be less great than the one we are talking about ...

Beyond the mythical dimension of this word suitcase, there is a global escalation of the technical fact that has recently experienced a reversal of major polarity: by establishing itself as a system **, it has acquired such autonomy, that of medium it has become its own end (thus instrumentalizing man, as a consequence).

In this context, it is not surprising that energy consumption has increased so much.
Indeed, a good part of the energy is dilapidated in a circular process; a process in which extreme efficiency of the parts coexists with a waste of the totality.

Say otherwise, energy abundance leads us to make choices that would be impossible in another context, choices that increase consumption and therefore justifies the merits of an ambitious energy policy!

That's why I'm insulting myself against the vision that considers that the choice (if one can say, because it was implicit!) That was made in favor of oil is still valid as it stands and must, in any case urgently be renewed on new sources.

* We have good examples today with the pension reform, the "golden rule" and many others, where an oriented choice is presented as rational and inevitable!
Politics, in this rhetorical approach, does not therefore retreat from contradiction by invoking the necessity, therefore the impossibility of the choice, and therefore of the strictly political act!

** The "technician system" is the set of techniques linked together, in an economic and political context (see J. Ellul)

[dedeleco]

Totally agree on

breaks, bifurcations; very different scenarios would have been possible and, from a distance, their coherence would not be less great than the one we are talking about ...

with many different stories possible.
This reality of chaos, bifurcations, full of chance, explains why we, conscious and intelligent men, appear that after 600 millions of multicellular life and not 200 million years ago, in the form of big brain dinosaurs !!! !
Our existence is very unlikely, given the number of bifurcations needed, with many dead ends!
It explains why our current technical progress did not happen sooner, the time of the Egyptians or the Romans !!

What is problematic is not the energy consumption, but the destructive effects for our future, of all our behaviors multiplied by our number.
It is necessary to find economically interesting modifications, because it is much more effective to motivate the men, than the authoritarian constraints. We must avoid ideologies against technology. They can have a perverse effect, the opposite of the one wanted initially, as the communist ideology, at the beginning, led to failures

The thermal storage underground, geothermal renewed by the solar thermal is very interesting in the long term economically, because free in perpetuity, without pollution, once in place, and one must decrease the initial investment with more imagination, like robot mole driller, recycling depleted oil wells, etc.

[Ahmed]

Sorry if I misunderstood: these breaks, bifurcations, I did not mention them at all about the evolution of species, but they concerned humanity since its inception.
Nothing can justify the evolution of the technique as it currently stands, except for an oversimplifying vision.

You write:

What is problematic is not the energy consumption, but the destructive effects for our future, of all our behaviors multiplied by our number.

This sentence is unclear; its meaning seems to me almost the following: energy consumption is not a problem in itself, which is unfortunate it is especially a misuse of it.
My position is very different: if we put aside pollution and CO2 that currently polarize attention, energy is the way to destroy nature when this energy is abundant*.
Why? Because humanity, with rare exceptions, does not admit its naturalness and persists in destroying nature (and itself, therefore), simply out of fear.

Further:

It is necessary to find economically interesting modifications, because it is much more effective to motivate the men, than the authoritarian constraints.

Of course, constraints are not the right solution, although this is the current trend, but how can we hope to turn a problem into a solution?
Because, finally, that the economy is directed towards the shale gas or the solar one does not change absolutely nothing to its logic and its finality (one will see moreover the proof in that these two directions are / will be followed!).
Further, still:

We must avoid ideologies against technology.

That's crunchy! As if the technique was neutral! As if his social perception was not an ideology! No doubt it is invisible for those who indulge in it ...

Finally, allow me to paraphrase you:
"They can have a perverse effect, the opposite of what was initially intended, as liberal ideology, although initially, leads to failures."
In reality, these 2 conceptions of the world are very close: primacy of productivism, exaltation of work, spirit of competition, hatred of nature; Private capitalism or state capitalism differ only in modalities, not in ends.

* It is the surplus of (minimal) primary needs that is assigned to this destruction.