Collapsology ... kezako?

[izentrop]

Eliminate fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) from our energy sources to minimize our GHG emissions.

Which is the same, no?

Yes, you're right.
The tribe is good, but to do it well, we need a system at the global level that would reward virtuous people who do their utmost to avoid GHG emissions and penalize the recalcitrant. the United Nations could do that, for example.

Because there are also leaders who should be penalized like Trump, Bolsonaro or Sergio Mattarella. It is beneficial in the short term to ignore CR, but it is criminal for others.

[to be chafoin]

The tribe is good, but to do it well, we need a system at the global level that would reward virtuous people who do their utmost to avoid GHG emissions and penalize the recalcitrant. the United Nations could do that, for example.

I believe that this system has never existed (what have been the effects of the United Nations on major conflicts or global problems?) And will never exist. At the very least we will agree that it is irrelevant by considering the names of current leaders you mentioned.

It is also one of the big criticisms that I would give to collapsologists (and particularly to Pablo Servigne), after having seen the 3 videos proposed and the first of the reportage site. Everything is not to be thrown away, I even share many positions, but in my opinion the speech is misleading, with a slightly cutesy tone, made up of complacency with a Christian coloring and whose effects above all could be "dangerous". Let us say at the very least that the concrete political aim which is touched upon at the end of the 3rd video (and which recalls the authoritarian recommendations of Aurélien Barrau) does not seem to me at all an enviable horizon and that we would have much better to deliberate by way of of political priority. I would perhaps come back to all that because it is not easy to discuss all these subjects in a few lines, especially as Servigne's speech is often double, contradictory.

But first of all, then, this first criticism, linked to the previous post: there are almost systematically generalizations that are made at the planetary level, so that the subject is lost in abstraction and the world social reality (reports of power, exploitation, cultural domination, economic ...) disappears. An example: currently our company (or our companies) have become hyper powerful, so much so that we are hyper vulnerable said Pablo Servigne. We see here the kind of sophistry a little recurrent in these remarks. To convince yourself, look for example at the end of the first video of the reporting site where the finished speaker (laughing with pleasure it seems) on a masterful circular contradiction: the more we will take a tender look at what we wait, the more we avoid the violence that will affect us anyway!
Let us return to the words of Servigne. Who are we already? Are all the societies on the planet super powerful? Would they all be equally vulnerable? Obviously not. Then the bottom line: it is true that the economic organization (no stock, just-in-time flows ...) makes us in some places more vulnerable to disruption. But who will believe that a rich Western industrial society in a temperate environment, for example the United States, will be more fragile in the face of climatic disturbances than a poor society located between tropical areas (for example Haiti, or Ethiopia)! The catastrophist discourse often obliterates the pragmatic analysis of the current situation and the power relations at stake. Also, the "solutions" envisaged in a framework as broad as the planet, humanity, the UN are as ethereal and have no credible political structural basis.

[eclectron]

An example: currently our company (or our companies) have become hyper powerful, so much so that we are hyper vulnerable said Pablo Servigne. We see here the kind of sophistry a little recurrent in these remarks.

Our (industrial) societies are hyper-powerful thanks (to make wide) to a culture, supported by energy, including oil.
The oil we know that the world stock in the basement only decreases at every moment. So if we do not change anything about our way of living, we are going to face some assured problems, although hyper powerful today ...
But imagine a rupture of supply for a reason X or Y (pandemic in the countries of the golf, war, astereoide ...), the powerful state that is France, would be very very bad and not that because as you Highlighted, the generality of the industrialized countries is the practice of tense flow, under infusion of oil.
I do not see sophistry in his words but on the contrary logic.

The USA is different, they have oil on the spot.

a slightly cutesy tone, made of complacency with Christian coloring and whose effects above all could be "dangerous"

For me, it is a sensitivity to living things that is expressed, we are not used to seeing a gene to hear sensitivity, this is not culturally accepted in the "old" society.
And yet this is what our world lacks to get by.
It is the lack of sensitivity that has created the current world, hard and cold, like a cynical calculator.

[izentrop]

look for example at the end of the first video of the reporting site where the finished speaker (laughing with pleasure it seems) on a masterful circular contradiction: the more we will take a tender look at what lies ahead, the more we will avoid the violence that will affect us anyway !!!

Nothing contradictory inside.
The "tender" side I see it more as an objective analysis of the situation and not to follow his instinct dictated by anger which will lead us irremediably to make a short-term decision as has always been done until then.

Eyelids and politically populist parties are gaining ground, resulting in what happened in New Zealand who believed in the shelter of terrorism.
They discover with stunned eyes that the extreme right leads to extremes.

[Ahmed]

The previous interventions are very interesting. I will only return to that ofto be chafoin: It is a very good remark to underline the bias towards generalization and to consider "humanity" without taking any account of conflicts of interest and power relations. Another (which largely follows from this) is the respective capacity of the various countries to cope with a collapse. Contrary to what has been said, I am convinced that Haiti will fare better than the United States, for the reason that the first is already experiencing collapse and the second, although provided with a lot of resources, lives under permanent financial infusion, that a large part of the population is already living in a precarious way (which is not conducive (euphemism!) to a general mobilization). If we add to that the profusion of weapons in circulation and the egotistical state of mind peculiar to societies of false abundance, I spare you the picture ...

[to be chafoin]

Note Annex: France has strategic stocks of oil on its territory that would allow it supposedly cover about 6 months (171 days) shortage. https://lenergeek.com/2018/11/28/stocks-strategiques-petrole-france/ We hear about it every time a strike or a protest movement tries to block access to the oil reserves of the pumps.

To say that our societies are weakened because they are very dependent on oil is obviously not contradictory. What is it is the generalization: the more powerful a society is, the more fragile it is. I gave this example but if you look at the videos and especially the 3ème, there are several abusive generalizations (another example: the rich are by nature selfish, the poor are naturally in mutual aid).

Regarding the example of Haiti it seems to me quite convincing to illustrate this theme of differentiated vulnerabilities to climate disasters, since living for a decade or so a situation that could actually be described as collapse, following repeated cyclones as well as the 2010 earthquake (more than 300 000 dead) and the 2016 hurricane. But we can not say that the country is on track for reconstruction or accelerated resilience with more than a quarter of the population in food crisis, still in demand for external humanitarian aid, in the grip of violent riots within the population, an oil dependency including for daily food, an agriculture partly dependent on seeds, fertilizers and pesticides of Monsanto, a widespread corruption of political power ...
https://www.legrandsoir.info/pour-comprendre-la-revolte-des-haitiens.html

We see that here there is no longer any question of tenderness and we can wonder if it is not those who are the most protected from chaos (and perhaps the most responsible for this chaos) who can consider seeing the violence with tenderness, but from afar! Also, rather than waiting blissfully and smiling for an inevitable chaos by assuming, by some act of magical thought (again it makes one think of an old Christian principle, of the style to turn the other cheek to the one that strikes you) , that this will lessen his brutality, I believe that we would do better to do violence to ourselves today in order to avoid the worst if possible. But the contradiction that I noted was in the very sentence that I reformulated in order to clarify the "fallacy": if we think that the catastrophe is inevitable, then there will necessarily be situations of violence, of real chaos. It suffices, we are told, by thought, to consider these apocalyptic situations with tenderness, to acquiesce with gratitude, fullness and compassion to this destiny of the end of the world, for this violence to disappear, while it is presented as absolutely certain, consubstantial with the general collapse announced! One of two things: either there will be brutality, disaster, collapse and as we cannot help it, it is a "generalized systemic collapse", we all have our teeth into it : lost in the heart of the cyclone or on its periphery, we will suffer it. Either we can somehow avoid, slow down, lessen the disaster, organize ourselves to act against and prevent violence and then we give ourselves a chance to escape it. It is not logically tenable to join the 2 ends of the string here.

[Ahmed]

To better appreciate "the fragility of power"*, we must compare the collapse of the USSR with what would happen to the USA subjected to the same ordeal ...
The climate issue is not central in this regard at the moment, but rather the fact that the economic exponentialism could only develop by destroying the other links between the members of societies: with its collapse, nothing no longer stands (it is necessary to separate conceptually these two collapses). The collapse may be considered inevitable as no one is ready, nor to understand the fatal slope of a system (not at all because of the stupidity of the people, but because too much internalized) at the end of blowing (and thus speeding up the fall), or trying to substitute other alternatives more realistic in the long term ** that the utopia of capitalism.

* Title of a book ofAlain Gras.
** That is, directed towards real and direct satisfaction of needs and no longer surrender to the cult of Moloch. Because of the diverging interests and the difficulty of the company, even being very optimistic, it could not be done without concessions quite drastic ...

[eclectron]

The more powerful a society is, the more fragile it is.

it is the energy consumed so toilet bagwhich gives power and creates fragility through dependence on the source of energy. Hence nuclear power in France to try to limit the dependence on oil.
The link, a powerful and fragile society, still seems relevant to me.
the guy in the equatorial forest does not need fossil fuel carbon and is very resilient, it's been millennia that their way of life holds the road.

the rich are by nature selfish, the poor are naturally self-help.

There is a logic, however, the fear of losing is proportional to the possession but there is a low limit to generosity, his own survival, except perhaps for the saints!

if we think that the catastrophe is inevitable, then there will inevitably be situations of violence, of real chaos

What Servigne says is that in the event of a major disaster, people help each other but not too much before. it does not shock me, the man is not necessarily a shark for the man.
It does not exclude the situations of violence but there will not be that that, there is all the same a part of goodness in the man.

When after the events, so far we can not say that there is noticeable inflection, so we guess the rest ...
As a solution already mentioned: since the inflection will not come from a priori, at the individual level, prepare islands of sustainability.

[izentrop]

"Collapsology is putting on new glasses to see disasters" said Pablo Servigne at the book fair.

When will it take place? Nobody knows. But you have to prepare for it.

This is the first bet of this theory to want to anticipate an event that has not yet taken place. And it's not the only one. By learning that the world is coming to an end, will humanity not accelerate its fall by saying that after all, damn damn, enjoy it? Collapsologists want to believe that in the face of danger, it is the mutual aid that will prevail over the competition. But again, do not you bet on highly improbable behavior?

https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/ ... ium=Social
"stopping nuclear energy is precipitating collapse ..." I agree.
He thinks that developing mutual aid will prevent hitting each other tomorrow. He concludes by saying: "the transition must be made by developing cooperation and altruism ..."

[Janic]

he was on FR5 last night! his experience is interesting, but illusory like riding canoes on the top of the shore in case of tsunami: it is useless in the face of the violence of the events of rupture. But it reassures, that positive, because the human has a survival instinct necessary, even if it does not correspond to reality.
on the other hand, what is to be noted is that each generation that becomes aware of the situation thinks to discover it as if it did not exist before.