State of mind for a viable future

[eclectron]

The small problem is that if they are not autonomous in energy, fossil or thorium, ores, and in various industries, you will be a little obliged to take into account the existence of the outside world anyway.

It is only a problem for those who think in black and white, without nuance, to break the solutions they dislike?

here we go again ... frankly you should stop this kind of argument, which can be said to defend any stupid idea (and which therefore is not a good argument).

Where is the problem with having to deal with reality BUT strive for an ideal? Not everything is done at the click of a mouse.

suddenly what is it to deal with reality for you exactly?

Don't try to convince people, act!
I speak to myself but if that inspires you, so much the better.

[Obamot]

suddenly what is it to deal with reality for you exactly?

Well, it is for example to consider the thorium sector as ”a last resort option”, Precisely what the ayatollahs who defend the interests of the industry and of the current Western theoretical model are not doing: since they would like to impose it on us at any cost (except you the king of surfers ...? Huh-huh ... )

It is therefore a relatively coherent discourse (and that we can understand) ... While insisting of course on the “last resort”Since it in no way regulates the aspect of extractivism intrinsic to its use (should we not, moreover, always approach it thus, since this is what leads humanity to its destruction?)

[ABC2019]

suddenly what is it to deal with reality for you exactly?

Well, it is for example to consider the thorium sector as ”a last resort option”, Precisely what the ayatollahs who defend the interests of the industry and of the current Western theoretical model are not doing: since they would like to impose it on us at any cost (except you the king of surfers ...? Huh-huh ... )

why "surfer"? because I don't easily fit into your simplistic categories?
for me thorium is a lure, it is obvious that it will not develop, it requires too many questioning of the nuclear industry, and in addition there are technical problems of deployment, since in fact this thorium is not the fuel but U233, which must be created by successive breeding of thorium, but the breeder factor is quite small ... in short, it is not feasible in a fast time, and the time that 'we decide to do it, the fossils will be largely exhausted, and with all the industrial needs and in particular in electricity will be much lower.

We will therefore probably only use renewable energies in limited quantities. In short, I do not believe in the advent of a nuclear society and even less thorium.

[Obamot]

Because you ride the waves of mainstream following and all that is good to get back on your feet after a plant

We don't see you saying much good about the thermodynamic solar industry! Nor that of hydrogen ...

My “categories”? I don't have any, I simply have a keen ability to assess the bad faith of the interlocutors, and as soon as I have one in the crosshairs, I uncover his errors. Tah daah

[ABC2019]

Because you ride the waves of mainstream following and all that is good to get back on your feet after a plant

that's the best, I find rather that what I say does not correspond at all to what we hear in the "mainstream"

We don't see you saying much good about the thermodynamic solar industry! Nor that of hydrogen ...

because it's the same kind of decoy as nuclear power, a kind of mirage that we use to reassure ourselves in the face of the terrifying prospect of having to give up our industrial civilization ...

My “categories”? I don't have any, I simply have a keen ability to assess the bad faith of the interlocutors, and as soon as I have one in the crosshairs, I uncover his errors. Tah daah

boy you gotta spend a lot of time with yours so

[Obamot]

Apparently, you're the only one here who doesn't understand what I'm writing, that's good, I didn't understand your post

I do not understand how we can lobby and at the same time say that: the thermodynamic solar power would be a kind of mirage that we shake to reassure ourselves in front of the terrifying prospect of having to give up our industrial civilization

Basically we find your perfectionist approach, as for covid-19:
- we do not treat anyone until we have a randomized double-blind study!
- the same, we wait for the end of resources to build power plants ... so that will stop industrial sté

(I agree with some points, but having already witnessed duplicity here ...
I doubt that the validity of the writing corresponds to the graces of the spirit ...)

[ABC2019]

Apparently, you're the only one here who doesn't understand what I'm writing, that's good, I didn't understand your post

I don't see what is not clear in my post!

I do not understand how we can lobby and at the same time say that: the thermodynamic solar power would be a kind of mirage that we shake to reassure ourselves in front of the terrifying prospect of having to give up our industrial civilization

where did you see that I was lobbying for anything ???

Basically we find your perfectionist approach, as for covid-19:
- we do not treat anyone until we have a randomized double-blind study!

totally made up quote, I never said that

- the same, we wait for the end of resources to build power plants ... so that will stop industrial sté

?
I never said that we should not build power plants, where did you see that I said that there too?
On the other hand, thermodynamic solar power plants are only used to amaze the gallery, and are expensive without changing the problem, it's true. We can do without them, moreover very few countries have them (those which have large sunny cities), but they remain just as dependent on fossils as if they did not have any.

(I agree with some points, but having already witnessed duplicity here ...
I doubt that the validity of the writing corresponds to the graces of the spirit ...)

what "duplicity" are you talking about?

[eclectron]

I never said that we should not build power plants (central what?), where did you see that i said that?
On the other hand the thermodynamic solar power stations are used for nothing but to impress the gallery, and are expensive without changing anything with the problem, it is true.

And so you have to build it or not ????

We can do without it, moreover very few countries have it

Just MAGISTRALl! (ironic of course)
Reasoning that can be applied to any sector that is starting up (and you don't mind applying it to Thorium nuclear and even nuclear in general)
It represents little in the global energy mix so we can do without it. I say, you're just GREAT!
As ridiculous as saying that RE represents little in the global energy mix, so we can do without it.
All that remains is the fossil fuels which you agree will end up becoming scarce, RCA as a bonus.
Although on the RCA I am not sure of your positioning, A or not A, RC or not RC ???

I don't think you're a lobbyist, I think you're just dumb, with knowledge.
You obviously do not realize ...
That is to say someone with memory but unable to get something intelligent out of it, so from there to ask you to recognize something intelligent ... let's not dream.

The only point on which we agree is that we developed countries, or heavily dependent on oil, are off to a bad start.
To refuse / criticize, as you do, any attempt at evolution, you are like the drowning guy who does not see the buoy next to him. You don't understand that you have to believe and promote for things to happen, that they evolve.
It is not by saying "I'm drowning" that you will see the buoy.
All of this is "normal" from a mind foolishly Cartesian who only considers proven certainties.
I'm drowning, it's my only certainty, there is a buoy nearby but I can't see it because of my certainties.
If someone tells you that there is a buoy next to you, you would be able to ask him the source of his info and say "you can see that I am drowning, so it is because there is no buoy "
I would summarize: Just too stupid.

Well then I think I will drop this subject, and rather act, at the individual / local level, the only area where I have a little power of action.

[ABC2019]

I never said that we should not build power plants (central what?), where did you see that i said that?
On the other hand the thermodynamic solar power stations are used for nothing but to impress the gallery, and are expensive without changing anything with the problem, it is true.

And so you have to build it or not ????

if you ask me for my opinion, no, the money can be better used for other things (eg improving the drinking water supply in Africa).

We can do without it, moreover very few countries have it

Just MAGISTRALl! (ironic of course)
Reasoning that can be applied to any sector that is starting up (and you don't mind applying it to Thorium nuclear and even nuclear in general)
It represents little in the global energy mix so we can do without it. I say, you're just GREAT!
As ridiculous as saying that RE represents little in the global energy mix, so we can do without it.

it's not ridiculous to say that either, it's true. After when renewable energies are not very expensive like hydraulics where it is abundant, it is better to do it than not to do it.

All that remains is the fossil fuels which you agree will end up becoming scarce, RCA as a bonus.
Although on the RCA I am not sure of your positioning, A or not A, RC or not RC ???

yes there is an RC, but the consequences of which are far from being as catastrophic as what the media repeatedly relay, and in any case much less serious than the consequences that it would have to do without fossils. So stopping fossils to avoid CR is not a good idea.

This explains, moreover, that no one does, despite all the speeches made.

I don't think you're a lobbyist, I think you're just dumb, with knowledge.
You obviously do not realize ...
That is to say someone with memory but unable to get something intelligent out of it, so from there to ask you to recognize something intelligent ... let's not dream.

I do not take into account value judgments not supported by examples.

The only point on which we agree is that we developed countries, or heavily dependent on oil, are off to a bad start.
To refuse / criticize, as you do, any attempt at evolution, you are like the drowning guy who does not see the buoy next to him. You don't understand that you have to believe and promote for things to happen, that they evolve.
It is not by saying "I'm drowning" that you will see the buoy.

that's wrong, I told you that it was better to take everything to develop renewable energies than thorium (even if neither of them will avoid the problems linked to the depletion of fossils, we will still be less annoyed with renewable energy and it's less dangerous). I make proposals, it's you who refuses them.
In general, I think that we will need a lot of adaptations to cope with the depletion of fossils, relocation of productions, habitats, etc ... Besides, I also think that we will go towards more recyclable and less wasteful, quite simply because it's natural to waste less when you are poorer and have fewer resources.

I'm just saying that it will be done not by maintaining the current level, but by adapting to counter as much as possible a decrease which will become inevitable.

All of this is "normal" from a mind foolishly Cartesian who only considers proven certainties.
I'm drowning, it's my only certainty, there is a buoy nearby but I can't see it because of my certainties.
If someone tells you that there is a buoy next to you, you would be able to ask him the source of his info and say "you can see that I am drowning, so it is because there is no buoy "
I would sum up: Just too stupid.

it's very stupid to ignore available information, but that's not what i do. I'm just saying that I have little faith in principled positions that are based on faith and not on available information; I don't think you consider making processions or burning Jews very effective in fighting the plague, and yet a lot of people believed it was.

I'm just not one of those people, and the fact that you find it "very stupid" not to believe it doesn't particularly impress me.

[eclectron]

I never said that we should not build power plants (central what?), where did you see that i said that?
On the other hand the thermodynamic solar power stations are used for nothing but to impress the gallery, and are expensive without changing anything with the problem, it is true.

And so you have to build it or not ????

if you ask me for my opinion, no, the money can be better used for other things (eg improving the drinking water supply in Africa).

We can do without it, moreover very few countries have it

Just MAGISTRALl! (ironic of course)
Reasoning that can be applied to any sector that is starting up (and you don't mind applying it to Thorium nuclear and even nuclear in general)
It represents little in the global energy mix so we can do without it. I say, you're just GREAT!
As ridiculous as saying that RE represents little in the global energy mix, so we can do without it.

it's not ridiculous to say that either, it's true. After when renewable energies are not very expensive like hydraulics where it is abundant, it is better to do it than not to do it.

All that remains is the fossil fuels which you agree will end up becoming scarce, RCA as a bonus.
Although on the RCA I am not sure of your positioning, A or not A, RC or not RC ???

yes there is an RC, but the consequences of which are far from being as catastrophic as what the media repeatedly relay, and in any case much less serious than the consequences that it would have to do without fossils. So stopping fossils to avoid CR is not a good idea.

This explains, moreover, that no one does, despite all the speeches made.

I don't think you're a lobbyist, I think you're just dumb, with knowledge.
You obviously do not realize ...
That is to say someone with memory but unable to get something intelligent out of it, so from there to ask you to recognize something intelligent ... let's not dream.

I do not take into account value judgments not supported by examples.

The only point on which we agree is that we developed countries, or heavily dependent on oil, are off to a bad start.
To refuse / criticize, as you do, any attempt at evolution, you are like the drowning guy who does not see the buoy next to him. You don't understand that you have to believe and promote for things to happen, that they evolve.
It is not by saying "I'm drowning" that you will see the buoy.

that's wrong, I told you that it was better to take everything to develop renewable energies than thorium (even if neither of them will avoid the problems linked to the depletion of fossils, we will still be less annoyed with renewable energy and it's less dangerous). I make proposals, it's you who refuses them.
In general, I think that we will need a lot of adaptations to cope with the depletion of fossils, relocation of productions, habitats, etc ... Besides, I also think that we will go towards more recyclable and less wasteful, quite simply because it's natural to waste less when you are poorer and have fewer resources.

I'm just saying that it will be done not by maintaining the current level, but by adapting to counter as much as possible a decrease which will become inevitable.

All of this is "normal" from a mind foolishly Cartesian who only considers proven certainties.
I'm drowning, it's my only certainty, there is a buoy nearby but I can't see it because of my certainties.
If someone tells you that there is a buoy next to you, you would be able to ask him the source of his info and say "you can see that I am drowning, so it is because there is no buoy "
I would sum up: Just too stupid.

it's very stupid to ignore available information, but that's not what i do. I'm just saying that I have little faith in principled positions that are based on faith and not on available information; I don't think you consider making processions or burning Jews very effective in fighting the plague, and yet a lot of people believed it was.

I'm just not one of those people, and the fact that you find it "very stupid" not to believe it doesn't particularly impress me.

Your concern is that you reason in OR, therefore excluding, while AND is possible.
and you don't know how to read or / and zap ...
Which gives a strong impression of bad faith and manichaeism (with reasoning in OU) ...
I give up, I have something else to do than answer everything point by point and experience shows me that it is useless, you are unbeatable.
good luck

The next few words are ABC for you