Limiting Global: How CO2?

[humus]

Dialogue of the deaf, quater repetita, promised at 10 I stop but can be before and without notice, according to the mood.

To grow is to consume faster and faster, but there is no need to grow to deplete resources.

No kidding ? Did I say the opposite?
Except that I say something more, 3 inseparable measures.

- develop renewable energies, in order to do well, have no more than that, which implies
- develop sobriety
- and to be at least a-growing, which implies leaving capitalism.
This makes 3 inseparable measures, so please don't separate them by saying that one doesn't solve anything on its own.
It will be more honest as an exchange.

Renewable, Sobriety, Growth, which for these 3 measures gives RSA!

What kind of "revolt" you want to do against that, it's not clear!

Ah at least it's new and it's an opening, bravo!

Reject Crusantism (capitalism ), act, call for and seek sobriety in everything, develop renewable energies?
For example and it would be a real revolution.

Despite your deafness, you will notice that I am answering your questions which nevertheless turn on a loop and (ter repetita) you still have not answered mine:

Are you either fatalist and defeatist, or are you the creator / participant of a new paradigm?
Which camp are you in, which camp gives you the most joy?

[humus]

Of course, there is growth, but also the division of labor and the very advanced hierarchization (power, knowledge) of society which allow a type of industrial society: it is all of these conditions harmful to life that are necessary.

Good remark, can we consider production units of the fab lab type based on a more fun aspect of working together with highly automated / robotic production units?
Take man out of his role as a cog (machine).

"Very advanced prioritization (power, knowledge)" is justified by the concern for financial profitability, but what if this last criterion disappears in favor of satisfying a use, satisfying a "customer"?
For small goods, we can consider a structure close to associated craftsmen. It is not financially profitable but so much more interesting for the actors.
The thankless and repetitive tasks being entrusted to automatons. We have the technology for it.

The energy of these automata? renewables, which creates a natural bottleneck in the production flow.
We take care of objects that become rare.
We have been spoiled rotten children on oil, in an economic system that favors obsolescence, all of this must stop.

[ABC2019]

Renewable, Sobriety, Growth, which for these 3 measures gives RSA!

the small concern is that nobody knows very well what is the maximum standard of living that can be reached with only renewable energies, and it could well be that it is close to the Middle Ages (of the "candle") , even if it is the fashion to say "there is no question of going back there", no one has proven that we can do anything else - in any case there are no known examples, historically and geographically, where we did better.

It therefore deserves all the same that we ask ourselves the question a little by not being satisfied with vague slogans.

The other small concern is that global growth for the last 20 years has been mainly driven by countries that were in great poverty, and which have come out of it to become "middle" countries like China - and I don't see it. how do you go and explain to them that they have no right to do that. Again, that deserves a little better than hollow slogans.

[ABC2019]

The energy of these automata? renewables, which creates a natural bottleneck in the production flow.
We take care of objects that become rare.
We have been spoiled rotten children on oil, in an economic system that favors obsolescence, all of this must stop.

I personally have nothing against the fact that you give it up, but posting it on the internet, it's weird, once again ...

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Post useless.

[humus]

The energy of these automata? renewables, which creates a natural bottleneck in the production flow.
We take care of objects that become rare.
We have been spoiled rotten children on oil, in an economic system that favors obsolescence, all of this must stop.

I personally have nothing against the fact that you give it up, but posting it on the internet, it's weird, once again ...

Ah, and I should shut up and not spread ideas that bother you?
A bit easy, especially since the Internet could be powered by 100% renewable energy.
What other means of communication do you think I am allowed to use?
Town crier from village to village? "behold, behold"

and I did not say * that the Internet and the computers had to disappear for the sake of sobriety, you are insinuating it.
This point must be the result of a collegial decision and not humus alone, nor ABC2019 alone?
Do you have unfulfilled dictator vocations?
According to you sobriety = flint, carrier pigeons etc ...?
It is not by being cartoonish that we advance.
Unless stagnating is your goal, then I would understand your logic.

[Ahmed]

In his time (he was very innovative), Ivan Illitch the problem of technology had arisen and he strove to distinguish those he called "friendly" (soft technologies, in the sense of appropriate) and others. It was a nice step, but perhaps difficult to apply ... René Barjavel, in a different genre which is that of the novel, had also rubbed shoulders with this important aspect and had tried to work out a compromise between cutting-edge technos, but of very limited uses and usual technos, of less ecosystem impact
I can hear your arguments, but whether it's fab lab, more robotic units or craft, all this currently calls for a terribly complex logistics chain (human, material) and the fact that the finality tilts towards the sole satisfaction of needs does not fundamentally change the means implemented. I don't believe in the neutrality of technology; I rather see it as a whole which has positive (very publicized) and very negative (it goes under the radars, or it is presented as improving ...) aspects, which necessarily coexist, like the tails side and the tails side of a coin.

[humus]

in any case there is no known example, historically or geographically, where we have done better.

It therefore deserves all the same that we ask ourselves the question a little by not being satisfied with vague slogans.

Maybe you are not really looking for answers to the questions you raise.
quater repetita) you still haven't answered my only question.

Are you either fatalist and defeatist, or are you the creator / participant of a new paradigm?
Which camp are you in, which camp gives you the most joy?

For the moment I classify you in the defeatist demobilizers. (with force of arguments that I keep in reserve, I still give you a chance to express yourself I will end up rallying to those who take you for a clown fish.


Randomly, here is an example of sobriety.
PATRICK BARONNET

"20 years of solidarity autonomy"
https://heol2.org/?fbclid=IwAR0ZACVTGFb ... qWL7z6N63g

On the other hand, it will not have escaped you that the logic of capitalism being global, we will not find any group or technologized country outside of capitalism.
This link must be severed. This is what is revolutionary.

The other small concern is that global growth for the last 20 years has been mainly driven by countries that were in great poverty, and which have come out of it to become "middle" countries like China - and I don't see it. how do you go and explain to them that they have no right to do that. Again, that deserves a little better than hollow slogans.

Growth, temporarily why not, where it is necessary but still it is necessary that the goods are perennial, use a maximum the renewable energies and are not shitty products to buy back 5 years later.
I have just described the logic of capitalism.
Obsolescence is good, even desired by capitalism and is conversely very bad for life (useless extractivism, useless carbon energies, destruction of useless ecosystems)
It is for these 3 reasons that we must get out of capitalism and its logic of short-term profitability to minimize these 3 points to the essential.

[ABC2019]

The energy of these automata? renewables, which creates a natural bottleneck in the production flow.
We take care of objects that become rare.
We have been spoiled rotten children on oil, in an economic system that favors obsolescence, all of this must stop.

I personally have nothing against the fact that you give it up, but posting it on the internet, it's weird, once again ...

Ah, and I should shut up and not spread ideas that bother you?

ah no you do what you want, I just find it weird to have the internet when you advocate a world with only renewables, that's all!

A bit easy, especially since the Internet could be powered by 100% renewable energy.
What other means of communication do you think I am allowed to use?
Town crier from village to village? "behold, behold"

it is not a question of "law", it is a question of what is feasible and what is not. Effectively without fossils, it's pretty much the only solution you have left ....

and I did not say * that the Internet and the computers had to disappear for the sake of sobriety, you are insinuating it.
This point must be the result of a collegial decision and not humus alone, nor ABC2019 alone?
Do you have unfulfilled dictator vocations?

you don't understand my point, it's not a question of imposing it, it's just a question of what is doable or not. The internet doesn't grow in the fields, that's all.

According to you sobriety = flint, carrier pigeons etc ...?

if by "sobriety" you mean without a society without fossils, that's actually it (some metals anyway, we went from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age and then to the Iron Age!). But all societies without fossils are agricultural societies - so far anyway.

You may be very confident that you can maintain a fossil-free power grid, but as of yet, that has never been achieved. Just for concrete and steel in factories, fossils are needed.

[ABC2019]

Maybe you are not really looking for answers to the questions you raise.
quater repetita) you still haven't answered my only question.

Are you either fatalist and defeatist, or are you the creator / participant of a new paradigm?
Which camp are you in, which camp gives you the most joy?

I don't answer these kinds of questions because they are completely subjective, so someone else's answer is irrelevant to you.

Growth, temporarily why not, where it is necessary but still it is necessary that the goods are perennial, use a maximum the renewable energies and are not shitty products to buy back 5 years later.
I have just described the logic of capitalism.
Obsolescence is good, even desired by capitalism and is conversely very bad for life (useless extractivism, useless carbon energies, destruction of useless ecosystems)
It is for these 3 reasons that we must get out of capitalism and its logic of short-term profitability to minimize these 3 points to the essential.

contrary to what you seem to think, renewable energies are only possible with heavy industry, just as "extractive" as fossils.


https://actu.fr/normandie/le-havre_7635 ... 78627.html