sen-no-sen wrote:...
Energy cannot decline due to the first principle of thermo. However, the decline in fossil fuels is inevitable, and we should (we are probably already there) suffer a 4th oil crisis.
It is because of this that the "ecologists", "the greens" and others, formerly marginal, now find a favorable echo in the media and in transnational political measures: because we must quickly make an energy transition (and by economic extension) to ensure the survival of the system.
We have reserves for longer than we need. And when there is no more, we find new deposits, or we extract them deeper. Fusion will already be commonplace long before the oil or gas runs out.
It is on this point that you make an error of analysis: the ecologists are not vile reactionaries who will plunge our society into chaos, not in fact they are agents of the systems which will favor the maintenance of the current model.
...
There are such, and they are very active, I also cited 3 recently, who expressed themselves in their publication, who want the abandonment of agricultural machinery for the return to muscular work of man and animals in agriculture.
And with others, it is worse, because they think wrong: they take at face value everything that the ambient catastrophism gives them and they believe that because they would be sincere, they would be right. Without wanting to abandon agricultural machinery for the return to muscular work of man and animals in agriculture, the measures they recommend would come back to the same thing. Sincerity has never been the guarantor of what it contains.
The current "system" can obviously be improved. And it has been improving for centuries. It is clear that there are weak points and things to be corrected, but it should be done without doing worse. It is the denial of past progress that makes the basic ecologist: he has become incapable of measuring the advantages against the disadvantages, and he is not only ready to sacrifice the acquired advantages to remove the disadvantages, a remedy worse than the evil. , but still to do it on the simple assumption of hazardous predictions of the future, such as catastrophic warming when climate models make false forecasts and do not converge. We are clearly no longer in the rational.