The 150 CCC proposals

[sicetaitsimple]

The strongest measure is the obligation to renovate buildings before 2040.

I saw it in the objectives, but not really in the actions.
It is (unfortunately) a cream pie which comes back periodically (if I remember correctly, François Hollande had in his program 1 million renovations per year, passed to 500.000 during the law which followed, to finish I do not know not really...)
in short, not won.

[ABC2019]

ABC, we are not there yet and the discussion remains open on this subject. I think that any explanation by hubris should be avoided: I used it in the past and I gave it up because it is a misleading shortcut.

we're not there ... it depends where. We are still far from the moment when the disappearance of resources will have made industrial society disappear. On the other hand, we are close to the moment when growth will have to stop for lack of resources, and it is not even certain that the Covid did not hasten this moment a little and that it has not already passed (no not that we don't currently have the resources to bounce back, but by the time we do, they may have decreased too much for us to be able to go back to the previous level).
It is speculation but not entirely fanciful.

The trend towards automation takes place in an economic context and, what is interesting, is that this process tends to undermine the foundations of economism. Critics generally stop at this observation, but there is a possibility, if we consider things from the angle of successive phases each operating according to its own rules *, that economism gives way to a purely technological stage in which the human species, having fulfilled its role of provisional vector **, will suffer the same fate as all the species that have become evolutionarily useless.

this is an amha fantasy. Even if you think of machines as a "species" (which is very questionable), this "species" appeared, evolved, and was selected by humans, for humans, and to do only things useful to humans. humans. They have no ability to survive in the natural environment simply because they are not made for it, and without humans, they have no interest or ability and would disappear with them.

But the most likely is that they will disappear long before them!

[izentrop]

When I speak of sophisticated tools, I am not referring to the existing, but to what is happening (robotics + AI) and which is therefore likely to induce profound changes.

"(robotics + AI)" make it possible to optimize the resource for more efficiency, therefore led to develop, ideally taking into account recycling, while solving the crucial problem of GHGs.

The brake on anti-progress is an additional handicap.

[ABC2019]

When I speak of sophisticated tools, I am not referring to the existing, but to what is happening (robotics + AI) and which is therefore likely to induce profound changes.

"(robotics + AI)" make it possible to optimize the resource for more efficiency, therefore led to develop, ideally taking into account recycling, while solving the crucial problem of GHGs.

oh well, the materials no longer need to be extracted, processed, transported, people no longer need to be heated and to move around, electricity no longer needs to be produced stably , with AI?
from an energy point of view, the development of IT has above all led to an overconsumption of electricity of 10%, without solving any of the problems to produce it.

[GuyGadebois]

"(robotics + AI)" make it possible to optimize the resource for more efficiency, therefore led to develop, ideally taking into account recycling, while solving the crucial problem of GHGs.

"It was a press release from robotics manufacturers and AI developers."

[Ahmed]

ABC, you write:

We are still far from the moment when the disappearance of resources will have made industrial society disappear.

Certainly, from the point of view of resources, but as you later specify, it is growth that is threatened and therefore the foundation of our societal system. Indeed, it is only secondarily that concrete wealth is produced, the main goal being the creation of abstract value for cumulative purposes: without this "engine", the rest stops since it has no raison d'être.
Further:

This is an Amha fantasy. Even if you think of machines as a "species" (which is very questionable), this "species" appeared, evolved, and was selected by humans, for humans, and to do only things useful to humans. humans. They have no ability to survive in the natural environment simply because they are not made for it, and without humans, they have no interest or ability and would disappear with them.

Not a fantasy, but a speculation not without foundation. This is only true at this time and without taking into account the extraordinary addition in terms of capabilities that represents the AI. Consider that AI becomes capable of autonomous learning from its own experience. And even without anticipating so boldly, many people depend more on machines than vice versa; it is to such an extent that machine reasoning has become an integral part of human functioning. Not long ago, computers were compared to the human brain, now it is the latter that describes itself as a kind of computer ...
Our friend Izentrop brings water to my mill by specifying that it is in an additional technology that resides the solutions generated by this same technology: can we push the blindness further? I see in it the sign of the possible and logical triumph of the machine: it has already secreted the ideology / religion which consolidates it, progress * ...

* This perfectly neutral term would logically require a transitive form which specifies its meaning (we can speak of the progress of a pathology ), his elusion is revealing here.

[izentrop]

oh well, the materials no longer need to be extracted, processed, transported, people no longer need to be heated and to move around, electricity no longer needs to be produced stably , with AI?
from an energy point of view, the development of IT has above all led to an overconsumption of electricity of 10%, without solving any of the problems to produce it.

I never wrote that and I understood that your goal here is just the confrontation as much on this forum.

[GuyGadebois]

I never wrote that and I understood that your goal here is just the confrontation as much on this forum.

What is yours? Promote nuclear, GMOs, agrochemicals, chemicals, Big Pharma and try to change your position on the climate while you are only defending the biggest producers of pollutants and Co2? You are no longer cheating on anyone, Izy aka michmuch80.

[ABC2019]

Well no you wrote

(robotics + AI) "make it possible to optimize the resource for more efficiency, therefore required to develop, ideally taking recycling into account, while solving the crucial GHG problem.

and I gave you the main applications requiring GHG emissions, to ask you how they would be solved by AI, and noting that computerization had only increased electricity production even more , most often fossil, and therefore rather increase them. So what did you mean by "solving the GHG problem"? I may have misunderstood!

[Paul72]

I must admit that I did not understand either: any highly technological solution generates generates new extractions and transformations of rare raw materials, which cannot be found only by recycling the existing (which would be easier for low tech), which requires a riot of fossil and nuclear energy to be produced.

The resource in energy and in minerals is really in my opinion the most limiting factor to the maintenance (even precarious) of current societies. Who are therefore doomed to decrease over time (without determining when, we will only know afterwards)