The race for nuclear fusion

[Exnihiloest]

...

Unlike animals that adapt to their environment, we adapt the environment to ourselves, and the system loops because the adaptation that we make of our environment also transforms us.

It is a humanist and anthropocentric vision ...

I claim it, and I, without hypocrisy: any idea of ​​the evolution of the world so that man lives better than today, is ipso facto a humanist and anthropocentric vision. Environmentalism is no exception.

[Janic]

It is as if the generations of the 19th century had decided to save wood, to promote the sustainable development of the candle industry, or to develop horse breeds, to guarantee in the 20th century the heating of housing , lighting and horse-drawn traffic! It makes us a beautiful leg

There is real in there!
But, because there is always a but, if these generations of the 19th century had known in advance TOUS the disadvantages and costs of these developments in question, they would have persevered in maintaining a society that we no longer know. Indeed, there was a certain independence from these productivist systems which currently bind us, feet and fists linked, with a parsimonious distribution of the "benefits" of this type of society.

[Exnihiloest]

It is as if the generations of the 19th century had decided to save wood, to promote the sustainable development of the candle industry, or to develop horse breeds, to guarantee in the 20th century the heating of housing , lighting and horse-drawn traffic! It makes us a beautiful leg

There is real in there!

Of course

... if these 19th century generations had known in advance TOUS the disadvantages and costs of these developments in question, they would have persevered in maintaining a society that we no longer know. Indeed, there was a certain independence from these productivist systems which currently bind us, feet and fists linked, with a parsimonious distribution of the "benefits" of this type of society.

It is a gratuitous and false statement in my opinion.
On the other hand, as nobody knows how to predict the future for a few decades, to pretend that it will be as if or like that to impose today to do this or that is a lamentable manipulative process (widespread, especially in the catastrophism of the ecological ideology which, like the priests, promises hell if one does not respect their dogmas).

[Janic]

It is a gratuitous and false statement in my opinion.
On the other hand, as nobody knows how to predict the future for a few decades, to pretend that it will be as if or like that to impose today to do this or that is a lamentable manipulative process (widespread, especially in the catastrophism of the ecological ideology which, like the priests, promises hell if one does not respect their dogmas).

which is fully valid for your speech too.
As far as impositions are concerned, it is evident that nuclear power was imposed without taking into account its long-term effects and as a "religious" dogma, it is difficult to do better because the Hell was the bombs on Japan, Chernobyl and Fukushima, waste that we do not know what to do with, etc ... Indeed they did not know how to predict the future of millions of victims, nor of those to come!

[Exnihiloest]

It is a gratuitous and false statement in my opinion.
On the other hand, as nobody knows how to predict the future for a few decades, to pretend that it will be as if or like that to impose today to do this or that is a lamentable manipulative process (widespread, especially in the catastrophism of the ecological ideology which, like the priests, promises hell if one does not respect their dogmas).

which is fully valid for your speech too.

My speech does not denigrate all aspects of the current system, nor promote miracle cures, nor is it bold enough to say what would be good for future generations, unlike yours.
All ideologies have fundamentalists and environmentalism is no exception to the rule. My speech is a resistance to the environmental fundamentalists, for whom "ecology" is not science but a political pretext for anticapitalism or degrowth, without most having the courage to say it frankly.

As for nuclear power which you mentioned, it works well (and is essential as long as we do not find better, which will not be long in fact).
https://jancovici.com/transition-energe ... ire-civil/
And when we have found better, it will surely not be thanks to environmentalists. They are in politics or discussing on the WEB, not in a lab to do research or in the field to confront realities. Those who get their hands dirty, and there are many here to present their concrete achievements in the threads where it is a question of practice, are the only real "ecological" ones. It is thanks to them that mentalities can evolve, we also see it with organic agriculture, and lead the system in the right direction, despite the parasitism of their way by ideological environmentalists.

[Janic]

My speech does not disparage all aspects of the current system,

That's the least you can say since you even promote it like any merchant of industrial items.

nor the promotion of miracle cures,

there is no such thing as miracle cures! Either these remedies are effective, whatever its origins, or it does not work, even it is intoxicating like all synthetic chemicals.

nor is he overdone to say what would be good for future generations, unlike yours.

• OUTRECUIDANCE, subst. fem.
Littér. Presumption, excessive or arrogant self-confidence; attitude which results towards others.
Avoid using words of which you do not know the scope, because this recklessness concerns you just as much for example concerning H. OF WHICH YOU IGNORE EVERYTHING through pseudoscientists who know no more.

All ideologies have fundamentalists and environmentalism is no exception to the rule. My speech is a resistance to the environmental fundamentalists, for whom "ecology" is not science but a political pretext for anticapitalism or degrowth, without most having the courage to say it frankly.

You have the same sectarian attitude as those who see in Islam only the terrorists and not the rest of this population.
Ecology is a philosophical approach, first, by an awareness and it has nothing to do with political politics.

As for nuclear power which you mentioned, it works well (and is essential as long as we do not find better, which will not be long in fact).
https://jancovici.com/transition-energe ... ire-civil /

Rather it works less badly than in previous decades!
It has become essential, in theory, since the development of all other forms of energy has been prevented by policies protecting the production of plutonium for military purposes, the civilian being only a justification for this industry. With an “all” electric policy which continues today with the so-called electric vehicle, the development of which will demand more, even more, always more electricity and thus justifying the maintenance of nuclear power for as long as possible. They are clever or at least they believe it!
Jancovici is not representative of the ecological discourse but much more that of the nuclear industry, as he says: But the waste is active for hundreds of thousands of years.
This is perfectly correct, even if their activity decreases over time, so that they are not dangerous at the same level during all this time, most of the dangerousness concerning the first 1000 years: at the end of this lapse in time, the waste is not much more radioactive than the uranium initially put in the reactor, which is handled with bare hands without danger.
It's nothing 1.000 years (in reality for some much more, it must be said to the victims of Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Chernobyl, Fukushima, temporary workers lowered into the tanks for maintenance and sent home without drums or trumpets , leukemia and cancer victims of radiation, etc ...!) It's just for 40 successive generations, a straw!

And when we have found better, it will surely not be thanks to environmentalists. These people are in politics or talking on the WEB, not in a lab doing research or in the field to face reality.

This is where you convince yourself that ecology is a political issue when it is the opposite. It is because industries have shamelessly exploited the land that voices have been raised to challenge it and propose alternatives and as, in our countries, the path that makes things happen at the political level is the political, ecology is therefore CONSTRAINED to pass by this channel, at the risk of being recovered by certain political scientists as it has been seen.

Those who get their hands dirty, and there are many here to present their concrete achievements in the threads where it is a question of practice, are the only real "ecological" ones.

Exactly! But the much is excessive! Some are not bad!

It is thanks to them that mentalities can evolve, we also see it with organic farming, and train the system in the right direction, despite the parasitism of their path by ideological ecologists.

Except that when there is no ideologue IN ANY AREA, nothing happens. Organic farming that you cite has not obtained thanks from the public (and by repercussion from politicians) without ideological struggles raising the risks of chemical farming, it has even been "persecuted" by the State services, by reviews to orders that disparaged everything, etc. It is to have a short memory or to be in the dark about all this and today yesterday's adversaries take themselves for the sincere promoters and convinced of what 'they previously rejected. It's from presumptuousness to pretend otherwise!
NB: I placed it too!

[Ahmed]

Janic, you write:

at the risk of being recovered by certain political scientists

I think it should read "politicians"?

[Exnihiloest]

...
Except that when there is no ideologue IN ANY AREA, nothing happens.
...

This is totally untrue.

Ideologists are the plague of humanity, they are the Hitlers, the Stalins, the Mao and other Pol Pot. Can you tell me what's left of them? Nothing apart from the graves.
A Gütemberg, a Galileo, a Ford, a Gregory Pincus, an Einstein ... are at the origin of far more transformations in the world than all the ideologists put together. Technical ideas and their implementation give new means, and the exploitation of them by men transforms their world and makes non-technical ideas evolve.
The world is what emerges from each other's interactions, mutual influences and activity. If the intellectuals can have by force-ideas a greater influence on the others than the vulgus pecus, and thus modulate a little the evolution of the world, the ideologue, him, dogmatizes, plans then seeks to impose politically his ideal to him, reasons for 1) they have never done anything but tyrants and 2) nothing remains.

[Janic]

Janic wrote: ...
Except that when there is no ideologue IN ANY AREA, nothing happens.

...
This is totally untrue.
Ideologists are the plague of humanity, they are the Hitlers, the Stalins, the Mao and other Pol Pot. Can you tell me what's left of them? Nothing apart from the graves.
A Gütemberg, a Galileo, a Ford, a Gregory Pincus, an Einstein ... are at the origin of far more transformations in the world than all the ideologists put together. Technical ideas and their implementation give new means, and the exploitation of them by men transforms their world and makes non-technical ideas evolve.
The world is what emerges from each other's interactions, mutual influences and activity. If the intellectuals can have by force-ideas a greater influence on the others than the vulgus pecus, and thus modulate a little the evolution of the world, the ideologue, him, dogmatizes, plans then seeks to impose politically his ideal to him, reasons for 1) they have never done anything but tyrants and 2) nothing remains.

in a few centuries there will be nothing left either of these transformers of the world, except in a few dusty history books!

Now you fantasize from a negative ideology precisely:
the reality is rather this:
http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/id%C3%A9ologue

• IDEOLOGIST, noun. masc.
One who formulates and develops a system of ideas, a doctrine
Whoever believes in the power of ideas:

You only want to see this aspect there:
C. - Deprecated value. [Corresponds to ideology B 2 d] Idealist who strives to impose his utopian philosophical, political or social ideas
It's a question of half empty glass versus half full glass!
Whether you like it or not, humans are thinking animals that first develop a system of ideas, projects, BEFORE carrying them out (or use the ideas of others)
Pastor, Gandhi were ideologists of the first category, but it is inevitable that when there is yin somewhere, it is supplemented by yang. No day without night, no cold without hot, no good without evil, etc.

Ahmed

I think it should read "politicians"?

not really political scientist, that is to say those who think politics without being the politicians that the media put forward. For example, among others, academics in politics as there are in economics, your favorite subject ... or health for me!

[Exnihiloest]

...
[i] • IDEOLOGIST, noun. masc.
One who formulates and develops a system of ideas, a doctrine
...

The difference with a philosopher?

Only this: "doctrine", and in doctrine only this: the formulation of rules of thoughts and conduct.

The system is not open, the system is not dynamic. The system is supervised by its high priest the ideologue and the henchmen of his chapel, there is no escape. Whoever challenges the slightest idea of ​​the doctrine is in the best case that he has understood nothing, in the intermediate case that he will be delivered to public vindictiveness so that he becomes aware of his abnormality, or in the worst case he ends up at the gulag where he will be "explained" to him what he has to understand.
This is the great difference between a philosopher or an intellectual, and an ideologist.