Can we make the ecological transition without nuclear power?

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12274
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2930

Re: Can we make the ecological transition without nuclear power?




by Ahmed » 12/11/21, 18:29

Ontologizing is attributing a specific trait to Man, that is to say to all the beings that are part of this category. In this case, a psychological behavior from which he could not detach himself, since "it is his nature" ... Your inference is understood by an extension of a mode of operation typical of modern society, not that it is absolutely generalized within the latter, but because this inclination is subservient to it.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
humus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1951
Registration: 20/12/20, 09:55
x 687

Re: Can we make the ecological transition without nuclear power?




by humus » 12/11/21, 18:37

Ahmed wrote:There is also no survival instinct in the strict sense in animals.

Oh well, do they let themselves starve?
I'm imitating ABC2019, eh? : Mrgreen:
But that makes sense, doesn't it? : Wink:

Ahmed wrote: In men, depending on the culture, this translates into the memes' survival instinct which leads to the sacrifice of one's life for one's ideology ...

Yes, it's the survival instinct that nestles in the psyche.
This is the "virus" that is likely to swell.
Man identifies with his ideas when factually they have their own life.
It thinks for itself.
At the very beginning of a thought or a desire, there is nobody who thinks, nor nobody who desires but quickly something which takes itself for someone and which selects the thoughts and the desires = a censor.

I feel like I'm losing people ... : Lol:
0 x
humus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1951
Registration: 20/12/20, 09:55
x 687

Re: Can we make the ecological transition without nuclear power?




by humus » 12/11/21, 19:01

Ahmed wrote:Lots of people do not have (or have not had) this kind of behavior at all, why then ontologize it?


Ahmed wrote:Ontologizing is attributing a specific trait to Man, that is to say to all the beings that are part of this category. In this case, a psychological behavior from which he could not detach himself, since "it is his nature" ... Your inference is understood by an extension of a mode of operation typical of modern society, not that it is absolutely generalized within the latter, but because this inclination is subservient to it.



Thank you for making the effort to clarify, but I don't see much simplification in the expression. : Lol:

I rephrase your words in my style, you will tell me if that's what you wanted to say or not.

Lots of people do not have (or have not had) this kind of behavior at all, why consider that it should, or could be generalized to all humanity?

Well, because this self-centered, selfish behavior exists in animals too.
We are only an extension of it.
Every human being potentially has this behavior in him.
The local culture, the setting (climate, type of society), individual consciousness, modulate the expression of this kind of behavior.
Capitalism breeds monsters but it is an interesting experience to live in it, it allows to be aware of the sufferings and to gain awareness of human nature.

It doesn't work on everyone! I would not give nicknames ... : Lol:

The human being has one more compared to the animals, it is that he is capable of systematism, he is able to insist heavily in the wrong direction BUT he is also able to be aware of his actions and therefore to free himself from determinisms. .
Animals do neither or at the margin.
We are capable of both the best and the worst.

The energy remains an amplifier of ourselves, we do not have to put the amplifier to the limit, we have this freedom, except to be locked in a system which knows only "to the max".

We are not revolting enough. : Mrgreen:
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12274
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2930

Re: Can we make the ecological transition without nuclear power?




by Ahmed » 12/11/21, 19:10

Happy rephrasing! 8)
That capitalism breeds monsters is not the most important, because the perversity or the power (for those who prefer!) Of the system lies in its capacity to put the maximum number of people at its service, willingly or by force.
1 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
humus
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1951
Registration: 20/12/20, 09:55
x 687

Re: Can we make the ecological transition without nuclear power?




by humus » 12/11/21, 19:14

Ahmed wrote: the perversity or the power (for those who prefer!) of the system lies in its capacity to put the maximum number of people at its service, willingly or by force.

I do not see any alternative outside of "We are not revolting enough".

In the comments of this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfLidihDnwk
someone seems of the same opinion and it's not me : Mrgreen:
We lack mobilization, capitalism, by promoting individualism, has done the job well! : Mrgreen:
Arthur Keller lacks too much of a class analysis in his observations as in his proposals.
He remains unclear and politically confused, not understanding the real meaning of public services, which are the issue of ownership of the means of production.

It does not formulate the need for public service monopolies in key sectors of the economy - energy, health, public transport, water, etc. - under the control and democratic management of workers and the population.

He is a social democrat - not even a reformist because he does not even have the goal of a socialist society in mind.

It is always less worse than Jancovici, who comes from the right and the ideology of merit - well permeated in engineering schools by competition - and from a pessimistic vision of a pseudo "bad" human nature than action should be forced through carrot / stick incentives rather than solidarity, education and democracy. As a result, he has even less understanding of what a public service monopoly is.

Finally, both do not understand that the balance of power vis-à-vis the capitalists can only come from the struggle of the working class against capitalism, over the means of production, by attacking the profits and private property of these people. means of production, through strikes, takeover and democratic management of these means of production by workers organized in workers' committees, etc.

E more generally, by the double task of:
- the mass organization of the working class into class struggle organizations (revolutionary and democratic unions)
- the construction of a revolutionary party of the working class carrying a program for a socialist society
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12274
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2930

Re: Can we make the ecological transition without nuclear power?




by Ahmed » 12/11/21, 19:30

The criticisms emitted by this commentator are correct, but he himself lurks heavily in historically recurring errors. First, the working class does not have a vocation to overthrow capitalism, insofar as it constitutes only a category internal to this one and that it integrates its functioning, which one notes secondly, when it The objective is to redistribute its products and take possession of its means of production: can we pay a better tribute to capitalism? : Mrgreen:
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9746
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2622

Re: Can we make the ecological transition without nuclear power?




by sicetaitsimple » 12/11/21, 20:22

humus wrote:
Finally, both do not understand that the balance of power vis-à-vis the capitalists can only come from the struggle of the working class against capitalism, over the means of production, by attacking the profits and private property of these people. means of production, through strikes, takeover and democratic management of these means of production by workers organized in workers' committees, etc.

E more generally, by the double task of:
- the mass organization of the working class into class struggle organizations (revolutionary and democratic unions)
- the construction of a revolutionary party of the working class carrying a program for a socialist society


Oh pu..in, a Proust madeleine! I did not know that this type of speech could last! It's all funny : roll:
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12274
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2930

Re: Can we make the ecological transition without nuclear power?




by Ahmed » 12/11/21, 20:44

There are still some that have a (large) ignition delay ...
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Can we make the ecological transition without nuclear power?




by sen-no-sen » 12/11/21, 21:24

humus wrote:Capitalism breeds monsters but it is an interesting experience to live in it, it allows to be aware of the sufferings and to gain awareness of human nature.


To say that capitalism generates monsters seems to me to be a very poor analysis.
Examples?
The capitalist system is in reality nothing but the sobriquet of exponential economism, which, through technologism, has made it possible to guarantee a growing number of individuals health, safety, education and guaranteed food.
It has allowed the emergence of human (and women's!) Rights and the inclusion of minorities, it is thanks to its values ​​that the system is now able to penetrate all ideological defenses and relegate religions to simple puppets.
Can we seriously say that this system is created by monsters? I do not have this impression walking in the street!
This is where we must show cynicism: the horror of the system does not lie in the practice of abusive speculation or affairs of state, corruption or even the overthrow of a regime, but on the contrary in its practice. fantastic ability to promote a more just world.
The alterglobalists and consort base their criticisms only on the deleterious aspects of capitalism, which clearly invalidates their analyzes when they see how they work on a daily basis.
In reality, most of the peripheral countries would like to be there!

The real criticism of the system is of a philosophical nature: economism is a fantastic lure, the most dangerous lure implemented in history. to analyze its values ​​and not its flaws. Very few authors attempt to do so, most of them based on surface criticism and a few scoops aimed at making headlines.
1 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Can we make the ecological transition without nuclear power?




by ABC2019 » 12/11/21, 23:12

sen-no-sen wrote:
humus wrote:Capitalism breeds monsters but it is an interesting experience to live in it, it allows to be aware of the sufferings and to gain awareness of human nature.


To say that capitalism generates monsters seems to me to be a very poor analysis.
Examples?
The capitalist system is in reality only the nickname of exponential economism.

it would perhaps be necessary to give back its meaning to the words. capitalism is first and foremost an economic system that allows capital to be pooled and remunerated according to the profits harvested from the investments made. It does NOT automatically imply exponential growth, for the simple reason that nothing prevents some from making profits, and others losing their money, and ultimately growth is zero or negative. Capitalism was born in the Renaissance especially to finance maritime trade, large ships being expensive to build, but at that time overall growth was low, and while some got richer, there were also resounding bankruptcies (like the one de Law, the East India Company, or the Dutch East India Company)

But in fact, it turned out to be the most effective system for developing the fossil-based thermo-industrial society that developed with the steam engine. We entered a period of continuous growth over two centuries, quite naturally associated with capitalism: but there again other systems such as the Soviet system also experienced industrial growth, but without private capitalism in any case. But obviously to take advantage of the enormous power of fossils, you had to build huge machines, dams, power plants, factories, and therefore raise capital in one way or another.

So capitalism was associated with growth because it was the "winner" of the growth race, but capitalism can exist without growth, and growth can exist without capitalism - but less well.
1 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : Google [Bot] and 114 guests