Between dreams and realities in Germany

[sen-no-sen]

all of which is corrupted by irrational ideologies (generally messianism in different forms).

well, it's not that the rational is the panacea, either. It is a bit like the blind man who believes that the world is black because, rationally, he sees nothing!

Beware of the confusion of terms, one can very well be spiritualist and rational, one does not prevent the other.
Conversely, and this is the dominant trend, may have been materialistic and irrational!
Transhumanism and other tendencies of the genre are also entirely in this logic there: they defend an irrational purpose via operational modes of production.
Communism and Nazism worked in this way, using industrial performance in the service of a delusional purpose.
Ideologies of this kind must therefore be watched very closely ... lack of luck, the current economic system works like this!

[Ahmed]

Yes, we must not confuse the performative reason (in the service of the means) and the real reason which is holistic and is interested above all in the ends, from which will then flow the means likely to reach them.

[Janic]

all of which is corrupted by irrational ideologies (generally messianism in different forms).

What bothers me is this assemblage of words: robbery, ideologies, irrational and of course messianism as if they came together naturally.
First on pox which is only a way to discredit these ideologies in question as being, a priori, an irremediable shame.
Ideology ?
When we have tried today to introduce the word new ideology [it. in the text] instead of the term metaphysics which we proscribed, we were able to announce that we no longer wanted to deal with these high speculations of metaphysics proper, such as Descartes created it, that Malebranche and Arnaud cultivated it so eminently. It was even useful to have some sort of term that fixed the dividing line. But when we have pretended to replace metaphysics entirely by ideology, we thought we could submit to the physical or logical point of view these first and necessary conceptions or notions that metaphysics essentially has for object; we confused everything, we fell into serious errors. MAINE DE BIRAN, Journal, 1817, p. 42, 43.

But when we stick these two words together, it becomes nonsense because , promising decide what is rational or not? The reason ? Reason told us, to the humans, that the heavier than the air could not fly and this vision of the reason (of which?) Was wrong, like number of these reasons or pseudo reasons decided by rationality of the moment. So irrational one day, rational another day.
And all this to lead to a messianism, eaten in all sauces, by those who recommend it as by those who deny it and therefore it gives anything, preferably.

[Ahmed]

"Irrational ideologies" is an oxymoron, because this term serves to discredit the word of the other. Its function is to justify the words of the accuser who, by the simple fact of this statement, would not stem from an ideology, but would be the expression of reason ... Of course, this only constitutes a rhetorical position. perfectly abusive.

[Bardal]

I am a little embarrassed by this reasoning, which consists in applying, by analogy, an explanatory theory drawn from biology to a human society (all the sociological theorizations resulting from a biological analogy also shock me, moreover, starting with the Darwinism applied without great caution in Marxian or liberal or economic theorizations; which does not mean that I deny man his belonging to the animal order ...).

I am somewhat used to this kind of remark. In fact when we make this type of comparison, based on a so-called naturalist grid, the answer is systematically the same (1): namely that this kind of theses led to Marxism then to communism or even to social Darwinism, and even worse to Nazism!
And it's a bit normal since we have all been educated, it's part of our culture, to understand the world through a prism anthropocentric, that is to say of a certain idea of ​​Man placed in the center of nature and which cannot be compared strictly speaking with the rest ... the problem is that the laws of physics, whatever think rule the entire Universe and so do we.

Naturalism obviously applies more than twice to the human race. Marxist, Nazi or social Darwinism theses have always been only a vague recovery from scientific naturalism (history to be serious), the whole being robbed by irrational ideologies (usually messianism in different forms).
I could develop for hours but that is not the subject.
Know, however, that statistical mechanics applied to structures of human origin is something perfectly taught in universities, especially in the study of Geography.
And if a certain number are reluctant to apply them to sociology it is more out of dogmatism than for scientific reasons.

In my opinion, the development of renewable energies is anything but "a rather resilient sector" or "r for the small resilient structure"; it is even, on the contrary, the product of a hyper-centralized, globalized, monstrous society; their very existence, their design, their manufacture, their financing, their operation, their sustainability, cannot be conceived outside of a highly developed, highly industrialized and centralized society.

As mentioned Ahmed all the tools, machinery and various everyday objects are the fruit of a hyper-centralized society, so this applies to wind turbines, Haribo candies or a paper envelope.
This does not call into question the r / K reasoning which must be considered within a given framework (here the energy sector).
The r / K principle is quite simply the mode of propagation of energy through different types of structures / entities / life forms, this also applies to an earthquake, a cyclone, a buildings, species , cultures, businesses, armed conflicts etc ... etc ...

(1) Unique thought? I noticed that the most cultivated interlocutors always had the same answer on the subject!

I'm not following you too much in these developments, sen-no-sen; and I did not introduce Nazism into my list (which has hardly more than one known and permanent inheritance, racism and anti-Semitism, well before Darwin), but Marx who refers heavily and explicitly to Darwin, and the classical economists (Smith, Ricardo, Malthus ...) who also applied an explicitly Darwinian scheme to the study of economics. Useless therefore to take again the banal antiphon of the condemnable extremes, you make, as far as I am concerned, a misinterpretation ...

Moreover, whether biology or statistical mechanics also apply to the human species is not debated either; it remains to be done in a relevant and legitimate way, which in my opinion is not the case; because the analysis of the principle r / K in animal species (assuming that we admit it) is applied analogically in an imprudent way and in my opinion illegitimate to human social phenomena which only maintain a romanticized relationship, even poetic with animal phenomena; to speak trivially, the "queen" of the hive is "queen" only in our dreams, and the "centralization" of the anthill is only an effect of rhetoric, like the suicide of the lemmings ... We can legitimately use the analogy, it is still necessary to know and mark its limits; I find that the theory that you develop sins on this side.

The same could be said of the laws of physics which certainly "whatever one thinks govern the whole Universe and us with", laws which are only human invention, and are still incapable today of describing and d 'explain 80% of the universe, and are even unable to explain the appearance of life (second principle of thermodynamics, called entropy).

Finally, and I will leave it there, contrary to what you say (as well as Ahmed), most everyday objects are not, or might not be, the fruits of "a hyper-centralized society"; sweets have been around since the dawn of time, paper is a craft activity (which can be very R, ​​or K, I don't remember the difference), a broom or a chair, a knitting, a bowl, jams or salted snacks ... even daily tools are common in societies with very little centralization ... But wind turbines (electric of course) or PV panels, no! And what they animate either. Some analysis errors do not have consequences, others, if ...

[Ahmed]

It seems to me that you are misinterpreting the interpretation of determinisms. This is what emerges from your examples (including the "queen" of bees!) Which only show, and on the contrary, an anthropomorphization (obviously absurd and opposed to naturalism) of animals. It is in a completely different sense that determinisms take on their meaning.

Concerning simple objects, since the one who manufactures it is not the one who uses it, we find ourselves in the framework of a highly centralized society * (even when the exchanges are local) and if these objects date from eras, that this type of society is too.

* Hyper centralization is only a qualifier of a current modality here.

[sicetaitsimple]

A good orgy ... Even Janic is trying to get into it, if I dare say!
Do you feel my brain juice much hotter than yours?
Sorry if I seem very basic to you, but what does this have to do with the initial subject, which seemed to me to be the pluses and minuses of the German energiewende?

[sen-no-sen]

Moreover, whether biology or statistical mechanics also apply to the human species is not debated either; it remains to be done in a relevant and legitimate way, which in my opinion is not the case; because the analysis of the principle r / K in animal species (assuming that we admit it) is applied analogically in an imprudent way and in my opinion illegitimate to human social phenomena which only maintain a romanticized relationship, even poetic with animal phenomena; to speak trivially, the "queen" of the hive is "queen" only in our dreams, and the "centralization" of the anthill is only an effect of rhetoric, like the suicide of the lemmings ... We can legitimately use the analogy, it is still necessary to know and mark its limits; I find that the theory that you develop sins on this side.

I think that we are not talking about the same thing ... talking about the queen of the hive or the suicide of the lemmings is to make an analogy which is a matter of concordism (= to reconcile events without fundamental relationship between them by analogy bias).
On the other hand to say that the dissipation of energy can be carried out according to several modes of propagation is part of science (see the law of Zipf, the law 1 / f etc ...)
To consider that its modes of energy dissipation influence the structures is a truth as well as the heliocentrism or the roundness of the earth. These are facts that can be seen on a daily basis.
It is actually quite funny to have to justify yourself on such trivial things, but I recognize that this is an unusual type of analysis that is little taught.
Now if you don't believe me, you have to explain to me the reason for the phenomenon of rural exodus, urban macrocephaly, the construction of skyscrapers, multinationals or the European Union .... the guiding principle is nevertheless always the same.

The same could be said of the laws of physics which certainly "whatever one thinks govern the whole Universe and us with", laws which are only human invention, and are still incapable today of describing and d 'explain 80% of the universe, and are even unable to explain the appearance of life (second principle of thermodynamics, called entropy).

Would extra-terrestrial knowledge be more admissible?
Without being able to speak in the language of animals or plants, knowledge is by definition human and therefore limited.
Current physical knowledge allows us to account for our daily lives, and that to the big metaphysical questioning the answer is simply out of reach of the intellect, but all this seems to me somewhat distant from our wind turbines and evolution ENR!

most everyday objects are not, or might not be, the fruits of "a hyper-centralized society"; sweets have been around since the dawn of time, paper is a craft activity (which can be very R, ​​or K, I don't remember the difference), a broom or a chair, a knitting, a bowl, jams or salted snacks ... even daily tools are common in societies with very little centralization ... But wind turbines (electric of course) or PV panels, no! And what they animate either. Some analysis errors do not have consequences, others, if ...

We must make a distinction between what could be achieved by hand from what is currently produced and which results from a gigantic supply chain.
Hammers have existed since ancient times, but not on the fact that the last Facom hammer could be produced identically in Upper Egypt.
But that still does not have the beginning of a relationship with what I said above, namely of the evolution of structures with regard to the level of energy dissipation.
You should therefore explain to me why a company like GE ou enercon want to build wind turbines over 250m high ???
Why this race for gigantisms ???
In what economic and historical framework are deployed such projects ???

[Ahmed]

It's a discussion ... Is it so important to make it fit into boxes that are necessarily limiting? Is there nothing relevant except the technocratic aspect? Does Sirius' point of view make you dizzy?

[sicetaitsimple]

It's a discussion ... Is it so important to make it fit into boxes that are necessarily limiting? Is there nothing relevant except the technocratic aspect? Does Sirius' point of view make you dizzy?

To my knowledge, creating a dedicated topic is not prohibited. I just noticed the gap between the initial idea of ​​it as I understood it and the point where you are ...