Standard of living, acceptability, energy requirement (free or not)

[eclectron]

Sorry for going back but I had some homework to complete

The fact that you suppose a reorientation of the objectives towards the human finality does not change much in reality; but let's neglect that

If we neglect it, it is not at all good for the future.
Like rehashing by myself, we must set up the sustainable economy.
this sustainable economy obviously has no link with the current one, which is based on incessant flows.
durable would approach very slow motion on the flow, even almost frozen.
This sustainable economy results in a need for energy, transport and energy for transformation that is much reduced compared to today.
So, with equal comfort of life, energy consumption would be reduced compared to today.

On the other hand I do not see the renewable energies satisfying this consumption, even reduced.
The intermittences are nevertheless penalizing, the power actually available to date remains low. There is potential, that I grant. (desertec ....)

That's why I'm basking in Gen IV or possibly free energy. (Which is a lot much more hypothetical, so let's not talk about it)

and I do not see myself intentionally lowering the comfort of life, in an economic system based on flows (preferably increasing )
I do not see myself voluntarily tightening my belt to preserve an iniquitous system, while a sustainable economy with high comfort of life has never been tested.

More fundamentally, is "Standard of living" the correct concept?

We had agreed on "comfort of life" and not a standard of living which implies money and therefore a flow, so ... we know!

It suffices to observe the present world.

[eclectron]

Ahmed is socially right ... even if, scientifically, electron's opinion is interesting ...

Clarck said that free energy applied on a large scale would dissipate so many joules on Earth that it would induce uncontrollable global warming ... in a few years ...

So the aspect of reducing the pressure on the environment thanks to free energy is not a given ... far from it!

I had seen the question on Futura of the warming caused by the use of current energies on the climate and the answer was zero.
The only warming that is worthwhile being that of GHGs + the sun.
The dissipation of carbonaceous fossil energy, nuclear or otherwise, does not change the temperature of the globe even if it is true that in absolute terms, if the dissipated energy becomes gigantic, it could warm the globe. We are far from it.

I bet on humanity becoming reasonable and set up a sustainable economy, therefore an economy that is economical in everything.
Today when there is no containment , we turbine to maintain the flow of money and therefore the flow of everything.

Currently we favor the profitable over money, while we should favor the sustainable over the living.

[eclectron]

My personal opinion is that we need both points of view (we will call it the "necessary comfort" position and the "sobriety" position), because the two are not done at the same time.

This is my opinion as well. I think it is possible and others less .... is not it Ahmed, Sen no Sen...
Matter of cadre economic (sustainable vs profitable), a question of education and awareness of the consequences of one's actions.
In fact the problem is mainly our mind.

[Ahmed]

Assuming the obstacle of the generalized agreement on sobriety insurance raised, the amount of energy required would be at a level out of all proportion to that currently observed, which is why I do not understand this fixation on a considerable source of energy. If we take the example of what is currently recycled, this is surely not a good illustration of what could be done in a radically different context.
The concern of "happy sobriety" (which seems to me desirable, but the content of which remains to be determined), is that it is a little understood formula which is likely to backfire on the contrary. of its designers and to evolve rapidly towards an endured shortage, which logically results from the decrease in energy availability and the saturation of economic circuits.

[eclectron]

Finally, free or free energy: it will remain energy. It's still the transformation of the environment. It doesn't change, I think, nothing about the above problem.

Yes.
What would make a difference is a deliberately different economic framework.
Get out of the profitable in relation to money as a driving force and get into the sustainable. (Durable objects therefore made only once - very heavily)
Bearing in mind that money (current, debt money) is a flow requiring perpetual material growth to existDitto for capitalism, the two are intimately linked.

[eclectron]

There is no such thing as superunitary energy, it is a contemporary and utopian conceptualization of the myth of abundance.
The first principle of thermodynamics is clear: energy is conserved.
There is always the same level of energy in the universe ... so it is stupid to want to break this principle, it is a pure waste of time ...
Now a theoretical point of view it can be interesting to look for a way to decrease the entropy of a system, in order to be able to dissipate the energy used.
Apparently that's what the universe would do, but it takes the help of a black hole ...

It's going a bit fast in conclusions ...

Referring to the upper limit of the cosmological constant, the vacuum energy has been estimated to be 10−9 joules (10−2 ergs) per cubic meter. But according to quantum electrodynamics and stochastic electrodynamics, to be consistent with the Lorentz invariance principle and the value of Planck's constant, it should have a value of around 10 ^ 113 joules per cubic meter . This huge discrepancy has been called the “vacuum catastrophe”.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89nergie_du_vide
When physics diverges so much on the value of vacuum energy, personally I would be a little more humble about my conclusions.
The energy level of the vacuum, known as the minimum level, is still gigantic.
Since this is the minimum energy level, it is deemed unusable.
Just because it's written doesn't mean it's true, or will be true for eternity.

The vacuum fluctuates ...
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluctuation_quantique
in addition and in less, it is therefore possible to drop below the so-called minimum level.
In short, I would not be as categorical as you.

[eclectron]

An "unknown energy", "a happy coincidence", all this has nothing very scientific. With semantic bifurcations of this kind one can invoke God and other wonders.

Fortunately he is not touchy and resentful in front of such remarks.

By following your logic, the wonder that is the universe with us inside, would be due to chance?
I thought you didn't like those words.

and the initial energy that represents the universe does not question you, the fact that the universe expands while accelerating, either?

[Rajqawee]

Assuming the obstacle of the generalized agreement on sobriety insurance raised, the amount of energy required would be at a level out of all proportion to that currently observed, which is why I do not understand this fixation on a considerable source of energy. If we take the example of what is currently recycled, this is surely not a good illustration of what could be done in a radically different context.
The concern of "happy sobriety" (which seems to me desirable, but the content of which remains to be determined), is that it is a little understood formula which is likely to backfire on the contrary. of its designers and to evolve rapidly towards an endured shortage, which logically results from the decrease in energy availability and the saturation of economic circuits.

In fact, the problem is already that we see "chosen sobriety" as a bad scenario. Like the "less worse". But that is precisely the basic problem. It is to believe that there is a problem! (always with a view to being happy, accomplished)
In fact, the life we ​​could lead, with less energy consumption, would not be "worse" than the one we live now.

Let me take a few examples: if we choose to say to ourselves that going on vacation at 200km can already be a great adventure, we do not feel bullied not to have gone to the other side of the world (again, the important thing is, that's the way. a 3 week camping holiday on the shores of a lake 200km away can already be a great exotic adventure for many).
If you choose to think that making your vegetable garden is a rewarding experience, it avoids feeling your purchasing power decrease when the price of fruits and vegetables increases.
If we say to ourselves that going to work by bike at 10km, from time to time (like when the weather is nice), it's both pleasant and healthy, well that avoids paying overpriced subscriptions to run on a rug in a room.

The problem is not just what we sell to people, as material goods or as services. This is what they are sold as an idea. The idea that the beach on the other side of the world is necessarily more beautiful than that of the country next door. That the mountains are higher on another continent. That such and such a car will give you a rewarding experience, etc.

In short, in many ways, by consuming much less energy, we can still have a much happier and more fulfilled life.

[sen-no-sen]

The vacuum fluctuates ...
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluctuation_quantique
in addition and in less, it is therefore possible to drop below the so-called minimum level.
In short, I would not be as categorical as you.

There are stages to be taken in knowledge.
We do not even master thermonuclear fusion on an industrial scale that some already want to extract in a vacuum are energy!
Are we as hungry for debt as this?
Any dissipation of energy comes at the cost of a "loan" which is manifested by the increase in entropy (the interest on the debt in a way!). has systematic consequences.You can't get through it.
The ecological crisis is fully linked to the increase in entropy, it is moreover just that.
Wanting more energy by betting that human society would become wise is an oxymoron; the more energy we dissipate, the more powerful our hubris and our immense misfortunes.
If spiritualities have placed so much emphasis on the vows of poverty, silence and meditation, it is precisely with the aim of forcing the human being to wisdom so that he is not annihilated by forces which exceed us.

[eclectron]

Wanting more energy by betting that human society would become wise is an oxymoron; the more energy we dissipate, the more powerful our hubris and our immense misfortunes.
If spiritualities have placed so much emphasis on the vows of poverty, silence and meditation, it is precisely with the aim of forcing the human being to wisdom so that he is not annihilated by forces which exceed us.

I see the void as a potentiality that only asks to be expressed. A bit like a blank page where almost anything is possible.
Ditto in spirituality, the ultimate goal is to put an end to the suffering in oneself and to let the creative void express itself. (therefore be silent: there is no suffering outside of oneself)

The aspiration for free energy (at home) is not the aspiration for omnipotence but mainly not to be cold in winter, to be able to move around, to run a few slaves, all this without harming the biotope too much and by distancing myself from this economy of dependence on flows in which we are.
Multiply that by millions or billions of humans, it would change the face of the world.

For me all this participates in a virtuous elevation.