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

[izentrop]

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.

Today's world is moving towards robotization, because it is getting more and more complicated.
And why not, if it is the solution to manage the flow of production of goods, while managing as much as possible the return of raw materials in the circuit and reducing the carbon footprint as much as possible.
This would not prevent, with increasing optimization, maintaining an increase in "comfort of life", why not for all.

All this is possible, but it takes a real sharing of wealth and this is where the bottom hurts.

This would be the solution to reindustrialize Europe ... at 24:00:

[Paul72]

Except that there is a catch: the world GDP is so far totally dependent on fossil fuels (Jancovici reminds us in his conferences) and therefore to do without or to reduce fossils, it is already to accept whatever happens. lower world production, by a lot if we do not want to end up with an unlivable planet (physically, not just in the idea) roughly between the two tropics at the end of the century.

So it would be better to organize a strong decrease (distribution of resources and rationing, securing of sectors such as health, changes in agricultural and industrial production methods, etc.) rather than to suffer it later with much worse consequences, and to anyway a chronic and painful decrease of which we already have a glimpse and which does not address the basic problems (you only have to listen to Lemaire this morning again, it's sad)

[Rajqawee]

Except that there is a catch: the world GDP is so far totally dependent on fossil fuels (Jancovici reminds us in his conferences) and therefore to do without or to reduce fossils, it is already to accept whatever happens. lower world production, by a lot if we do not want to end up with an unlivable planet (physically, not just in the idea) roughly between the two tropics at the end of the century.

So it would be better to organize a strong decrease (distribution of resources and rationing, securing of sectors such as health, changes in agricultural and industrial production methods, etc.) rather than to suffer it later with much worse consequences, and to anyway a chronic and painful decrease of which we already have a glimpse and which does not address the basic problems (you only have to listen to Lemaire this morning again, it's sad)

Yes, but I would go further, and I would use JMC's expressions "to give France as a social objective to raise or lower its GDP, that doesn't bother anyone!"
The decrease, for me, must be the consequence of another objective, more constructive for everyone. And that goal can be "to have a happy and constructive life."

If we offer someone a complete life, in a place where he / she can buy his / her home, and where in this place there is leisure, communities, in short, a life, but in return he / she she has to drive three times less by car, stop traveling by plane, consume less meat, I think a lot of people sign the contract fairly quickly. In this case, that means going to live in a big village / a small town and have a more local life (which also means having a job there) rather than living in the city and having accommodation an hour away. .

I think we are lucky, in the sense that a lot of our desires on different themes converge, in fact.

[izentrop]

world GDP has so far been totally dependent on fossil fuels (Jancovici reminds us in his conferences) and therefore to do without or reduce fossils, is already accepting whatever happens to lower world production, by a lot

This is not exactly what he says: Growth that takes into account natural resources is possible, it is a matter of calculation .... https://jancovici.com/transition-energe ... decroitre/ and what I proposed goes in this direction, see attachment.

If we offer someone a complete life, in a place where he / she can buy his / her home, and where in this place there is leisure, communities, in short, a life, but in return he / she she has to drive three times less by car, stop traveling by plane, consume less meat, I think a lot of people sign the contract fairly quickly. In this case, that means going to live in a big village / a small town and have a more local life (which also means having a job there) rather than living in the city and having accommodation an hour away. .

Idyllic.
The reality is that the rural dwellers consume even more because they have to travel more to go to work and to do their shopping. And since he wants to consume organic and can not stand the nuisances of the countryside, prevents the peasants from doing their work serenely.

[ABC2019]

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.

Today's world is moving towards robotization, because it is getting more and more complicated.
And why not, if it is the solution to manage the flow of production of goods, while managing as much as possible the return of raw materials in the circuit and reducing the carbon footprint as much as possible.
This would not prevent, with increasing optimization, maintaining an increase in "comfort of life", why not for all.

All this is possible, but it takes a real sharing of wealth and this is where the bottom hurts.

well why is it that a sharing of wealth is necessary, if we increase the standard of living of everyone? So far the industrial world has developed by improving the lot of everyone, but by keeping inequalities, I am not saying that it is desirable but in any case it is not impossible. Especially that "sharing of wealth" is a vague notion, below what rate of inequality do you find that the sharing is achieved?

[Rajqawee]

world GDP has so far been totally dependent on fossil fuels (Jancovici reminds us in his conferences) and therefore to do without or reduce fossils, is already accepting whatever happens to lower world production, by a lot

This is not exactly what he says: Growth that takes into account natural resources is possible, it is a matter of calculation .... https://jancovici.com/transition-energe ... decroitre/ and what I proposed goes in this direction, see attachment.

If we offer someone a complete life, in a place where he / she can buy his / her home, and where in this place there is leisure, communities, in short, a life, but in return he / she she has to drive three times less by car, stop traveling by plane, consume less meat, I think a lot of people sign the contract fairly quickly. In this case, that means going to live in a big village / a small town and have a more local life (which also means having a job there) rather than living in the city and having accommodation an hour away. .

Idyllic.
The reality is that the rural dwellers consume even more because they have to travel more to go to work and to do their shopping. And since he wants to consume organic and can not stand the nuisances of the countryside, prevents the peasants from doing their work serenely.

But that is precisely what must be changed. Both through pedagogy (which takes time) and obligations / prohibitions to reduce the possibility of leading this life.
Rural life is the most consuming, but so does urban life. However, today, being rural is not a realistic possibility for everyone, since there are not enough jobs or occupations in these places, one of the reasons why people do not don't go there!

[eclectron]

Today's world is moving towards robotization, because it is getting more and more complicated.
And why not, if it is the solution to manage the flow of production of goods, while managing as much as possible the return of raw materials in the circuit and reducing the carbon footprint as much as possible.
This would not prevent, with increasing optimization, maintaining an increase in "comfort of life", why not for all.

All this is possible, but it takes a real sharing of wealth and this is where the bottom hurts.

Robotization can lead to a world without money:

Agree with Paul72, to make robots "live", you need energy.
The question remains what energy we accept and what consequences we accept.
First of all, we have to ask ourselves the question what world do we want, put everything back and question the framework in which we were born: the place and the nature money, capitalism etc.
We can reduce world production with equal comfort of life, as long as the goods produced are durable.

[eclectron]

So it would be better to organize a strong decrease

Degrowth does not work with capitalism and the current currency, linked to capitalism and which is a perpetual debt. When a wave of decline is there, it is called the crisis!

It is absolutely necessary to put everything back in the economy and allow the sustainable does not lead to perpetual crisis.

Starting from the postulate that we want a sustainable world, what are the parameters that would make it possible?
The current debt-money? Certainly not.
capitalism (which demands a return and therefore pecuniary growth and therefore material growth)? Certainly not.

Regarding energy, and in a sustainable world, what comfort of life allow or would allow renewable energies alone?
Do we accept Gen IV nuclear power? (-> breeding, more than a thousand years of fissile material worldwide, all energy consumption combined, at the current level)
Free energy? The Grail in my opinion but unfortunately nothing concrete for the moment, which makes me agree with the opinion of the very bad guys skeptics.

[eclectron]

well why is it that a sharing of wealth is necessary, if we increase the standard of living of everyone? So far the industrial world has developed by improving the lot of everyone, but by keeping inequalities, I am not saying that it is desirable but in any case it is not impossible. Especially that "sharing of wealth" is a vague notion, below what rate of inequality do you find that the sharing is achieved?

It's not for me but I answer anyway
egal = Which is of the same quantity, dimension, nature, quality or value.
The same for everyone, it's simple.
That supposes accepting a certain standardization on the goods and their quantity .....

[Paul72]

Regarding energy, one of the questions to ask is "what is profitable from an environmental point of view and which creates wealth at the same time?"

For example, to create wind turbines or solar panels (also nuclear) you need fossil resources. But if this allows the use to save 10 times, 100 times or 1000 times more fossil resources over time, then we can consider that it is a profitable investment whatever the economic price. We take advantage of a cheap but limited and problematic resource (oil, coal, gas) to create wealth over the long term.