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

[eclectron]

Janco ... as he says again, the decrease is not wanted, it is suffered

Of course it is suffered (confers Meadows, club in Rome from 1972), it is the repeated crises that we are living and that will not get better if we persist in the diktat of the financially profitable in the short term.


This is why we have to leave the growing system that is capitalism, to go sustainable.
So your productivist agriculture only profitable in money -> trash!
Not suddenly, of course, you have to eat well and take the time to transit.
Important a good transit.
and on this subject, to recycle the gold from our toilets in the fields, rather than typing in fossil stocks which will soon come to an end, for phosphate in particular (cadmium and uranium content guaranteed!)
The poor fields that had asked for nothing .....

[Rajqawee]

Of course it is suffered (confers Meadows, club in Rome from 1972), it is the repeated crises that we are living and that will not get better if we persist in the diktat of the financially profitable in the short term.


This is why we have to leave the growing system that is capitalism, to go sustainable.
So your productivist agriculture only profitable in money -> trash!
Not suddenly, of course, you have to eat well and take the time to transit.
Important a good transit.
and on this subject, to recycle the gold from our toilets in the fields, rather than typing in fossil stocks which will soon come to an end, for phosphate in particular (cadmium and uranium content guaranteed!)
The poor fields that had asked for nothing .....

Overall agree. Or rather, we should perhaps find other ways of evaluating AND financial profitability (by integrating an environmental cost) AND growth (rather than looking only at the value of GDP, looking at a set of indicators, such as of the HDI).

Regarding robotization, it is far from being relevant in all areas (even from a sustainable point of view) and it is already creating mass structural unemployment, which our societies have still not responded to. .

[Ahmed]

Jointly evaluating financial profitability and the environment (even in the rather restrictive sense of the term) amounts to abandoning any idea of ​​profitability, since even without taking it into account, it is already observed less and less.

[eclectron]

Overall agree. Or rather, we should perhaps find other ways of evaluating AND financial profitability (by integrating an environmental cost) AND growth (rather than looking only at the value of GDP, looking at a set of indicators, such as of the HDI).

Regarding robotization, it is far from being relevant in all areas (even from a sustainable point of view) and it is already creating mass structural unemployment, which our societies have still not responded to. .

Everything bites its tail: mass unemployment because "we" want islands of financial profitability.
and that does not change the ideology in the elites at the top.
It turns out that in order to produce what we consume, we don't need everyone. With robots, even worse, indeed, but so what? So much the better, I would say.
This is only a problem if you link people's survival to the process of financial profitability.
What should be prioritized? financial profitability or people's lives.
Today it seems inextricable because the 2 are indeed linked.
Yaka untie.
The great Karl had more or less predicted this.
The culmination of capitalism was to lead to a society of expression and leisure, I hope not to betray it too much, vague memory of terminale philosophy….
Ahmed will know how to correct.

We do not care to grow as long as we have living conditions, a living comfort, which is stable.
And this stability, this stagnation is not allowed by capitalism and the currency which are inherently croissantist.
During the confinement alone, nothing disappeared, everyone was fed.
A good economic system should allow breaks without everything falling apart.
Well no, we have bankruptcies in cascades of unemployment, it's a crisis, all because we have stopped running.
Standing still is prohibited, on pain of crisis and therefore misery. just because of the rules of the system, just because of the money from profitability.
You are not profitable for a moment, you die.
This is the principle of capitalism that we accept.
So we arrange to be more human but the principle is there.

[ABC2019]

with reactors that have to be changed every 50 years, that would surprise me. And for the recycling of radioactive materials, good luck.

GenIV recycles a large part of its waste, in fact.

what do you mean ?

and rebuild power plants every 50 years, where and the problem?

it's just not sustainable, it's you who swears by it.

[ABC2019]

We do not care to grow as long as we have living conditions, a living comfort, which is stable.

precisely, it did not escape you that a large part of the world population considers that they do NOT have satisfactory living conditions and comfort, and therefore that they do not give a damn about growing up?

and that you seem to have admitted that everyone could have this comfort of life in a sustainable way and without consuming non-renewable resources ... which is not the case anywhere in fact, and which is precisely the problem.

To deny the problem is not to solve it!

[Rajqawee]

Overall agree. Or rather, we should perhaps find other ways of evaluating AND financial profitability (by integrating an environmental cost) AND growth (rather than looking only at the value of GDP, looking at a set of indicators, such as of the HDI).

Regarding robotization, it is far from being relevant in all areas (even from a sustainable point of view) and it is already creating mass structural unemployment, which our societies have still not responded to. .

Everything bites its tail: mass unemployment because "we" want islands of financial profitability.
and that does not change the ideology in the elites at the top.
It turns out that in order to produce what we consume, we don't need everyone. With robots, even worse, indeed, but so what? So much the better, I would say.
This is only a problem if you link people's survival to the process of financial profitability.
What should be prioritized? financial profitability or people's lives.
Today it seems inextricable because the 2 are indeed linked.
Yaka untie.
The great Karl had more or less predicted this.
The culmination of capitalism was to lead to a society of expression and leisure, I hope not to betray it too much, vague memory of terminale philosophy….
Ahmed will know how to correct.

We do not care to grow as long as we have living conditions, a living comfort, which is stable.
And this stability, this stagnation is not allowed by capitalism and the currency which are inherently croissantist.
During the confinement alone, nothing disappeared, everyone was fed.
A good economic system should allow breaks without everything falling apart.
Well no, we have bankruptcies in cascades of unemployment, it's a crisis, all because we have stopped running.
Standing still is prohibited, on pain of crisis and therefore misery. just because of the rules of the system, just because of the money from profitability.
You are not profitable for a moment, you die.
This is the principle of capitalism that we accept.
So we arrange to be more human but the principle is there.

That's not so much what's going on, from my point of view. Since we are putting in place / we have put in place, many means of living or surviving without being profitable. It is ... precisely mass unemployment. Even if successive governments in recent years want at all costs to reduce this kind of support or funding, that does not change the reality, it is that 10% (roughly speaking?) Of people do not find "their place". in the current production model, and the company still largely finances them. Or intermittently.
So in fact, in reality, for 30 or 40 years, we can see that there are a number of people who are "unsuited" to the proposed system. And it is progressing.

Having a comfort, a salary, the possibility of consuming, a roof, food, that is only enough for a time. For an individual to feel fulfilled and happy, it will take more than that. And in particular a feeling of usefulness, of participation in the construction of his own life and in the society in which he lives.

I agree that we could, first of all, at the very least acknowledge that it exists and provide the income to people, whatever. This is what we do anyway, but we do it with great contempt and reluctance, which leads nowhere. But in the end, it is not a viable model either in my opinion, that to accept that a significant percentage of the population is unemployed / salary for life / universal income whatever, it will not work (I think ).

and that you seem to have admitted that everyone could have this comfort of life in a sustainable way and without consuming non-renewable resources ... which is not the case anywhere in fact, and which is precisely the problem.

Yes ! So it may be that we need to review the way of life or reorientate priorities, to find a situation where satisfaction is achieved in a sustainable way.

[Ahmed]

Mass unemployment is a direct result of the increase in productivity, and, if it is partially subsidized, it nevertheless presents an indirect profitability, since it weighs negatively on the cost of wages ...

The great Karl had more or less predicted this.
The culmination of capitalism was to lead to a society of expression and leisure, I hope not to betray it too much, vague memory of terminale philosophy….

It is not very clear at Marx, because he sometimes makes contradictory remarks on this subject. On the one hand, he asserts that society, emancipated from capitalism, could aim to satisfy consciously defined human needs, instead of obeying the "subject-automaton" and therefore the absurd and self-justifying accumulation of abstract value, on the other hand, he does not hide his admiration for the production of commodities and willingly celebrates the work which is at the origin of it. It is on this second point that it will be mainly followed: the glorification of the workers and the fact that their fight is that of a taking back in hand (reappropriation of the means of production) of their destiny by a simple redistribution of the created value. through work, without calling into question these two categories specific to capitalism, the proletariat and work (I am talking about the specific form that work takes in capitalism).

[eclectron]

This is not so much what is happening, from my point of view. Since we are putting in place / we have put in place, many means of living or surviving without being profitable. It is ... precisely mass unemployment.

Yes, but the system and the proponents of the system preferred only the profitable, as long as it was done.
It is the "spirit" of the heart of the capitalist system.
After that, you have to deal with reality. (poor bastards! )
Rq: Possibly you have integrated the "profitable" in your mind as a necessary prerequisite without questioning it?
What would be the sign that you accept capitalism and its consequences without being really critical?

As told Ahmed it is the improvement in productivity (to be more profitable than the neighbor, or innovation to simply exist) that induces mass unemployment.
In France I have 25 million productive and 42 million unproductive, which makes 62% of assisted .
We need 37% of the population to feed 100%.
Robotized from above and many people are no longer "profitable".

Unless you kill people , it shows that we must change the economic model and not rely on the growth necessary for capitalism and for it alone, when a certain standard of living is reached, as in the OECD.
As already said, satisfactory and stable living conditions are enough to ensure our survival. Humanly, there is no longer this need to grow in the OECD, anyway.
And yet it is necessary, we are told ... -> See the currency-debt

Having a comfort, a salary, the possibility of consuming, a roof, food, that is only enough for a time.

But this is the basis for the rest.

For an individual to feel fulfilled and happy, it will take more than that. And in particular a feeling of usefulness, of participation in the construction of his own life and in the society in which he lives.

Absolutely, then when you see that 62% of the population is not useful for pure production except by being a consumer, it is good that we have to find meaning elsewhere than in profitable / productive work and not trying to adapt to a system that will reject people one day or another, becoming more and more productive.
The ultimate being total robotization and robots that maintain themselves. Man becomes useless.
And there you can rack your brains to occupy your life!
I reassure you, we find. (Arts, research, spirituality etc.)

Personally, I am floating between universal income or a world without money but with rights and duties.

and that you seem to have admitted that everyone could have this comfort of life in a sustainable way and without consuming non-renewable resources ... which is not the case anywhere in fact, and which is precisely the problem.

Yes ! So it may be that we need to review the way of life or reorientate priorities, to find a situation where satisfaction is achieved in a sustainable way.

Already said a thousand times ABC, it is not a question of no longer consuming non-renewable resources at all but of drastically reducing this consumption by producing sustainable, repairable and recyclable products.
Already said a thousand times to ABC, of course it is done nowhere since it is prohibited by capitalism which asks in a perverse way the financially profitable.
It is much more profitable to produce goods quickly obsolete, than to produce goods that will last 100 years or more. It costs less instantly, it sells well.
In addition, a good that will last 100 years or more, you do not buy any soon ...
How does the business that needs to sell to be profitable to survive?
Today, all of our decision-making / thinking capacity is circumscribed in capitalism. It is impossible to establish sustainability or degrowth while keeping capitalism.
There is indeed a conscious choice to be made between the development and profitable. (if we want to survive with dignity)
and I do not see a possible smooth transition, the two being incompatible, one destroys the other.

[izentrop]

[We do not call it a dictatorial principle, because it is based only on ideology.

Ideology that phyto products are not bad for the environment? ideology that we could not do otherwise? ideology that phyto products are sustainable?

Yes.
These are medicines to obtain healthy plants for human and animal consumption. These products are subjected to very extensive studies, such as drugs to target as accurately as possible the pest or disease for which they are intended. Sustainable if used correctly, as agricultural technicians do ....
At the moment there is a controversy over the ban on a seed coating insecticide, with a very selective aim. Soon there will only be much more intrusive solutions causing more collateral damage, or requiring the abandonment of certain food crops.

What do vindictive green people want? completely destroy French agriculture? on ideological basis conveyed by journalists of insinuation. https://www.pseudo-sciences.org/Journal ... s-le-livre