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

[eclectron]

@Izi
Yes, agree with you, what the majority want: to have clean air, water and nature, who cares and it's a utopia.
This type of agriculture will never be done, it does not work, otherwise it would become generalized and in addition it would not be profitable.
Really all wrong these people there:



there is only this hitchhiking warrior agriculture possible and above all very sustainable because totally based on fossil resources:


Your children will thank you for your clairvoyance, the courage of your positions and your resistance to family conflict of interest. Well done !
Above all, let's not change anything, don't bother to set up sustainable and healthy agriculture, anyway we could not do. The circle is complete.

In order to avoid any misunderstanding, this is all obviously ironic.

Or in addition synthetic:
It is not to eat, it is to sell.

[Rajqawee]

Electron (I wanted to quote, but it's a bit too painful, so I answer as is)

We misunderstood each other, then, if I could give that impression. The "profitable" (and I understand your quotes correctly!) Is absolutely not a prerequisite, especially since it is an indicator almost useless today, to measure anything. I think we have to go beyond capitalism, and in fact, we have already, I think, passed. But not in a good way.
In truth, the capitalist game, few people play it. They mostly play at consumerism (which allows the richest X% of them to play capitalism).
Regarding the fact that a large part of the population is not directly used for useful production, I agree with you, but not on the solutions to such a "problem"

A world where man is freed from work (from work! Not from wage labor ...) does not seem to me to be ideal at all. We have always worked, for our survival, but not only. Of course we can thrive in the arts, entertainment, or whatever, but I don't think that's enough for us in the long term. On the other hand, it may be a short-term "detail". I will be quite okay with the idea of ​​a universal income for the transition, just to leave people alone and stop putting pressure on them when they actually have almost no chance of finding a job. utility niche, at the moment T. However, I moderate my position by telling myself that the day we have to choose between these solutions, we have already taken a huge step forward!

On the aspect of incompatibility between capitalism and another model (I really like your semantics between the current, "profitable" world, and your desired "sustainable" world, I will recover it if you want, in addition to this 'is very clear), I will not be as marked as you, I think. If we change the definition of profitable (for example with carbon accounting?), We could perhaps bring the two concepts together, gradually.

For sustainable and healthy agriculture, I agree. I will even be to propose again to many people to work in the fields (without going back especially to the old model of "hard labor" eh), to give them a fundamental utility, and to have a much more sustainable agriculture. .It is in my opinion (agriculture) the best candidate to decarbonize / make an industry sustainable, relocate it, create interesting jobs for many people who today do not find any, in places where the population density is low, and thus relieve congestion in towns and revitalize villages or small towns.

[Ahmed]

Rajqawee, capitalism is not only reserved for those who wear a top hat and smoke cigars: everyone contributes willing to involuntarily, if only as a destroyer of the commodity produced (condition of a new production → production does not aim at the creation of physical, useful wealth, but simple abstract value).
A large part of the population is no longer useful for the production of real wealth, but also of fictitious value. The first point stems from the level of productivity, the second also (in a more indirect way) and is compensated by the recourse to the financial industry which "invents" in the future resources absent from the present.
You write:"We have always worked, for our survival, but not only.
Work under capitalism is of a different nature than what has been observed previously (which was not always necessarily better!) And it is a reality which, even in the broad sense you give it, was foreign to human societies for a very, very long time (this remains true for some peoples even today).

[ABC2019]

Rajqawee, capitalism is not only reserved for those who wear a top hat and smoke cigars: everyone contributes willing to involuntarily, if only as a destroyer of the commodity produced (condition of a new production → production does not aim at the creation of physical, useful wealth, but simple abstract value).

or quite simply, by placing your money in savings accounts.

[ABC2019]

For sustainable and healthy agriculture, I agree. I will even be to propose again to many people to work in the fields (without going back especially to the old model of "hard labor" eh)

it is not a "model", it is a necessity, when you have nothing else (ie no agricultural machinery). And without fossils, it may become so again.
Otherwise I do not share your definition of capitalism; capitalism is above all an economic mode of operation, i.e. the pooling of capital by shareholders, which makes it possible to bring together large sums to make investments that no shareholder could have made alone (and then distribute the benefits). Capitalism also began before the industrial revolution, especially for the construction of fleets of boats to develop trade, and boats are expensive.

The development of consumerism was then a consequence of the efficiency of the process, which was amplified with the discovery of machines and the construction of large factories, leading to wage employment, the constitution of gigantic fortunes, the massive increase in consumption. , but it was not a mandatory evolution. At first it was just the idea of ​​pooling wealth, which is not an absurd idea. Capitalism imposed itself simply because it proved to be the most effective method of increasing the wealth produced - that this increase in wealth comes at the expense of natural resources being considered for a long time as a minor problem, until that this exhaustion becomes significant enough that we realize that it is a big one.

[izentrop]

In order to avoid any misunderstanding, this is all obviously ironic.

Fortunately, you specify, because the first image represents a high added value system for gullible injuries and the second an outfit imposed by the insurance companies.
It's like showing the image of a smoke detector saying that their compulsory presence in every room was a sign that fires were more formidable than before.

True food autonomy is not veg. My parents, like everyone else, still in the 60s and 70s raised some hens, geese, rabbits, pigs providing proteins and inputs for a generous production in the garden. It put butter in the spinach and made it possible to invest in other areas (capitalism) ....
They got it from their parents who for them it was a necessity.

Since then, agriculture has increased its production per hectare tenfold with perhaps 10 times less staff. It is due to significant technical progress and not only to fossil resources. With global warming and recurring droughts, some get by with irrigation, but it is not sustainable. In some regions, traditionally producing cereals, it is the cata

[Rajqawee]

Since then, agriculture has increased its production per hectare tenfold with perhaps 10 times less staff. It is due to significant technical progress and not only to fossil resources.

Without being bad-tempered and only selecting what I don't agree with, I don't think the orders of magnitude are these. Technical progress on what? Tractors, fertilizers, pesticides all come from a cycle either directly linked to fossils, or very strongly dependent on fossils.
What remains:
-the globalization of cultures; yes, but not always relevant (the famous tomatoes in gas-heated greenhouses ...)
-the selection of species for certain characteristics; ok, but we were already doing it long before the industrial revolution
-the cultivation practices, not to say that we have gained in productivity!

Finally, productivity per hectare over the last 100 years has increased mainly thanks to the consumption of an existing stock of energy, fossils! Whether it is to manufacture agricultural machinery or others.
In fact, we come back to the same observation: since the only thing we were looking at was the financial profitability of agriculture, we made the choices accordingly. And as usual, the most profitable was to tap into very dense energy reserves that already existed!

[Paul72]

To stay in the agricultural domain, big challenge of the century in the context of RC ...

https://www.futura-sciences.com/planete ... caux-2794/

Other files to come on the subject but already an author's book to download at the end.

Teaser: it's going to be complicated ...

[izentrop]

pesticides all come from a cycle either directly linked to fossils, or very strongly dependent on fossils.

Considering the small quantities required, it will not be a problem to produce them with ENRs. And we used more toxic goods in the past.
https://www.agriculture-environnement.f ... e-16?amp=1

[ABC2019]

To stay in the agricultural domain, big challenge of the century in the context of RC ...

https://www.futura-sciences.com/planete ... caux-2794/

Other files to come on the subject but already an author's book to download at the end.

Teaser: it's going to be complicated ...

if you look at the numbers, you quickly realize that the most important problem is that of population growth, and that the OR is an order of magnitude below.
In addition, the article does not say a word about the fact that doing without fossils would produce many more problems for world agriculture, both for the production of food and for its transport (which is one of the keys to avoiding famines. , which do not happen at the same time and in the same place)

It is no coincidence that the number of deaths due to natural disasters has considerably DECREASED during the XNUMXth century, DESPITE rising temperatures and THANKS to the development of fossil fuels.

https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters