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

[eclectron]

Izentrop et ABC same fight !

You each describe what has been done and which still exists.
Intensive agriculture for one and capitalism for the other.
Both have made and still bring progress *, no one denies it.
* avoiding to dwell on the negative aspects

Which sounds painful to you, probably as a Boomer , is to admit that your models can no longer continue like this, due to constraints imposed by environmental limits and declining non-renewable resources.

Please do not denigrate the attempts to break the deadlock of your outdated models.

There is more freedom for innovation and success in agriculture than in economics. see attached video.
If you have 50mn to lose, it is really worth considering these agricultural successes, rather than remaining stuck on the intensive agricultural model, which keeps the patient sick in order to better sell him something to treat him.
Good health is better than drugs and soil health, like the rest, can be worked on.
One will find there in particular agroforestry, if the market gardening has high yield (for bobo! ) does not suit you Izentrop.and yet it also works ...

Rajqawee
Quote is not mandatory and it is even less readable according to Ahmed who calls it sausage

Thank you for your clarification, obviously I had made incorrect projections about you, sorry.
The habit of only being almost faced with discontactors ...

Introducing carbon accounting while maintaining capitalism is one of your proposals, if I understand correctly?
I admit that I do not think about adaptations of capitalism that would make it more frequent, or even attractive for a time.
Too much seen / lived its dark side

It is undoubtedly a reasonable path that you propose because it would not upset too much habits or mentalities, it would be a proposal more easily acceptable, therefore applicable.

Personally I am more categorical on the solutions since in general I aim at the root cause of the problems in which I am interested.
This leads to unacceptable solutions for the majority of those who express themselves on the net.
Oddly enough in life I meet more people who share my findings.

If I follow you, keeping capitalism, we would keep this notion of obligatory growth by maintaining interest on savings, investments and loans.
While according to my perception, our comfort of life (OECD) is satisfactory, no longer requires real growth, or at the margin, just a little more equity to introduce.
Once this is done, I admit that I find it difficult to see how carbon accounting would make the economy, the world sustainable with the handicap that is this engine of growth which only asks to roar, which is the appetite for interests. financial and in an induced way, the growth of extractivism of all kinds. (pollution, destruction of the biotope opposite)
So maybe a sky with less carbon by this carbon accounting, but collapse all the same.
Rq: Meadows had predicted the current collapse of the century, without taking into account the RC, unknown in 1970.

[izentrop]

If you have 50mn to spare, it is definitely worth considering these agricultural successes

From the first words "French agricultural land is a desert" I got.
They talk about carbon storage in the comments of the video ... Subject already discussed here agriculture / 4-for-a-thousand-a-false-good-idea-t15686.html

[eclectron]

From the first words "French agricultural land is a desert" I got.
They talk about carbon storage in the comments of the video ...

Well I see above all that you understand what you want to understand ... that's not what is said, drop it.
Carbon storage is not only part of the video, the rest is the restoration of the soils massacred by the p ... n of agriculture that you plebiscite.

[ABC2019]

Izentrop et ABC same fight !

You each describe what has been done and which still exists.
Intensive agriculture for one and capitalism for the other.
Both have made and still bring progress *, no one denies it.
* avoiding to dwell on the negative aspects

Which sounds painful to you, probably as a Boomer , is to admit that your models can no longer continue like this, due to constraints imposed by environmental limits and declining non-renewable resources.

uhh ... sorry but it's exactly the opposite, I've been telling you from the start that I don't believe that we can continue our comfort in a sustainable way after the exhaustion of resources, it's weird that you lend me the opposite speech, did you really read what I was telling you?

[eclectron]

uhh ... sorry but it's exactly the opposite, I've been telling you from the start that I don't believe that we can continue our comfort in a sustainable way after the exhaustion of resources, it's weird that you lend me the opposite speech, did you really read what I was telling you?

Ah well, then my apologies, I did not perceive you anti-capitalist, nor force of proposal for another system.
On the contrary, I saw you making the apology for capitalism.
Or have you recently changed your point of view?
Can you clarify please.

[ABC2019]

uhh ... sorry but it's exactly the opposite, I've been telling you from the start that I don't believe that we can continue our comfort in a sustainable way after the exhaustion of resources, it's weird that you lend me the opposite speech, did you really read what I was telling you?

Ah well, then my apologies, I did not perceive you anti-capitalist, nor force of proposal for another system.

I didn't say that either. I said that it is the industrial model that is unsustainable anyway, whether capitalist or otherwise. I am not blaming unsustainability on capitalism, but on extracting non-renewable resources, whether metals or fossils.

But it is quite incorrect to describe my position as "Which you find painful, probably as a Boomer , is to admit that your models cannot continue like this ", since that is not what I am saying either: I am saying that it cannot continue, but not especially because of" capitalism ", simply because that the comfort of life we ​​know now requires the extraction of quantities of non-renewable resources.

Capitalism is just the system which has made this extraction the most efficient (and which has therefore also been the most productive for growing wealth, hence its success). And so indeed in a certain sense he will also have shortened life and hastened the end of industrial civilization - but which would have ended anyway, even without him.

[Rajqawee]

Introducing carbon accounting while maintaining capitalism is one of your proposals, if I understand correctly?


If I follow you, keeping capitalism, we would keep this notion of obligatory growth by maintaining interest on savings, investments and loans.
While according to my perception, our comfort of life (OECD) is satisfactory, no longer requires real growth, or at the margin, just a little more equity to introduce.
Once this is done, I admit that I find it difficult to see how carbon accounting would make the economy, the world sustainable with the handicap that is this engine of growth which only asks to roar, which is the appetite for interests. financial and in an induced way, the growth of extractivism of all kinds. (pollution, destruction of the biotope opposite)
So maybe a sky with less carbon by this carbon accounting, but collapse all the same.

I did not say either that the capitalist and industrial model (very relevant ABC) is to be kept. I just think strong breakups are never too desirable. I would therefore prefer to introduce, in the notion of profitability, concepts of carbon accounting / environmental conservation, which will gradually lead the model to move away from pure financial profitability (well, I hope? -I to assert anything ) to move towards a model of sustainability.
It is very clear that growth is not a sustainable model (and we can put population growth in the lot).

To broaden the horizons, what I often find so unnecessary is that a lot of people who would like to change systems talk about going back to a previous situation (like, living like our grandparents, great-grandparents, or whatever). I find that really ... null as a reflection, because it is to deny or denigrate certain major technological advances. And it's a bit too easy, from an intellectual standpoint (I didn't say anyone on this thread had this thought, just that I ran into it IRL), rather than thinking about what a new model. It is also often to deny the existence of big problems in the earlier chosen epoch.

[eclectron]

I am not blaming unsustainability on capitalism, but on extracting non-renewable resources, whether metals or fossils.

Well you can ALSO put it on the back of capitalism since it induces necessarily what you say

I say well that it will not be able to continue, but not especially because of "capitalism", simply because the comfort of life which we know now requires the extraction of quantities of non-renewable resources.

This is true in capitalism or any other model that induces, demands, growth.
This is wrong in a sustainable world. You can very well maintain a high level of comfort, if this does not require a rapid and incessant renewal of goods, to maintain it.
But capitalism induces this rapid and incessant renewal of goods, to maintain a level of comfort (high or not for that matter). )

So I hold on as a Boomer or whatever you want , you do not want to see the responsibility of capitalism in the current situation and its responsibility in blocking the establishment of any other system, such as a sustainable world.

[ABC2019]

I am not blaming unsustainability on capitalism, but on extracting non-renewable resources, whether metals or fossils.

Well you can ALSO put it on the back of capitalism since it induces necessarily what you say

as I said, capitalism has imposed itself because it is the most efficient to create wealth, and therefore also to maximize the extraction of resources.
Afterwards, do we prefer to be richer for a shorter period of time, or less rich for a longer period of time, it's a complex question and I don't think that nobody can impose an answer on all the others. But overall I find that most people would rather earn more and more than less and less.

I say well that it will not be able to continue, but not especially because of "capitalism", simply because the comfort of life which we know now requires the extraction of quantities of non-renewable resources.

This is true in capitalism or any other model that induces, demands, growth.
This is wrong in a sustainable world. You can very well maintain a high level of comfort, if this does not require a rapid and incessant renewal of goods, to maintain it.

sorry but the industrial world requires the constant consumption of energy, and only fossils have shown themselves capable of ensuring this rhythm (neither nuclear power, whether it is generation I, II, III or IV, nor renewable energies were able to show that they were sufficient). So no sustainable world like ours does not exist.

That you do not agree with my position, you have the right, I just ask you not to caricature it and to transform it into its opposite by saying that "probably as Boomer , [I cannot] admit that [my] models cannot continue like this "since I am saying exactly the opposite, that it certainly will NOT be able to continue like this, and your" solutions "to maintain the comfort level are imaginary.

[ABC2019]

So I hold on as a Boomer or whatever you want , you do not want to see the responsibility of capitalism in the current situation and its responsibility in blocking the establishment of any other system, such as a sustainable world.

it's just as inaccurate, I think the world will inevitably end up being sustainable (by definition, since it's going to have to find a way of life that lasts for millennia unless you make humanity disappear!). that this sustainable world will not have modern comforts at all and will not have Gen IV plants. It's not that I don't believe in ONE sustainable world, it's that I don't believe in YOUR world durable, the shade is significant.