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

[eclectron]

I did not say either that the capitalist and industrial model (very relevant ABC) is to be kept. .

I did not report to ABC but since you insist ...
It all depends on what we mean by industrial.
Currently Industrial is closely linked to capitalism, linked to financial profitability and therefore to productivism.
As you point out below, it would indeed be silly to return to the life of a great grandfather, knowing everything we know today. (Progress)
In my opinion, we must retain this ability to produce goods industrially, efficiently but produce durable goods (100 years or more?), Repairable and recyclable.
All this implies leaving the system of financial profitability, of capitalism therefore, which makes what I am saying impossible.
By leaving the paradigm of financial profitability in any way, this preserves the production tools (no bankruptcy due to low activity or zero activity for a time) and allows to produce useful according to the need for renewal (still no bankruptcy due to low activity since we have left the paradigm of financial profitability)

I just think strong breakups are never too desirable. .

It is fashionable to think so, it seems reasonable and acceptable, indeed.
I must be on the wrong tone, dissonant.
In any case, nature will not worry about our indolence, it is she who will impose the rhythm at one point, it will be sudden. It begins.

After all, why not do this carbon accounting that we realize that it does not solve anything fundamentally. It is always a step in the right direction. Perhaps it will be time to make the appropriate reforms?
It's not ironic, it's I don't know. It is not my way of thinking and I prefer to leave it to those who feel it.

who am I to assert anything ).

A human being who is an integral part of society. Any action on our part, even interior, within ourselves, influences society and changes it, through our way of being, our actions and our words.
As such we are companies of the society that we have, of the society that we are.

[eclectron]

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.

Are you OK with the following?

Capitalism induces growth. Therefore, it is not relevant to establish a sustainable world. Complying with capitalism even leads us to our downfall.

Gen IV has certainly never been implemented on a large scale, but because of its potential, it would cover all energy needs at the current level, on the whole planet and for more than 1000 years.

The sustainable world you speak of is a world of starving because you make the intellectual economy to consider something other than what exists today.

[ABC2019]

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.

Are you OK with the following?

Capitalism induces growth.

no, we've already discussed it, you can do capitalism very well with little or no growth (Japan in the last decades has had almost zero growth, while remaining capitalist).

Therefore, it is not relevant to establish a sustainable world.

not agree either.

Complying with capitalism even leads us to our downfall.

either, first of all what you call "our" loss? the only thing really threatened is the western way of life, it's not "us". We can very well live without this comfort, besides billions of human beings are currently doing it.

Gen IV has certainly never been implemented on a large scale, but because of its potential, it would cover all energy needs at the current level, on the whole planet and for more than 1000 years.

not more than the gen III did not allow to cover all the energetic needs, even in the countries where it was the most developed like France.

The sustainable world you speak of is a world of starving because you make the intellectual economy to consider something other than what exists today.

in this case, the world has been a starving world for millennia, the flourishing Egyptian, Chinese, Cambodian, Roman, Mayan, Inca, etc. civilizations, etc. were made by starving people. It's just a question of vocabulary after all.

[eclectron]

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.

Are you OK with the following?

Capitalism induces growth.

no, we've already discussed it, you can do capitalism very well with little or no growth (Japan in the last decades has had almost zero growth, while remaining capitalist).

Therefore, it is not relevant to establish a sustainable world.

not agree either.

Complying with capitalism even leads us to our downfall.

either, first of all what you call "our" loss? the only thing really threatened is the western way of life, it's not "us". We can very well live without this comfort, besides billions of human beings are currently doing it.

Gen IV has certainly never been implemented on a large scale, but because of its potential, it would cover all energy needs at the current level, on the whole planet and for more than 1000 years.

not more than the gen III did not allow to cover all the energetic needs, even in the countries where it was the most developed like France.

The sustainable world you speak of is a world of starving because you make the intellectual economy to consider something other than what exists today.

in this case, the world has been a starving world for millennia, the flourishing Egyptian, Chinese, Cambodian, Roman, Mayan, Inca, etc. civilizations, etc. were made by starving people. It's just a question of vocabulary after all.

Okay, it's like Izi on agriculture, you don't know how to be a minimum objective, you answer next to it, so not interesting.

[ABC2019]

Okay, it's like Izi on agriculture, you don't know how to be a minimum objective, you answer next to it, so not interesting.

I do not see what my posts have subjective ... it is especially you who scroll when you find nothing to answer.

[izentrop]

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 it will also have shortened life and hastened the end of industrial civilization -

Analysis just as personal as that of Electron.
Janco's is much fairer because it is based on statistical analyzes of the real world.

For what reason, industrial civilization would die out, while it is structured more and more thanks to technical developments and robotization?
We can cope with the decrease in resources by increasing optimization, which is gradually materializing ...
The only handicap would be destruction by wars if the sharing of wealth does not materialize at the same time.

[eclectron]

Capitalism induces growth.
no, we've already discussed it, you can do capitalism very well with little or no growth (Japan in the last decades has had almost zero growth, while remaining capitalist).

Again and again the technique of counterexample ..... crappy, you tire me.
We haven't discussed it since you only listen to yourself.

In the 1990s, growth was significantly weaker, mainly due to overinvestment in the late 1980s, the Plaza Accord of 1985, and an austerity economic policy designed to purge past excesses from the stock markets. and real estate. Government efforts to revive growth will be unsuccessful as the country engages in a long cycle of deflation with devastating consequences for the least competitive companies and for the most fragile households.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japon#%C3%89conomie
Zero growth, but at what cost?
I call it a degraded mode of capitalism, I call it the crisis, for the good reason that to function properly, capitalism needs ... growth.

Is it not the goal of the person who invests his capital to earn interest on it? And therefore to hope for growth somewhere?
Listen and think a little for yourself.

I can feel the flowery vocabulary dawning again at home, through the accumulation of bad faith on your side.
So I'm going to stop talking to the black hole of intelligence: It is absorbed and never comes out. I wonder what you do with it ...
I stop with you.

[eclectron]

For what reason, industrial civilization would die out, while it is structured more and more thanks to technical developments and robotization?
We can cope with the decrease in resources by increasing optimization, which is gradually materializing ...
The only handicap would be destruction by wars if the sharing of wealth does not materialize at the same time.

You either do not understand that the economic framework in which we have spent our entire life (difficulty in extracting it mentally), capitalism, requires financial growth to function, otherwise there is a crisis.
This financial growth only comes at the cost of increasing resource extractions, increasing transformations of resources, or even financial bubbles which require almost no resources but which still do not end up exploding and plunging the real economy into crisis.
Capitalism that works = croissantism.
Capitalism without growth = capitalism that doesn't work = crisis with real people in it.
I don't think Janco will find fault with it.

[Ahmed]

... "technical developments and robotization" do not constitute a remedy for capitalism, but on the contrary increasingly compromise its ability to fulfill its self-accumulative function by undermining the mass of workers at work, and therefore the quantity of value abstract produced. The Japanese company, which has been quoted, is a good example of this, but it is more or less the same everywhere, since it is only through the artifice of massive injections of liquidity that the system is maintained.

[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 ...

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

Galloping demography and RC are not opposable but cumulative factors, moreover it is very well said by Bruno Parmentier, especially since the majority of the demographic increase is done in sectors which already accumulate under food (Africa, Asia South) and strong sensitivity to CR.
As he says, multiplying food production by at least two in these areas is a real challenge, and we must not rely on international solidarity which would only worsen the food problem.
In Europe we can afford to lose a little yield without risking famine a priori ...