State of mind for a viable future

[Obamot]

the conclusion is that for you it is better that she stay in Syria with her cancer then?

It's still your problem, it's you talking about this chick, not us.
Stop torturing minds with dilemmas that only interest you (via unlikely stuff you are trying to prove) from this poor girl's nightmare. Dilemmas that you would like others to endorse. Do it out of respect for this mother, who does not ask to be a “moral” stake in a forum (of a curious nature, moreover ...).

Your words, from this point of view, are indecent.

18/20 for the JOE method: step aside so as not to answer awkward questions and blah-blah-blah

I don't have to answer your speculations about a totally unknown chick, which you evoke in relation to a problem that is completely beyond you and whose consequences are not those that you suppose.

So I have 0/20 to your little childish game JOE.

[ABC2019]

I don't have to answer your speculations about a totally unknown chick, which you evoke in relation to a problem that is completely beyond you and whose consequences are not those that you suppose.

So I have 0/20 to your little childish game JOE.

not at all you underestimate yourself, and your answer makes no sense, so well in the JOE method. Don't underestimate your abilities!

[Obamot]

I estimate nothing at all, it's a boxon I didn't understand what you want us to answer? It's so weird, crazy ...

This chick, the bewildering context that you take into account, then your way of taking people hostage to force them to answer ... And finally your supposed scientific references that you will look for ... (elsewhere) in ... the "Women's Journal”In short, posts relating to the usual delirium that we can only read from a distracted butt when we are in the toilet

So I didn't understand what you would like us to answer, it's so abscond your “informal substrate” What a mess!

[ABC2019]

you have ...

[Exnihiloest]

... your way of taking people hostage to force them to respond ... And finally your supposed scientific references that you will look for ... (elsewhere) in ... the “Women's Journal”In short, posts relating to the usual delirium that we can only read from a distracted butt when we are in the toilet

So I didn't understand what you would like us to answer, it's so abscond your “informal substrate” What a mess!

Haven't you finished the gibberish, your ratiocinations and your repeated smileys? It's childish.

Coming back to the point, there is no need for a particular mindset for a viable future. The past has shown that no long-term plan, defining precise criteria, could ever be drawn up that would have made a stable and bright future. We do not know where we are going beyond 5 to 10 years. And despite this the earth is still spinning and we are more and more numerous, a sign that the human species is not in danger of extinction.
This kind of subject is the most futile intellectual masturbation. What matters is the present and the immediate future. We observe what is wrong and each corrects in small steps, that's what makes the future. The paths that present themselves are discovered only when we advance, and the interest of life is not to draw unnecessary plans in the sky for a utopian future, but to observe and enjoy what we discover. on the way and which is not predictable. The state of mind is only to stay awake.

[Obamot]

You say that, it is questionable since this is what the relatively disorganized human species does due to enormous corruption (when there is no way to do “otherwise” the system “D” in a way ...) but hey, let's admit, even if what you say is not observable in the current theoretical demographic models, where we do not advance by “small touches”, but with a big blow of extractivism and plundering of mining resources, stimulated by savage capitalism and tamed by a plutocratic legislature ... but let's admit it again! (You see how cool I am with you)

Where it totally messes up, (and you would do well to take it back because you can have an interesting pragmatic side) is that ...
you quibble on my critical side while for you, saying the following seems "normal" to you

drink carrot juice to regrow an arm,

So it was wrong to take it out on me. That sucks for example

[Exnihiloest]

... but with a heavy blow of extractivism and looting of mineral resources, stimulated by savage capitalism and tamed by a plutocratic legislature ...

Outrageous clichés, do you call that a "critical" side ?!
If you don't want so-called "looting", give up your PC and your smartphone. You still don't believe that these equipments and all the networks should be reserved for a small elite, do you? So accept that the mass markets require that we take the raw material where it is, in nature, and a lot in principle. If you want to counter this process, give up consuming. We cannot ask for one thing and its opposite.
As for "being indignant" that we cannot do any cleaner, start your business and show us how, or give up consuming or working for it and you will bring down capitalism.
Your speech is what we hear rehashed everywhere in ecologism, generalities and hackneyed clichés and without any operational sense to change the situation. The repeaters are always in hypocritical postures, criticizing others who act, while enjoying their products, and without being able to do better, and even they do less well, see this ecological mess that is the wind power.

[Janic]

see this ecological mess that is wind power.

see also the ecological, economic and biological waste of others.

[Obamot]

... but with a heavy blow of extractivism and looting of mineral resources, stimulated by savage capitalism and tamed by a plutocratic legislature ...

Outrageous clichés, do you call that a "critical" side ?!

It's not outrageous, it's you who doesn't hear the civic trend!
To make it short, it is not for nothing that there is a “green” wave that is growing to the point of bending the industry and marketing in the face of the enthusiasm of the younger generations (I do not wear of judgment nor does not adhere to anything, just a statement). The Greta Thunbergs and other figures of the movement are undoubtedly taken over by “political ecology” which colonizes even the conservative right ... That says it all! (Movement of the “Liberal Greens”, etc). The younger generations want a “green” world without sacrificing comfort (or as little as possible ...) but they are very “green”, recycling, noble natural materials, the quest for fresh air even in the cities , the explosion in demand for bicycles, scooters and other such means of transport. The abandonment of nuclear (which seems contradictory) etc ... Would you deny this trend?

So accept that the mass markets require that we take the raw material where it is, in nature, and a lot in principle. If you want to counter this process, give up consuming. We cannot ask for one thing and its opposite.

But first what do you know about MY kilkoolol life

If you don't want so-called "looting", give up your PC and your smartphone. You still don't believe that these equipments and all the networks should be reserved for a small elite, do you?

Uh are you serious? We could also see what these means of telecommunications have enabled in terms of saving time and transport, thanks to video conferences and other facilities such as video channels and others. How much TOE and oil did we save with this? Would you rather people ride their cars like the good old days of the seventies? And before?

As for "being indignant" that we cannot do any cleaner, start your business and show us how, or give up consuming or working for it and you will bring down capitalism.
Your speech is what we hear rehashed everywhere in ecologism, generalities and hackneyed clichés and without any operational sense to change the situation. The repeaters are always in hypocritical postures, criticizing others who act, while enjoying their products,

You are not there, I modestly align myself in the footsteps of great thinkers, sociologists, philosophers, for example Kant quoted by Ahmed (who made me discover certain words and ills of society) then Ntitzsche, Jung (and others, well, that's not your thing) that can be found in part in a certain progressive conception of things (while being aware of their limitations). Everything is debatable with intelligent people (of which I hope you are a part), I have no fixed position.

and without being able to do better, and even they do less well, see this ecological mess that is wind power.

You mustn't have heard of the notion of “energy mix”, even if the installation of wind turbines in certain places is really questionable, that's not my point ... If it's bad, it's bad , the calculations must tell.

We can also build high enough residential towers with a temperature differential between the top and the bottom (up to the basement of cellar and foundation car parks, or even by putting swimming pools as thermal balloons ... and with the Venturi effect, we will always produce enough current for the building equipped with solar panels on the facade (up to the bay windows), and which would use geothermal energy, to produce more energy than it consumes.

These are just a few modest examples, maybe you can get out of a negative approach and help find solutions, instead of making mistakes in your syntheses (every time when the fallacy is not far away. ..)

[eclectron]

The limits of "pure" reason.
Everyone will keep their opinion

We will find in these 2 videos in particular what should not be reproduced tomorrow.