Counterproductive environmental measures

[Ahmed]

Of course, as pointed out Janic, a predominantly vegetable diet would simplify the equation, but that is not the root of the problem.
The enormous human expansion corresponds to a phenomenon of very delayed temporary regulation: during evolution, the appearance of lignin 360 million years ago resulted in an enormous accumulation of carbonaceous matter, and this for 60 million years (a straw!), time necessary for the appearance of saprophytic organisms capable of digesting this new material upon the death of woody plants and thus of recycling them ... We can see that this considerable mass of energetic matter contravenes the need for energy dissipation and the human species was (evolutionarily speaking) the only one able to "repair" this breach of the rule (again it was slow to do so, not having acquired means only recently). Once this task has been accomplished *, the human species will no longer be useful and should therefore, logically, be replaced by technological organisms (themselves resulting from this process) capable of functioning in an environment profoundly modified by this energy release. and which marks the transition from the biosphere to the technosphere.

From this point of view, the suggestion of Flytox, at the end of his last message is really and fully humanist, in the sense that all those who advocate the opposite are involuntarily playing the game of determinisms which are clearly not favorable to us in the long term.

* It goes without saying that only part of the initial stock is accessible or still present in the ground ...

[ABC2019]

do you really think human nature has changed because we have more money? it seems excessively naive to me ...
I am not saying that everything that is illegal must be allowed to be done, of course, and I completely agree to protect nature, the environment and populations as much as possible. But if it were done by banning the extraction of oil and natural resources, the consequences of this ban would be much worse, much worse: there we would be talking about billions of deaths, not thousands.

"Changes" in human nature, that's not really the point. But, that some monopolize a maximum of wealth on the back and the health of the populations seems to me excessively deleterious. However, that doesn't seem to bother you too much.

It's not that I don't mind, it's that I don't believe in a "system" that would ensure that this is avoided. These are just local issues to be dealt with locally by regulations, laws, sanctions, but there is no system that can assure you that no one will ever be exploited, polluted, slaughtered anywhere. It never happened and it never will. I prefer to be concrete and participate in fixing what is repairable rather than taking refuge in the illusion that it might never happen.

What bothers you the most is a possible threat of an oil extraction ban ... which you are the only one to have mentioned.

uh sorry but for your information when we talk about "carbon budget", "carbon neutrality", to "limit the warming to X ° C, 'is exactly the CA we are talking about. I did not invent it

dFor your "billions of deaths", AMHA put forward such completely bogus figures, will not scare the crowds, as you hope, but make people smile for your sense of excess ...

it is much less phony and much more argued than to speak of threats to the human species for a few ° C more, while it has colonized on its own and with its little arms natural environments ranging from the pack ice to the Sahara, with average temperature differences of several tens of ° C.

Have you ever had a fight with a neighbor who thought you were making too much noise or that your trees bothered him?

I do not see the connection, in the example I gave, there are people who die ...

the connection is that you cannot avoid that the interests of some come into conflict with those of others, and if, neighborhood quarrels, it can cause deaths.

there are also unfortunately neighbors who shoot each other, if you take the extreme cases, you will always find deaths.

You are confusing, the irrelevant news item and what lives entire populations who are dying under the yoke of a few industry / oil companies without faith or law.

I do not confuse, it is just the circumstances that make that in a civilized society which is well controlled, with well nourished people, it only gives rise to neighborhood quarrels (and again, not always), whereas in a poor society where people are ready to do anything not to die of hunger, that leads to the exploitation of populations.

But there are plenty of news items even in France which show that barbarism is only a cigarette leaf away from civilization, from the poor exploited illegal immigrants, you find some in Paris or on farms also in France.

And the fewer fossils there are, the more poor there will be, and the more poor there will be, the more will be exploited. Removing the fossils will do absolutely nothing, on the contrary. It was the provision of fossils that made it possible to abolish slavery, and its forms only exist in populations who are not entitled to it.

Apart from that, even if everyone was happy and respected, it would change absolutely nothing to the problem of resources and CO2 ...

Taking you at your word, explain to us why it wouldn't change anything.

quite simply because it does not change the amount of exploitable reserves, nor the fact that they are extracted. And the CO2 only depends on the quantity of fossils extracted, it does not really care whether they are extracted "morally" or "humanly" or not.

And besides probably if the poor were less poor, they would consume more, otherwise what would it be for them to be less poor?

If oil / energy in general were sold at the price it costs (to the environment / people's health), CO2 production / pollution would be much less, there would be in return a lot less people to drive by car (only useful and pragmatic trips).

on the one hand it means a lot more poor people, and not less, and then extracting it at a slower rate would absolutely not prevent ending up extracting the same amount at the end.

[ABC2019]

Once this task has been accomplished *, the human species will no longer be useful and should therefore, logically, be replaced by technological organisms (themselves resulting from this process) capable of functioning in an environment profoundly modified by this energy release. and which marks the transition from the biosphere to the technosphere.

I don't believe it for a second, it's a fantasy engendered by technological hybris, no world of technological objects can be autonomous without the human environment which builds them, provides them with its energy sources, repairs them. .. the "technosphere" developed only in and for a human context, it is absolutely not adapted to survive outside this context.

Already to make a robot dig a hole on Mars it is the cross and the banner, so you imagine for the rest ...

[Ahmed]

ABC, you write:

And the CO2 only depends on the quantity of fossils extracted, it does not really care whether they are extracted "morally" or "humanly" or not.
And besides, probably, if the poor were less poor, they would consume more, otherwise what good would it be for them to be less poor?

The notion of "poor" admitted here as obvious would deserve to be discussed instead of ontologizing it, but it is not this point that I want to raise.
The ethical question is essential in the smooth running of a conscious society; in ours which responds blindly to determinisms, it can only be expressed at the level of a powerless bad conscience. If the "poor" of these oil-producing countries benefited from the oil rent confiscated by their bourgeois "elites", in collusion with the importing countries (which benefit from it), the quantity of petroleum energy consumed locally would increase, but with little diversification of energy uses and therefore a rapid limitation in volume (also in time, since this contribution will cease with the exploitation of the deposits). On the other hand, this same oil used in industrialized and competitive countries will generate many more possibilities of very sophisticated uses and therefore a much higher total amount of energy dissipated energy: this explains why this evolving "choice" goes against ethics and favors inequality. Fighting against the latter cannot do without a lucid analysis of the underlying determinisms in question and of which the "actors" are only the puppets.

[Obamot]

ABC, you write:

And the CO2 only depends on the quantity of fossils extracted, it does not really care whether they are extracted "morally" or "humanly" or not.
And besides, probably, if the poor were less poor, they would consume more, otherwise what good would it be for them to be less poor?

The notion of "poor" admitted here as obvious would deserve to be discussed instead of ontologizing it, but it is not this point that I want to raise.
The ethical question is essential in the smooth running of a conscious society; in ours which responds blindly to determinisms, it can only be expressed at the level of a powerless bad conscience. If the "poor" of these oil-producing countries benefited from the oil rent confiscated by their bourgeois "elites", in collusion with the importing countries (which benefit from it), the quantity of petroleum energy consumed locally would increase, but with little diversification of energy uses and therefore a rapid limitation in volume (also over time, since this contribution will cease with the exploitation of the deposits). On the other hand, this same oil used in industrialized and competitive countries will generate many more possibilities of very sophisticated uses and therefore a much higher total amount of energy dissipated energy: this explains why this evolving "choice" goes against ethics and favors inequality. Fighting against the latter cannot do without a lucid analysis of the underlying determinisms in question. and whose "actors" are only the puppets.

Like us in this forum, puppets manipulated by the screenwriter (bad actor) who maintains the rivalries to benefit from them.

[Ahmed]

It is a bad idea, though difficult to avoid, to indulge in rivalry; our only real rival is ourselves.

Another example of these determinisms: the propensity to consume meat as soon as the level of "wealth" increases in a society (or within it among those who have more money / energy) which we were talking about. higher is totally correlated with higher energy dissipation per calorie ingested. In fact, we are then in a cascade of successive dissipations, from the sun to the plant, from the latter to the animal, then from the animal to man: each time the yield decreases (approximately by a factor of 10 ), therefore the dissipation is maximum. It is a phenomenon of self-organization aimed at this universal finality. See here for further development.

[Obamot]

It is a bad idea, though difficult to avoid, to indulge in rivalry; our only real rival is ourselves.

This is what a true altruist is capable of discerning. For the one who exploits “this bad idea”, This is just the very basis of his business model (a pro-nuclear does not stop at these“ details ”)

[Ahmed]

I feel that I have learned a lot here and have met a great diversity of people, some of them very interesting and who have made me progress (including those who express a different opinion from mine): what more could I ask for?
I'm afraid we're off topic ...

[Obamot]

Not if we take your example of “predators”. I guess the biggest predators select themselves both ideologically and practically based on their chosen lifestyle.

And here we are right in the subject: “un forum counter productive?" and even: "the human species threatened by its choices ”?
______________________________________

PS: rather it is we who have learned by reading you (well, for those who have understood the fundamentals ...)

[Ahmed]

The "natural" predators are the object of the selection of the same name, depending on their ability to meet or not the criteria for maximizing dissipation, but contrary to the daring comparison ofABC do not harm their prey as a species (on the contrary), but only individually. Therefore, a transposition to the human intraspecific scale is hardly relevant from this point of view, but is understandable only if one adopts an explanatory energy grid, as illustrated above.
The formulation, "the human species threatened by its choices”, Is incorrect, it would be better to write:“ the human species threatened by its non-choices ”, or if one prefers by the illusion of choices which only reflect the underlying determinisms.