Geoengineering: cool the Earth against warming

[ABC2019]

No no no it's a matter of pursuit of maximum profit... and this is why oil has dominated humanity in a few decades ... we are all petroslaves or oil slaves in French in the text.

Obviously we do not count all the costs, the worse it may be even subsidized!

not understand, why countries devoid of fossils and having to import them at great expense would make a "maximum profit" with fossils if it was possible to do without them?

Yes you don't understand ... it's not new ... and it's YOUR problem ...

Oil has been sold at cost price since when?

Well even worse, why do the Icelanders bother buying oil from the Arabs when they have all the renewable electricity they want?

[humus]

Humans can only get around determinisms by increasing their knowledge of the system considered. .

This is the beginning of a truth, the rest is missing.
Increased knowledge of which must result from an action.
What action do you recommend?

To know without doing anything is useless, if it is not to generate suffering in oneself and to spread it on the others.

I guess you recommend changing the system without being able to offer one, without having found one. I don't blame you, developing such a project is ambitious and difficult.

As already underlined, even admitting that there is one in the boxes, it is still necessary to do pedagogy so that a majority adheres to it, which takes time, while undergoing and still living in the current system with its alienating constraints.
As already said, to realize a quantum and voluntary leap of system scares everyone, only a voluntary progressive change is admissible by the human psyche.
Another parameter to be taken into account is the wall of resources and the degradation of natural assets which is getting closer every day. Time is really running out.

Take all these constraints and tell me if a new system from scratch is a realistic thing?

As for the concrete, all reasonable and informed people know more or less in which direction to go: more sustainability, more renewable, more clean, more respect for the environment, more authenticity, more essential and less unnecessary work, less destructive work. Containment has helped set some records straight.

Although by ideology you dispute its interest, the only realistic measure identified is to pursue capitalism by slaughtering it by law and taxes, so that it fulfills the expectations of a better world, so that it works for the common interest. It is not complicated to do and it is easily explained.

Otherwise, what concrete knowledge do you offer from your beautiful knowledge? now ?

[Ahmed]

There is a mistake in your perception of the emergence of a viable model: it will not result from a model pulled out of the hat, from a person and even less from an institution, but from a collective change coming from the bottom (in any case, not from the top). Your idea of ​​multiplying the obstacles to capitalism while it is in crisis and while hoping to take advantage of its (dubious) good points is not really realistic ... What is most opposed to real changes are precisely the false tracks drawn by the altercapitalists who strive to restore the image of exponential economism, while simulating a purely superficial radicalism. You are right to underline the distortion between the urgency of the situation and the slowness of the processes of reflection, then of implementation: it is a big concern.
You said above that capitalism was utopian: that's a very good point ...

[humus]

There is an error in your perception of the emergence of a viable model: it will not result from a model pulled from the hat, from a person and even less from an institution, but from a collective change coming from the bottom (in any case, not from the top). Your idea of ​​increasing the obstacles to capitalism while it is in crisis and while hoping to take advantage of its (dubious) good points is not really realistic ...

Especially since that's not exactly what I'm saying.
The idea is not to "take advantage of its (dubious) good points" but to do with the existing, to do with what is known and twist it at the same time. collective convenience *.
* which you also consider desirable.
ie living in a system by nature exponential BUT strongly constrained, strongly limited, which makes it lose its infinite exponential character.
if to go to 10 (the individual income limit) you go linearly or exponentially, it doesn't matter, you never go over 10 or if you go over it, it's redistributed to those who have 5.
It is a new system on a capitalist basis.
Like an electric car on a petroleum car chassis.

In the end, this results in an egalitarian and flat system, far from disproportionate exponentials.
This allows to live already in reality another system without having had the fear of leaping into the void of the unknown and without actually having left the first system.
In short, a very smooth transition, although there is a risk of reluctance at the top of the pyramid and among the utopians who cherish the hope of reaching these heights. ( the worst)

[Ahmed]

A "flat" capitalism is no longer a capitalism! We can see this clearly in the situation of structural crisis where growth no longer finds the conditions for its realization: the financial industry simulates what is no longer possible and irrigates traditional industry to allow this condition to be expressed.
At the beginning of capitalism, it was also necessary to achieve, through predation, the primitive accumulation necessary for its launch. If we integrate this early phase and subsequent developments, to come to the current phase, we see that capitalism has never been profitable, that is to say that it has never succeeded in meet its own essential criterion ...

[humus]

A "flat" capitalism is no longer a capitalism!

Here, you understood everything and yet we would not have come out of it.

[sen-no-sen]

I guess you recommend changing the system without being able to offer one, without having found one. I don't blame you, developing such a project is ambitious and difficult.
(...)
Otherwise, what concrete knowledge do you offer from your beautiful knowledge? now ?

The famous formula E = MC2 to change the face of the world. And that few people realize it, to say the least. I even think that our existence is to be put in relation with such a discovery*.
When it comes to a low-entropy society, we are faced with the same thing. 3 little words that probably mean nothing to anyone but which leads us into ontological implications that are difficult to imagine.
This means limiting entropy at different scales:
1) technological, that is to say to contain and control the technical development, it is probably the hardest side!
2) ecosystem (degradation of the biosphere), which means much more than limiting the effects of RCA!
3) social (crime, exclusion, precariousness, etc.).
4) behavioral (violence, incest, harassment etc ...).
This therefore consists of taking up humanity's greatest challenge ... In other words, there is no ready-made answer.

To launch such a project worthy of the 12 labors of Hercules, it will be necessary to focus efforts on the implementation of prototype society on small scales.
Until now a large number of experiments of this kind have been carried out (Ex Auroville in India), but they all failed miserably. The reasons were various and often cumulative:
1) They were swimming against the tide (advocating decline in times of economic expansion is running towards failure).
2) They were based on antagonistic ideological mixtures (the decreasing Hippie movements defended a libertarian way of thinking stemming from the consumer society ...)
3) They ignored the deep sociological functioning.
To successfully launch a project and consider its replication at high intensity, it will therefore be necessary to overcome its disappointments ... this requires the development of a new side of science and philosophy.

*This equation allowed the development of the atomic weapon which in turn stopped the emergence of the world super-conflicts with for consequence the appearance of the international trade. "Without this one" (in fact it is about a historical determinism that was to occur) we would probably be in a WW5 trench.

[Christophe]

Well even worse, why do the Icelanders bother buying oil from the Arabs when they have all the renewable electricity they want?

But keskidi ?? Already am not sure that 100% of electricity in Iceland is renewable ...

I think it is Norway that must supply Iceland, right?

Otherwise it may be because it is an island and they have to eat and the sailing merchant navy no longer exists and the electric merchant navy is science fiction ...

[ABC2019]

Well even worse, why do the Icelanders bother buying oil from the Arabs when they have all the renewable electricity they want?

But keskidi ?? Already am not sure that 100% of electricity in Iceland is renewable ...

I think it is Norway that must supply Iceland, right?

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Énergie_en_Islande

2018% of the country's primary energy consumption in 81,4 came from indigenous renewable energies (geothermal 61,8%, hydropower 19,3%, agrofuels 0,3%) and 18,6% from fossil fuels. imported (petroleum: 16,8%, coal: 1,8%) 3.
...
In 2018, electricity production reached 19 GWh, of which 830 GWh, or 13%, by hydroelectric power stations and 814 GWh, or 69,7%, by geothermal power plants; wind power produced 6 GWh

Otherwise it may be because it is an island and they have to eat and the sailing merchant navy no longer exists and the electric merchant navy is science fiction ...

So you repeat exactly what I was saying: replacing fossils is first and foremost a problem of physics and technique, not a political problem. once again the renewable electricity production per capita in Iceland is VERY HIGHER than the energy needs of the population - which logically consumes only a small part, 85% is used by the heavy industries of aluminum and ferrosilicon.

[sen-no-sen]

Iceland is a country, of course, but a country of 360 inhabitants ... that is to say the equivalent of the population of a city like Nice.