Get out of the idolatry of nature and the contempt of humanity

[Exnihiloest]

 
Remarkable performance by the philosopher Yves Roucaute.

Save the planet ?...
Save humanity, this is the emergency for the philosopher Yves Roucaute!

To the green obscurantists who trade in idolatry, guilt and the apocalypse, he opposes the facts. And, in the tribunal of common sense and lucidity, he summons his witnesses: the history of the Earth, the great human adventure, science and technology.

With humour, Yves Roucaute dismantles misconceptions one by one:

Cyclones, earthquakes and climatic variations? Worse yesterday than today.
Can we live in harmony with nature without dominating it? No.
CO2? Nothing diabolical.
Wind power? Lots of wind for nothing.
Nuclear ? An alternative.
Organic products? All chemicals.
The “Ecological Transition”? A chimera.
productivism? An evidence.
And the consumer society? A hope.
Ecology? Yves Roucaute is for, but a non-punitive ecology, fueled by knowledge, turned towards the future.

Realistically, true ecology reminds nations that power rhymes with growth and decline with decadence. Metaphysical, it calls for breaking second-hand spiritualisms. Moral, it puts the human at the center of the universe. Here is an ode to creativity, to freedom, to a life capable, finally, of re-enchanting the world.

Aggregated in philosophy and political science, university professor, state doctor, lecturer and epistemologist, Yves Roucaute is the author of works acclaimed by the press and the readership, including The Power of Freedom and, recently, The Bright Future of Humanity.

[phil59]

The earth does not need its human parasites to "live".

For now, the reverse is not true.

So ?

Well, we have to deal with it, and not make a bang on our soil.

Can a philosopher be a neutral "scientist"?

[Exnihiloest]

The earth does not need its human parasites to "live".

For now, the reverse is not true.

So ?

Well, we have to deal with it, and not make a bang on our soil.

Can a philosopher be a neutral "scientist"?

A philosopher is supposed to have a little more perspective on the vision of things than the vulgus pecus.
"Not making a boom on our soil": if there is a "boom", are you sure that it will not be the so-called ecological measures that will be at the origin?
Because being wary of man who would screw up nature, while claiming that the solutions would come from man, we understand that the posture is totally incoherent.

If to protect the planet, we can no longer feed ourselves, we can no longer heat ourselves, and we can no longer even do anything, in fact, because all human activity has an impact on nature, there is no there is no need to protect the planet but man. Moreover, this is what Yves Roucaute shows: the planet did not need anyone in the past to protect itself, nor even to warm up and much more than today, and on the contrary it will have eliminated millions species and even more individuals. It is nature to beware of.

[Janic]

and nullard still does his usual bullshit by using his kind of nutcase to justify himself!

[Christophe]

Nihilo should take him out of intellectual nothingness...not sure that this is possible, nothingness is in his name...

[Janic]

effectively!
What is urgent is to get out of the idolatry of humanity and the contempt for nature.
Human vanity is to believe himself above, superior [*] to all other forms of organic and other life, and to believe that he can and will fix everything he has broken, starting with himself. .
[*] pernicious effect of other religions, too, of having placed humanity at this level out of pride!

[izentrop]

Can a philosopher be a neutral "scientist"?

Indeed, one does not necessarily go with the other.
He seems more in the camp of "climato realists"

Wind power? Lots of wind for nothing.
Nuclear ? An alternative.
Organic products? All chemicals.
The “Ecological Transition”? A chimera.
productivism? An evidence.
And the consumer society? A hope.
Ecology? Yves Roucaute is for, but a non-punitive ecology, fueled by knowledge, turned towards the future.

Somewhat agree

Cyclones, earthquakes and climatic variations? Worse yesterday than today.
Can we live in harmony with nature without dominating it? No.
CO2? Nothing diabolical.

The negationist side that denies the work of the IPCC...
It also denies the depletion of resources,or at least the EROI

And oil, it is discovered every year. Between 120 to 135 billion tons are present in the offshore, in shallow water, and 50 to 100 billion, under 200 meters. Without even mentioning the formidable discovery of the use of shale gas which gave the United States their energy sovereignty.

And then did he think about demography, 10 billion earthlings in 2050, while producing methane with agricultural land?

And by what green curse would it be forbidden to produce hydrocarbons as nature does, and even better? Thus, the bacteria sometimes called "blue algae", but they are not algae, produce them every day. They produce hundreds of millions of tons of methane, pentadecane, heptadecane… Creating hydrocarbons on demand, according to human needs, this is one of the exploits of so-called “white” biotechnologies. It is also a feat that, in its own way, nanotechnology achieves.

https://atlantico.fr/article/decryptage ... nir-france
It's always easier to blame...

[Exnihiloest]

Nihilo should take him out of intellectual nothingness...not sure that this is possible, nothingness is in his name...

When you understand Latin, so never seen your aversion to general culture, you'll see that it's more subtle than that.

I notice that your remarks and those of the obscurantist on duty are argumentum ad personam, evidence that Yves Roucaute had concrete arguments against which the rednecks do not even dare to object.

[Exnihiloest]

...The negationist side that denies the work of the IPCC...

In 2001:
«When I was doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I walked up to the window with him, looked at Broadway in New York and said, "If what you say about the greenhouse effect is true, will everything be different there in 20 years ?" He stared for a moment, fell silent and said nothing for a few seconds. Then he said, "Well, there will be more traffic." Of course, I didn't think he had heard the question correctly. Then he explained:The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be duct tape on the windows across the street from the high winds. And the same birds will no longer be there. Median trees will change."»
source: https://www.salon.com/2001/10/23/weather/

This anecdote reflects the "work" of the IPCC. No one denies the work of the IPCC. What is denied is the relevance of their conclusions and Nostradamus-like predictions. Forecasts are systematically wrong.

[phil59]

I don't understand any of that.

But I had a nifty 4th and 3th grade Latin teacher. Guy, who I think, following something that must have happened when he was teaching in college, ended up in college...
He was also an etymologist.

I remember, for example, res-nihil (I guarantee more spelling, it's been at least 45 years), and words like atroce, for example ( ater=dark), etc.

But there, I idolize the man.

I love "man", but is he, at least on earth, the most important "link"?