Prepare the exit ...

[Christophe]

that you may not have read to the end.

I told you: extremist speeches do not interest me ...

It will probably not be so brutal,

No, do you think?

the climate will play many tricks before that.

It's on track yes ...

[izentrop]

extremist speeches do not interest me ...

It's radical and I misspoke. There are also successful resilience, but good.

The foundations of the capitalist economy are now being challenged by its own evolution. The massive suppression of jobs within a labor-based society, the growing difficulty of achieving the increase of a mass of capital that has become too large to find the corresponding amount of sufficiently profitable investments suggests the proximity of a collapse and not at all for the reasons given by some in your previous link, such as Pablo Servigne, for example...

There is also this:

[eclectron]

So, the majority of scientists would limit themselves to expressing a simple, unsupported opinion

On the contrary, very strong, since the accusation is dependent, financing requires, the snake is dead tail in a way.
It is initially a political decision do not forget, under the impulse of people more concerned about their wallet than the planet.
In photo on the right:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupe_d% ... C3%A9ation

if not by their personal conviction

it becomes so ... the earth was flat a time ...

and the few who argue for not taking into account multiple warning signals

Are you talking about the IPCC there? we totally agree ? who knowingly rejects any work that calls into question the CO2's liability.

and consolidating a so-called "neutral" economic model, would they be true scientists?

Causality devoid of meaning.
CO2 is not the cause of global warming, does not mean that the economic model is neutral. Nothing is neutral on this little blue ball.
After all, it is a question of proportion ... and of work done objectively, to understand, and not guided by a preconceived idea.
A bit like the subject of free energy ...
It is the “I don't know” which must guide a scientific mind and not “I know in advance” (see flat earth), which does not prevent having a small idea. Once again, it's all about proportion.

[eclectron]

he said: "not revive"

It was a joke
As long as the mind is cordial, no problem.

[Ahmed]

There have been long debates on this subject, seemingly useless, and I think it is therefore useless to reactivate the controversy.
Beyond the scientific aspect that each interprets according to what suits him, the fundamental question is not technical, but methodological and political: we have collectively interest to give reason to the IPCC (even by making the assumption that he is mistaken!) since the measures that could (note the conditional!) be taken would be likely to slow down the current mortifying process, of certain anthropic origin and whose CO² is only an accident. On the contrary, the clearance of our responsibilities in the CC will encourage the denial of negative externalities and their acceleration ...

[Ahmed]

I watched the intervention ofOlivier Delamarche and while I agree with much of his particularly lucid analysis, I do not share his conclusions that are too conventional in that they do not go to the logical end. Indeed, for him, the permanent injection of capital (what I usually recover by the term of financial industry) destroys the real industry. The reality seems to me quite different: real industry (I should put quotation marks, because its main function is financial and therefore not fundamentally different on this decisive point) is no longer, overall, able to provide rates of sufficient profit to pay for the immense mass of accumulated capital, it is therefore the financial industry that has taken over and allows the system to function and employees to receive a remuneration that their work produces less and less, whatever they think about it. As emphasized ODdecoupling from physical production allows a great fantasy, but we must not forget, firstly that this decoupling is not total, that a minimum is required for public credibility, secondly that these acrobatics are increasingly more aerial and only delay the deadline.

I understand that this may shock many, but the good old industry of "papa" was only very secondarily intended to produce goods, it was in reality only a necessary step for the valuation of capital and The progressive disintegration of the productive apparatus is explained very simply by its inability to fulfill its primary mission and therefore fully justifies this analysis.

[izentrop]

proximity to a collapse and not at all for the reasons given by some in your previous link, such as Pablo Servigne, for example...

He says interesting things, so does his interviewer. "making an enemy to cooperate" ... it makes me think of a lot of themes that bind people together without real thought, fights whose real meaning is different ... I understand that you agree with him.

I have seen the intervention of Olivier Delamarche and if I agree on much of his particularly lucid analysis, however, I do not share his conclusions

Me neither, it's too simple.

[eclectron]

The subject is "preparing the way out"
This set up claims 3 things:
- joining the project,
- energy to transform existing unsuitable for sustainability,
- money since we are still functioning that way.

joining the project, involves not fooling people on causes.
On the contrary, everyone must be aware of the consequences of their actions, through the multiplier coefficient of demography.

the energy to transform is nowadays very largely predominantly carbonaceous today.
If CO2 is the cause of CR (and not hypocritically renamed CC for some time This condemns us to powerlessness.
"There is a problem to be solved but if I move, it is worse". Apart from collective suicide, I do not see.

Money? what problem ?
Taken from https://www.contrepoints.org/2018/09/13 ... vos-dettes

• Debt is credit (and vice versa!). Until then, nothing great.
• Our currency today is almost exclusively credit (debt)
• Central banks set the price at which commercial banks are allowed to issue new credit (ie money)
• Commercial banks lend money that does not exist and that costs them almost nothing. The only cost is the immobilization of a derisory amount of "equity", the money that the shareholders of the bank have potted.
• This dummy currency is mixed with our savings, the money we have actually earned, the only true currency, in reality.
• The bankruptcy of a bank would engulf our real money, our deposits. That's why - until then - banks are "saved" with always more money that does not exist.

In my opinion the only real problem is the right knowledge and the awareness that everyone has of his actions, which imply adherence to the project.
The money comes under the heading "conscientization" to switch into "false problem".

Fooling the crowds to make them go in one direction, was it virtuous, it's already done for bad rasions in general, but in my opinion it's manipulation of the crowds that must go out precisely.
It is necessary that each individual becomes freely conscious to adhere to the project, it seems to me more productive like approach. It is necessary to educate ....

[izentrop]

- money since we are still functioning that way.

Not necessarily since we must start by reducing consumerism. When I see the volume of the bins of my neighbors, yet to the companion, there is a lot of way to go. If all those in lack of activity did a little garden in the manner of Did or not, the essential thing is to participate. And then at school, plan to teach resilience, self-sufficiency and something that is dear to me: "critical thinking".

joining the project, involves not fooling people on causes.
On the contrary, everyone must be aware of the consequences of their actions ...

Knowledge through scientific facts that are consensus is essential to not be fooled.

[Ahmed]

@ Izentrop
Pablo Servigne Certainly, interesting things, but contrary to what you read in my message (a little obscure on this point, I admit it), I do not share all his analysis and certainly not his conclusions.

@ Eclectron
I understand the distinction you make between money "actually" earned and that resulting from simple accounting manipulation, however it is not as certain as it suggests. Indeed, money is always a social mediation whatever the way in which it manifests itself. A posteriori, we observe the equality of money wherever it comes from, whether through work * (spontaneously an activity * produces natural wealth, not a sum of money: it is necessary So although something else intervenes!) or by adding a sum using a computer keyboard.
In your three preconditions, you mention:

- money since we are still functioning that way.

Money being the problem, how could it become the solution?

* Hence the distinction between activity that is constitutive of the essence of living beings (and not only men) and the work that is specific to the capitalist period, in that its real purpose is the production of abstract value ( since the goods are produced only for the ability to be exchanged for a value greater than the initial sum invested and not for its usefulness which is only the condition of the realization of the exchange).