They are crises advancing technology?

[Obamot]

It's not everything to read, you have to think about it. Even my 2 cents, the techos you mentioned existed before:

For paddle wheels, since 2'000 years >>>
For the wind turbine in the year 600 >>>
For solar thermal (thermodynamic) this goes back to 1816 >>>
For hydropower in 1869 >>>
For nuclear, the first plant dates from 1951 >>>
To capture the photons and transform them into 1969 current >>> (but not yet ripe at the time ...)

So the oil shock has resulted in a greater awareness of the limits of our resources (of course, but apparently it was not enough completely, it was not until Chernobyl and then Fukushima that Germany and Switzerland put the package to get out of the nuclear.)

The latest feat to date is C-PV (concentrated photovoltaic) with 46% gross efficiency (33% net) which dethrones the Stirling engine ...! Without having the disadvantages (maintenance, moving parts + wear due to the effect of expansion etc ...) Technos existed before, not sure that they have progressed faster than our "own discovery capabilities"[...] so a priori it is no, unless there had been (at the time) sufficient financial means in fundamental research in particular ... So for me the answer is overall: NIET for this episode of history. Because the shock was too sudden (it is sometimes necessary to wait decades before the application of new discoveries or the implementation of new technologies, it is in particular necessary to develop "the industrial tool" and that the demand is sufficient to take the risk ... and in this context, paying for gasoline at the pump twice as much was not a big problem, the state has not even reduced its taxes!)

«Does technology advance the crisis?» (already said but I like it well ...)

[Ahmed]

It would be naïve to believe that the urgency of a crisis determines the effectiveness of solutions.
Short-termism is hardly satisfied when things go "normally" and when a crisis strikes, astonishment replaces quietude, but the possibilities are then reduced like a skin of sorrow. A plan B requires a deliberate social project, but this last concept is sorely lacking.
The fascination with "realism" is only a resignation to a world which would function according to laws which would be well outside our power and an abdication in front of those who accommodate it to their use.

[Obamot]

Plan B requires a deliberate project of society, but this last concept is sorely lacking.

What is very conceivable is that one thing, which can be, is not [social project], and that one thing, which may not be, is [lack of a social project]. In reality, such a project exists, as we know, but it is incompatible with the future of humanity, and moreover it has not been defined as a deliberate will, but is the product of successive developments. !

Which means we have a choice! (Among other binary visions: the "carefully"VS"times"[...]"is"VS"no choice"etc). In ancient Greece, it seems that the forces of the spirit took precedence over the forces of money (merchants were looked at with suspicion but ironically it is one of the peoples who invented money ...). If we think about it, many other models are possible. What happens to us is not inevitable, the establishment of stock market values ​​is not accidental, but not instinctive either: there is a plan behind it, a social project which is constantly slipping to leave room for the accumulation of profits, for predation: it is this paradigm that needs to be changed. Man is predatory by necessity, no in its essence.

If the man wanted to save his species, in Aristotelian logic, it would be good if he made the difference between his own essence (he comes to the world naked and helpless) and what he produces: so that accidental or non-accidental ...

It's perfectly reversible.
To begin with, would it not suffice to introduce into consciousnesses these notions of abstract values?
Because this is not a widespread idea!
And what is missing at the same time is the phase difference between logic / philosophy and the "mystique of the exploitation of values" not only abstract, but physically non-existent (the belief in the regulation of markets by the law of supply VS demand, which is a lie and nonsense.)

[Ahmed]

Strictly speaking, there is no project for the future, only a vague ideology supposed to lead to universal prosperity ... As for "successive developments", these are only the consequences of determinisms which do not reach the consciousness of agents: on the contrary, the "laws" of the system appear as a natural exteriority, when they are only the simple result of human action. This reflexibility of the consequences of collective action which imposes itself on each individual as if he were powerless in front of it, whereas he contributes to it by "voluntary servitude", that is what Marx names fetishism as mystifying self-alienation.

When you write:

a project of society which skids permanently to leave room for the accumulation of profits

it is perfectly incorrect, or at least awkwardly formulated; society does not skimp in any way, it is content to move resolutely in the direction of its main determinism (the accumulation of abstract value), while striving to display less derisory objectives, because everyone feels confusedly the mediocrity and the impossibility of this absurd finality.

[Obamot]

So you start from the point of view that it would be part of thegasoline original of man (intuition, predation etc ...) wherever "principal determinism"would only be paradoxically accidental although voluntarily acquired? Or it's just part of the "substance".

In both cases, would we not be closer to animals than humans (in the etymological sense, I do not advance ... ).

[Ahmed]

No! Absolutely not! This determinism has manifested itself fairly recently, from a historical point of view, just as it will necessarily disappear. There is a system that was put in place, thanks to different actors who first thought of it, but most of the system then escaped human consciousness, it became autonomous and hypostased; his history and that of his agents has become that of his iterations, according to the logical obstacles he encountered and the way in which he was able, each time, to "absorb" his contradictions in order to survive. Its current terminal phase sees a growing accumulation of contradictions that it will be impossible to resolve (within the systemic logic).
The funny paradox being that these contradictions were perceived as crippling when they were surmountable and that now, while they have become aporetic, very few people question the validity of the system that carries them! On the contrary, all anti-capitalist pseudonyms today only dream of finding solutions to perpetuate an absurd "capitalism at the service of all"!

[peter]

The subscription for the Trash has also increased...
When we no longer have enough wood to heat,
we burn what belongs to us.
Waste...recoverable at home.

Since our wallets are emptied more and more every year,
we will keep for ourselves what we paid, because it belongs to us.

If they want our waste, then they buy it from us at the same price of calories produced by current prices
heating fuels.

[plasmanu]

What a revolutionary idea. It is true that necessity is law, but not there.
Well then !!! A lot of waste for heating all winter long. It's worthy of a dump in Bangladesh and toxic smoke to boot. And always stay in front of the stove to watch...
It is where the principle of Zero packaging and Zero waste is.
Sure, a passive home can be heated with a package of Camembert cheese, but who has one?

[peter]

As currently, air currents,
pay back the pollution of the near industrialized GERMAN border...
which makes us sick EACH TIME for several days...

tooth for tooth, eye for eye...
and at the same time its heating!

[plasmanu]

So that's weird.
I thought there hadn't been any acid rain over the Black Forest for a long time. I would have been lied to