Jump to content

Rippounet

Members
  • Posts

    4,328
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

6,511 profile views

Rippounet's Achievements

Council Member

Council Member (8/8)

  1. Your answer is quite confusing to me, so allow me to stick to generalities. All markets have boundaries and rules that restrict freedom of choice. To quote Chang, "A market looks free only because we so unconditionally accept its underlying restrictions that we fail to see them." Ergo, if a "free" market is unable to yield satisfying outcomes, more boundaries and rules will be set. If that doesn't happen, the market may disappear. For example, if we're talking about natural resources, a resource may be depleted and/or an alternative to it must be found to maintain production/consumption. If we're talking about a financial market, we can safely say that a lack of regulation will cause a crisis hurting its operation (I think it's now widely admitted that unregulated finance ends in disaster). If we're talking about markets for consumption/production, the lack of regulation is likely to result in cartels or monopolies (or even nationalisation, if things get dire). Point is, when it comes to markets the choice isn't merely between exploitation and revolution, but between regulation and disappearance. BTW, as historian Fernand Braudel pointed out, it's perfectly possible to think of capitalism as antithetical to "free markets," because the concentration entailed by capitalism runs contrary to competition and freedom of choice. All other things aside, the end of "free markets" as we know them does not mean "chaos, fear, and blood" but can only mean less choice, whether through regulation or disappearance.
  2. Given the state of the world (the environmental crisis), we will either find yet another alternative, or an alternative will find us. Point is, it kinda takes an effort to imagine a future where humanity still believes in "free markets." Assuming one actually believes in them now btw. Funnily enough, I've just re-read some Ha-Joon Chang, and "There is no such thing as a free market" is literally the first point he makes in 23 things they don't tell you about capitalism.
  3. Encanto has a lot of minor problems: little tension, little world-building, a plot that turns out to be disappointing..., but what really bothered me was the classist/elitist theme running throughout, which I found annoying. Wondered if that came from an original source/story.
  4. I may be a bit slow. To be fair though, the modern collapsologist movement only took flight after 2015 in France. Speaking of which, and this is for everyone kind enough to answer: - What's your country's version of "collapsology" ? BTW, what's the preferred term in your language? What are the major books/writers you'd recommend (beyond obvious references like Diamond, Bookchin, Wallace-Wells or Robinson) ? - Any project like Jancovici's Shift project? Their work is quite amazing (the wikipedia page doesn't necessarily reflect this, but the reports they give can be very concrete, and their "transformation plan for the French economy" comes close to a legislative program). They have part of their website in English, and Jancovici has the ear of French parliamentarians (which is to say, many only pretend to listen, but at least everyone knows that we'd better get used to using bikes instead of cars). - Any important "collapsologist" organizations in your neighborhood (beyond Extinction Rebellion of course) ?
  5. I'm being kind with myself tbh. I've been on the left my entire life (and on the far-left for quite some time ), so I never harbored many illusions about capitalism, but I only started truly grasping the sheer scale of the environmental crisis about five or six years ago. I'd say there's a difference between thinking capitalism can't work in the long run and knowing it shouldn't be allowed to continue any longer. It's a journey as a leftist to realize how deep the veracity of anti-capitalist thought goes, to discover or re-discover the countless warnings that we've had, and start viewing the "problem" in all its dimensions simultaneously - without being crushed by despair or depression. So, despite being an asshole at times, I do see how difficult this journey will be for people who did (or do) believe in capitalism, and swallowed whole the story/history that was presented to them. There's just so much to question, I reckon many people will just implode, take their own life and/or that of others, rather than accept that the current socio-economic structure on every level and all the narratives linked to it it are not only fake and devoid of actual meaning, but are even active threats to our entire species. Kinda ironic that the far-right coopted the Matrix "red pill" analogy, because becoming aware of the environmental crisis is totally like waking up in a devastated landscape, seeing all your fellows plugged into one gigantic smoke-belching machine that you desperately want to turn off, but this is something you can only do if most people (at least) are in agreement.
  6. I think this point tends to be underestimated. Your friend isn't wrong, but ironically it's the other way around: we haven't done anything (and aren't doing anything) about climate change for political reasons. It's just that it goes much deeper than politics and touches upon ideology, philosophy and theology (to take the big ones). I'm probably preaching to the choir, but it takes a bit of time to grasp how momentous it is to call capitalism into question. At a glance, you'd think it's "just" an economic/productivist system, but as soon as you start reading about it, you realize it goes far beyond economics. It's our way of life, but also our collective social and political organisation, our conception of mankind's place in the universe, human nature, and the purpose of life! I can understand how difficult it is for some people to reconsider almost everything they've ever known. It's also not a surprise that intelligent people end up being deniers: imho they understand, intuitively, that to acknowledge the implacable reality of climate change means questioning (and thus changing) the way they think of the world and themselves. That may especially be true of people having been trained in STEM fields btw, because these fields (not unlike the neo-liberal ideology) glorify human possibility and agency to such a point that admitting their limits is akin to renouncing your faith.
  7. This second season really delivers, with the cast providing stellar performances. Houdishell's Bunny is a delight. The 5th episode strongly reminded me of Sherlock's The Sign of Three (by far the best imho). I hope they land the finale.
  8. France has launched 6 EPRs for 52 billion euros that are expected to come online in 2037. Each reactor has a power of 1,6 GW. So it's not enough, not by a long shot (France currently needs around 500 TW/h per year). There are other projects in the works (like small modular reactors), but the main issue is now time, since almost all these projects will come to fruition a decade too late (i.e. right when things are turning really bad). Materials (including raw materials) may also be an issue, since there's no guarantee that global markets will remain functional for decades.
  9. Fair enough. France's choice is to keep the old plants running as long as necessary. It's a hazard, but it's still the best we got. There's no way we can go full renewables in 15 years, and no way we can build new ones faster. OTOH, if we could manage to start lowering electricity consumption, we might achieve a fairly low carbon footprint. That may not even be a choice: relying on old power plants will mean frequent blackouts, until we are reasonable with energy.
  10. Interestingly enough, that's not quite it, and that article is just wrong (fake news!). While warmer waters (or lack of water when rivers dry up) are definitely a potential problem down the line, we're not there yet. The reason why nuclear reactors are sometimes turned off during heatwaves is because of environmental regulations, because nuclear plants are not allowed to reject warm water if the river's temperature is already higher than normal. In fact, three plants have already been granted temporary "exceptions" to keep functioning, for instance the Golfech plant on the Garonne river (which means life in the Garonne will die). This is as official a source as you can find, for anyone interested (in French). Also, if we're talking about French nuclear power plants, most of them are -too- old and need to undergo serious maintenance anyway, so they can remain in use until the next generation is operational (in at least 15 years). No, it's not an ideal situation. However, there's been a lot of debates about it these past few years (one of which I watched last night tbh), and nuclear power is still the best bet if you want to keep your electric consumption high. In fact, even with moderation, France cannot go below 1/3 of nuclear power. Neither could Germany btw (yes, this is a cheap shot Edit: but still a light-hearted poke, please don't take the piss ). Yes, most French nuclear power plants are quite old (50 years old or thereabout). TBH, I'm kinda hoping more people reach your conclusions. 'tis why I said I expect changes to start happening (they haven't yet).
  11. Attack on Titan's anime adaptation has problems with its pace. I remember struggling with season 2 or 3, even though I think the manga is phenomenal. Truth may be that it's the kind of work that is better read than watched. Like, I think One Piece is amazing, but I'm not even sure I watched a dozen episodes from the anime. I've only watched S1 of Demon Slayer or One-Punch Man, and only read Jujutsu Kaisen. Honestly, if you're over 30, you may be better off reading manga than watching anime (when the original work is a manga, needless to say). You need a lot of time for anime, and the adaptations often have pacing problems (when it's not worse). Last watches: - Latest Jurassic World. I was told it was as bad as Matrix 4. Beg to differ, Jurassic World's cheesiness ends up being endearing. Oh sure, it's a terrible movie, but at least it's honest about its project (linking Jurassic Park to Jurassic World) and faithful to the spirit of the franchise. Wouldn't recommend it, but wouldn't destroy it either. - The Orville (S3): so far this season is a mixed bag, with some good episodes and a few terrible ones. Or maybe the quality of Star Trek: SNW makes The Orville's flaws stand out, dunno. Anyway, I'm losing interest. - Obi-Wan Kenobi. What a trainwreck. Ewan McGregor did what he could, but even he couldn't work wonders with the shit he was given. What were the writers thinking? - The Boys (S3). That season had a fantastic start and then slowly pettered out. Shame. It was fun seeing Jensen Ackles though (who did a great job as Soldier Boy).
  12. Damn, you ninja'd me, I was just about to post this: https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-says-losing-because-ukraine-104546288.html?guccounter=1
  13. Of course. But there are limits to big money's power and we're getting there at warp speed. Big money's problem is that climate change is happening much faster and hitting developed countries much harder than initially predicted. Greenwashing works as long as people aren't too scared and can dismiss global warming as someone else's problem (like humanity's poorest half). But once families are actually worried for their elders and infants, politicians and corporations need to up their game a little, at the very least to prevent a minority of radical environmentalists from getting funny ideas and/or suddenly getting very popular. Another way to put it: it can be easy to pose as the "reasonable guy" when almost all people suffering from climate change are brown and die thousands of kms away (and, quite conveniently, without cameras filming), but it's much much harder when Western Europe is hit hard, rivers and lakes dry up, and farmers are scared for their crops. In that case, governments need to at least pretend to have some kind of plan, and corporations have to be more careful about their callousness not showing. I hear the UK, Italy, and Spain will tax the recent exceptional profits of fossil fuel companies? There's also been talk of actual regulations lately. It's not much, and big money will remain the main obstacle to the common good for the foreseeable future, but when temperatures go above 40°C people become a wee bit harder to manipulate. That movie's not even a year old. It may even prove some sort of turning point: the movie expresses feelings that people will find easy to reference in the next decades, thus helping ridicule deniers.
  14. I assume everyone is aware that Europe is facing a particularly intense heatwave (some articles say it's the worst in 200 years), hitting hard Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, France, and (soon) the UK. The bad news is that recent events (the spring drought and the June heatwave) and recent studies are showing that crops are now badly threatened (at least in Spain, Italy, and France). The good news is that things are being said that weren't just a few years ago (in France, a heatwave was linked to global warming in 2018 only). There's a growing acceptance of "sobriety" (especially in the energy sector - for obvious reasons), and adaptation (like, planting mil and sorgho rather than wheat and corn). Some falsely reasonable positions (like Macron saying we can't live like the Amish) are now openly mocked on national TV. Some experts have become celebrities in just a few weeks (hydrologist Emma Haziza here: she's been working on these issues for around 15 years, but had her first TED talk last May) We're still a long way from seeing any political measures, but with awareness exploding, I expect actual changes to finally start happening.
×
×
  • Create New...