Reducing our meat consumption, what consequences for French agriculture?

[Moindreffor]

It would be easier if it was just a point that you did not understand, for the whole it becomes much less obvious to transcribe that ...
You can try to read slowly.

Tease: "Advantageously, I don't know, but as a Shadok proverb says so well, the more we fail, the more chance we have of succeeding. Therefore, Monsignor, some attempt may not prove to be in vain."
Ps: I admit being totally in the dark, not to say also that I got nothing, when it comes to the meaning of the message you posted.

for once it reassures me that we both understand nothing

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Sometimes I wonder what Ahmed "gives" into; Legislative, insurance, notary, dialectic, synthetic philosophy, Lacanian psychoanalysis, hermetic anarchism, quantum language, hyeroglysm under alphabet, language coded under LDS, epistolary cuisine, poetic surrealism, meetings tupperware or the transport of scouts ...

[Ahmed]

Quote @ Guy: "I wouldn't say it was a failure, I would say it didn't work."
For Moindreffor:
The controversy over the advantages or disadvantages of "progress" is doomed to drag on, since it lies within an uncritical framework and these two antagonistic positions only reflect two sides of the same coin. room. Indeed, an element-by-element comparison is necessarily blind to the social character of the totality, which alone makes sense. It is the systemic dynamic that is relevant as a framework for any questioning. As in any system, evolution leads to remedy any "excess" which would be likely to call it into question (thus the Chinese have surprised more than one with strong measures against urban pollution, but as the explicit the formula of Count Don Fabrizio in "The Cheetah": "Everything must change for everything to remain.")
@ Guy: despite a notable imaginative effort, a good number of your assumptions are wrong ... but I do not deny everything!

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Quote @ Guy: "I wouldn't say it was a failure, I would say it didn't work."
For Moindreffor:
The controversy over the advantages or disadvantages of "progress" is doomed to drag on, since it lies within an uncritical framework and these two antagonistic positions only reflect two sides of the same coin. room. Indeed, an element-by-element comparison is necessarily blind to the social character of the totality, which alone makes sense. It is the systemic dynamic that is relevant as a framework for any questioning. As in any system, evolution leads to remedy any "excess" which would be likely to call it into question (thus the Chinese have surprised more than one with strong measures against urban pollution, but as the explicit the formula of Count Don Fabrizio in "The Cheetah": "Everything must change for everything to remain.")
@ Guy: despite a notable imaginative effort, a good number of your assumptions are wrong ... but I do not deny everything!

Well, there it is already clearer. Thanks for the effort. I still did not understand where the "non-criticized frame" was located, so I cannot imagine it.

[Moindreffor]

Quote @ Guy: "I wouldn't say it was a failure, I would say it didn't work."
For Moindreffor:
The controversy over the advantages or disadvantages of "progress" is doomed to drag on, since it lies within an uncritical framework and these two antagonistic positions reflect only two sides of the same coin. room. In fact, an element-by-element comparison is necessarily blind to the social character of the totality, which alone makes sense.

I do not agree, because the controversy stops when we take into account the bonus / penalty ratio, as soon as a technology brings more benefits than disadvantages for me it goes in the right direction, it is the case of any medical treatment, and I know something about it, I lost certain things but I gained my life there, after indeed one can blabble for hours in an uncritical framework, and one is then in the immobility

we can unfortunately make reasonable choices, or ideological choices

[Ahmed]

The "uncritical framework" is something decisive for understanding anything about complex systems. Each social synthesis emits and uses categories (mental representations: in ours, money, work, wealth, commodity) that are specific to it, if you use these same categories to study and criticize a complex system (like a society, in 'occurrence), you condemn yourself to a circularity of reasoning, since these categories only make sense within the system considered and refer only to it. To take a trivial example, it is like giving judgment to one of the protagonists of a conflict. Historically, right and left are opposed on the modalities of execution, because for a long time they are expressed in common categories (which condemned the left in a principled way to exhaust itself on demands for allocation of resources).
@ Moindreffor
Taking into account the advantage / disadvantage ratio is relevant in a particular, practical situation, which does not claim a "critical study of a complex system", but is to condemn oneself to not understand the meaning of a technical element to inside this social totality within which it unfolds in a non-contingent (non-innocent) way. On the contrary, ideology would be to take at face value the phenomena whose mere existence would be sufficient justification. To think that ideology exists only in ideas and not in phenomena produced by societies and to which they refer would be a very classic reasoning bias (in the sense of very widespread).

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Okay, so basically and to get back to the subject, whether we eat meat or become vegetarian does not change anything for human societies*, as long as this non-criticized framework remains thus, not criticized. But it's because you're a dangerous revolutionary, Ahmed ...

* The "everything must change so that nothing changes", so that those who pull the strings can continue to pull them.

[Janic]

I think, and Ahmed will confirm it or not, that his speech corresponds to the very title of the subject. Reduce and therefore remain in the system, such as reducing pollution, CO2 emissions from thermal systems by replacing them with other systems whose advantages do not cover their drawbacks, except ideologically.

[Moindreffor]

@ Moindreffor
Taking into account the advantage / disadvantage ratio is relevant in a particular, practical situation, which does not claim a "critical study of a complex system", but it is to condemn oneself to not understand the meaning of a technical element to inside this social totality within which it unfolds in a non-contingent (non-innocent) way.

relevant precisely if we extract ourselves from the social totality, with the presence of leaders who make decisions for the good of society, except that currently our leaders no longer work for the good of society but for their return to power, we are in what one of my mentors called a soft dictatorship, and therefore the right / left antagonism only exists to participate in the alternation of the leaders, not the politicians, and the one who presented himself like neither right nor left, gained the place but keep playing the same score

so currently, we tack according to the variations of opinions, hence the growing influence of social networks, America has just made a sad experience of it and is slowly waking up, when at home we start flirting with it, which shows our backlog of expertise

On the contrary, ideology would be to take at face value the phenomena whose mere existence would be sufficient justification. To think that ideology exists only in ideas and not in phenomena produced by societies and to which they refer would be a very classic reasoning bias (in the sense of very widespread).

Whether ideology creates phenomena or whether phenomena create ideology it comes to the same thing and therefore it is irrelevant, because as you say it is the sufficient justification which is dangerous, and that is what it is. must fight

so a lot of big words, a lot of complexity, a lot of rhetoric, but in the end, everything that you write and that we have a hard time deciphering brings nothing, no solution, or answer that allows us to move forward
"you condemn yourself to a circularity of reasoning, since these categories only make sense within the system considered and refer only to it"
the scientific mind and reasoning are there to extract us from this circle, except that by dint of making morons and frightening them we have succeeded in locking the circle well, the soft dictatorship has a bright future ahead of it, if it be careful not to shift too much the relationship between pedagogy and demagoguery

[Janic]

moindreffort

I do not agree, because the controversy ends when we take into account the bonus / penalty ratio, as soon as a technology brings more benefits than disadvantages for me it goes in the right direction, it is the case of any medical treatment, and I know something about it, I lost certain things but I gained my life there, after indeed one can blabble for hours in an uncritical framework, and one is then in the immobility we can unfortunately make reasonable choices, or ideological choices

Except that your reasonable choice was made precisely within an ideological framework, that of official medicine, itself within a restricted, totalitarian and monopolistic framework. Good for you if you were satisfied with it, but the statistics of annual deaths hardly support this optimism and in this particular case nosocomial and iatrogenic diseases.