Some Ideas - Ecological Policy

[CertainesIdées]

@Flytox
In the broad sense, perhaps. But these pressure groups are not internal to the institutions.

@ Sen-no-sen
It is not a question of seeking to perpetuate the RSA and even less to establish a new assistantship but on the contrary to provide work for men and women without seeking the creation of wealth at any cost. Once this work has become "commonplace" there is no longer any need to organize this work from above (from town halls, regional hotels, etc.).
It is putting work back at the heart of Life, unlike putting work at the heart of growth.

[sen-no-sen]

@ Sen-no-sen
It is not a question of seeking to perpetuate the RSA and even less to establish a new assistantship but on the contrary to provide work for men and women without seeking the creation of wealth at any cost. Once this work has become "commonplace" there is no longer any need to organize this work from above (from town halls, regional hotels, etc.).
It is putting work back at the heart of Life, unlike putting work at the heart of growth.

Seen like this it is indeed clearer, but that does not answer the question underlined beforehand: how to reduce unemployment quickly?
Your remark is based on the postulate that a new source of work should enter the customs, but in this precise case, which hat do you get your jobs from?
If tomorrow we give, say the delivery of meals to the elderly or the landscaping work to the unemployed ... we then subtract these activities from the employees of the private / public responsible for its missions ...

[Janic]

fully agree with Sen no sen. It's the snake biting its tail! We want to compare a period of colonial and post-colonial abundance and its plundering of wealth, with our current situation where we only have internal resources, limited elsewhere, and therefore we have to obtain supplies from the outside. To this is added the foreign competition at low cost limiting non-competitive exports, internal consumption oriented towards "Chinese" or European products at low cost and therefore increasing unemployment and layoffs, plus exceptional social protection , but also very expensive and the result is a foregone conclusion. even with the best possible (political) intentions, it's squaring the circle.
So whatever the politicians in place, they cannot work miracles so far, the leaning to the right of the right proposing solutions that would probably not change the situation, even if doing necessary protectionism, but with his flip side.

[CertainesIdées]

The aim is to strive for a new balance. I say new because the last centuries have seen a balance based on exponential growth. For this I propose to use the levers available to the state to:
1 / generate sufficient growth to operate the national economy
2 / giving back a fairer value to "things" (today we pay far too much for the intangible and less and less for the material), this partly requires strong state actions in various fields (I am mainly thinking of health).

The first point can be based on a bubble because we are not looking for sustainability, the important thing is to strive towards the second point which will bring about an economic balancer, including without growth. The bubble can, and must, be the ecological revolution that I propose.

This desired balance (at low, zero or negative growth) can only take place in a society which optimizes the use of its resources and which distributes wealth as much as possible. There is no solution to the "unemployment problem", there is a different economic equilibrium to be found (apart from the exponential growth, which you attribute, with good sense, to colonization on the one hand and to the plundering of natural resources on the other hand).

So we come back to three pillars of my proposals: ecological break, participation in companies, and major role of the State.



These are just sketches ...

[sen-no-sen]

The aim is to strive for a new balance. I say new because the last centuries have seen a balance based on exponential growth. For this I propose to use the levers available to the state to:
1/ generate sufficient growth to run the national economy

Hello,
Error on your part or antinomy?
You call on the one hand to the exit I quote from "the equilibrium based on an exponential growth" by having recourse to a potential rebalancing through ... one generation of growth on the other ... it ' is to understand nothing!

The search for exponential economic growth corresponds to everything except a period of equilibrium, this one is achieved through a set of cycles of booms and crashes dotted by 2 world wars as well as a multitude of "ideological-economic conflicts "between the capitalist and Marxist axes ...

To stop the development of the economic "Beast", the best lever is, on the contrary, to reduce the resources that feed it, in the same way that one would make a ground unfavorable to cancer (see the comparison between ultra economic development. -liberal and cancer on the subject devoted to the astrophysicist F.Roddier: https://www.econologie.com/forums/francois-roddier-thermodynamique-et-societe-t13156-45.html entitled deregulation growth and cancer).

The only way for humans to regain their own space is therefore to start a strong decrease, this is point n ° 1.

2 / giving back a fairer value to "things" (today we pay far too much for the intangible and less and less for the material), this partly requires strong state actions in various fields (I am mainly thinking of health).

This ties in with what I mentioned above, the commodity fetishism (to use the terms of Ahmed) is a direct consequence of the search for exponential economic growth.
This process is not trivial, because it is characterized by an expropriation of humanity for the benefit of mechanization.
If we want to find the true values ​​of life, it is essential to get out of the consumerist process.

There is no solution to the "unemployment problem", there is a different economic equilibrium to be found (apart from exponential growth, which you attribute, with common sense, to colonization on the one hand and to the plunder of natural resources on the other hand).

I cannot agree with this statement, the problem of unemployment is a direct consequence of the overproduction regime and the increasing mechanization of the means of production.
(See the topic "Tomorrow, all unemployed"? https://www.econologie.com/forums/demain-tous-chomeurs-t13279.html

No area of ​​activity is spared, and those of cleaning floors with microsurgery!

It is therefore imperative to counteract this forced mechanization by a set of measures, measures which are part of a decreasing logic:
1) Admit the impossibility of growth:https://www.econologie.com/forums/l-impossibilite-de-la-croissance-t13410.html and draw a policy from efficient sobriety.
2) Prohibit the mechanization process as it is imposed on us (which absolutely does not mean that robotization has no place in the world, on the contrary, but that it must not evacuate human labor).
3) Distribute employment in a logic of social progress, such as for example:part-time work, paid full time for women with dependent children, a measure which would be at zero cost for businesses and the state in view of the savings made with respect to social assistance granted to the unemployed / "Rsiste".

[Ahmed]

I appreciate the content of this dialogue and its liveliness!

On the question of work, the question is less to limit the mechanization / automation destructive of jobs than to reorient it towards a relief of the punishment of the men, instead of that it is, as it is currently the case, set of additional constraints weighing on those who are excluded from it or who are subject to it.

This cannot be effected by a modification of the institutions, but by a radical change of the objectives, therefore the suppression of economism (and of the economy?) ...

[Janic]

Ahmed hello

On the question of work, the question is less to limit the mechanization / automation destructive of jobs than to reorient it towards a relief of the punishment of the men, instead of that it is, as it is currently the case, set of additional constraints weighing on those who are excluded from it or who are subject to it.

For the record, this mechanization was supposed to relieve pain and human intoxication (like the extraction of minerals). But simple mechanization and especially automation carry, in themselves, the idea of ​​abolishing human labor and very clever one who could define the limit not to cross (except in an authoritarian way as in some countries (on other subjects). In addition, the machine does ten, a hundred times better than any human manipulation: precision, speed, strength, endurance, etc… and never claims. Therefore "we" do more the weight and as materialism has become the new messianism, we did not get out of the doldrums even with the best possible will.
sen no sen hello

It is therefore imperative to counteract this forced mechanization by a set of measures, measures which are part of a decreasing logic:

But who would be able to take these measures against the current of policies, whatever they are, as of the individual will to "profit" to the maximum from the benefits of civilization and in particular the emerging countries (countries most populated and in galloping population growth) who become the biggest consumers of goods and technologies?

1) Admit the impossibility of growth:https://www.econologie.com/forums/l-impossibilit...ance-t13410.html and draw from it an effective sobriety policy.
2) Prohibit the mechanization process as it is imposed on us (which absolutely does not mean that robotization has no place in the world, on the contrary, but that it must not evacuate human labor).
3) Distribute employment in a logic of social progress, such as for example: part-time work, paid full time for women with dependent children, a measure which would be at zero cost for companies and workers. 'state with regard to the savings made with respect to the social assistance granted to the unemployed / "Rsiste".

These three proposals will not solve the problem since each measure has its counterpart in frustrations both in the growth camp and in that of the "deprived" of this growth. (voluntary or forced decreasing)
So: either we have the financial and human means to stop the machine which has gotten carried away and continues "to show in the towers"; or you wait for it to seize up and stop on its own and that solves all the problems at the same time. (There must be a few caves where we can draw, with a piece of nanotechnological coal, some tractors and planes to testify to our existence passed to generations of a distant future!)
Human beings are incorrigible!
For the example this passage quoted by sen no sen:
John Joe McFadden: Living cells are the first nano-machines in history. Today, as engineers build nanomachines, we realize that living cells have already preceded them. So there will be convergence between these areas. We will better understand living cells because we will better understand the principles of quantum mechanics that underlie all of these phenomena. And perhaps we can integrate these principles into nanotechnologies and electronic circuits and give them a dynamic character that reproduces the dynamics of life. We will then have very special electrical devices that will have a lot in common with life. Maybe we will be able to create artificial life, artificial intelligence, when we introduce quantum mechanics into these machines.

[sen-no-sen]

It is therefore imperative to counteract this forced mechanization by a set of measures, measures which are part of a decreasing logic:

But who would be able to take these measures against the current of policies, whatever they are, as of the individual will to "profit" to the maximum from the benefits of civilization and in particular the emerging countries (countries most populated and in galloping population growth) who become the biggest consumers of goods and technologies?

The three propositions fit into each other.
The automation of human tasks is a direct consequence of the quest to maximize profits ... and those with the aim of creating ever stronger growth.
If one commits to a policy of maximizing efficiency then it will happen naturally a reduction in this automation policy ...

These three proposals will not solve the problem since each measure has its counterpart in frustrations both in the growth camp and in that of the "deprived" of this growth.

You don't seem to have grasped that economic growth is a physical impasse, the frustration of some does not weigh heavily in the balance ...
In all cases, our society will move towards a strong decrease, the only difference lies in understanding the imminence of this depletion.
If we continue in the worst, we will face a terrible phase of recession which we are not prepared.

At the present time, two schools of thought clash to design the future landscape of society: tech-scientist messianism which aims to overcome this recession by means of a major technological leap forward via the NBICs ( nano-tech, biotech, IT, cognitive) and on the other the path of wisdom which tends to orient humanity towards a symbiotic balance ... as much to say that the first school is largely dominant!

As for automation now, there is no question of destroying the machines and returning to an ancestral way of life, it is simply a question of thwarting "the effect of the red queen", that is to say the human-machine feedback which currently leans towards human beings for the machine and not machines at the service of humanity.

[Ahmed]

We look forward to seeing you! Sen-no-sen, to have clarified this last point, that was the object of my remark: there was no doubt in my mind about the real content of your words, but it is important that everyone can follow without being mistaken.

CertainesIdées attributes to institutions powers which are disproportionate to reality and seems unaware that power is distributed within a restricted oligarchy and that the "power" of citizens resides only in the possibility to be expressed, when it is there duly invited, his preference for this or that interchangeable puppet ...
It remains to be aware of who is pulling the strings!

I take this opportunity to recall this sentence of Jacques Ellul concerning the President of the Republic (but this remains valid for all political powers): "The conditions required to become President of the Republic are incompatible with the exercise of this function "*.

* In "The political illusion".

[sen-no-sen]

CertainesIdées attributes to institutions powers which are disproportionate to reality and seems unaware that power is distributed within a restricted oligarchy and that the "power" of citizens resides only in the possibility to be expressed, when it is there duly invited, his preference for this or that interchangeable puppet ...

Indeed, politicians are just "human puppets" as the Saxons say, from a cybernetic point of view we can even say that the various agents of the system act like software (why do we speak of a "political program"?) aiming to set up processing algorithms (ideology politico-economic).
It is a rather uncommon vision but when compared to history it appears clearly in a new light.

It remains to be aware of who is pulling the strings!

Or what?
There is no doubt a huge knot bag! Mixture between economy, physical flow, ideology, technology ... hence our inability to implement virtuous measures to stop misery in the world or the destruction of ecosystems ...

Fortunately the room for maneuver to change such determinism is not zero, but it is already necessary to manage to identify them, which is not easy!