The planet is burning and we are watching our smartphones.

[sen-no-sen]

There are facts, the addiction of men in search of pleasure, among other things through consumption. This has been verified almost everywhere, at all times, and is still verified.
There are obviously exceptions, I have mentioned, the monks, some ecologist who put their convictions into action, but these exceptions cannot hide the general case.

This bulimia of consumption obviously has a cultural component, but its deep roots are first in our genes, (...)

The bulimia of consumption and the different addictions are found in many domesticated mammals (dogs, cattle etc ...), again it is much more the environment (induced by industrial process) than a genetic component which is responsible for it .

As an example, obesity, which affects almost half of Americans, is actually the result of our survival instinct coupled with too rich a diet.
In fact, we are genetically programmed for energy efficiency, so in the wild nature animals instinctively define the risk taking to be carried out with regard to a situation in order to establish a balance between energy consumption, final result and implementation. minimum danger.
This therefore translates into a practice of the right gesture and limited effort. In a wild environment it often gives significant efforts for a poor result.
However, the same behavior applied within an industrial society boosted by cheap energies resulted in fast food and to drive or people don't even have to get out of their vehicles to eat ... it quickly gives an obese society in the eyes of other elements (junk food) ... nowadays we die as much from overeating as of hunger.

The strictly genetic aspect, although fundamental, does not allow a global explanation of the current ecological crisis.
A much broader approach is necessary including memetics, thermodynamics, economics and so on.

When men were rare on an immense earth, they drew without restraint and shamelessly in nature, they did not worry about the waste of their small camp, leaving them abandoned in the good care of vultures, hyenas, and others natural garbage collectors.

At that time the notion of waste and pollution simply did not make sense, all of the consumer products being biodegradable.
Inter-group rivalry is widespread among (eu) social animals (ants, termites, chimpanzees etc.) so nothing new under the sun.It is thermodynamic control that has allowed us to multiply by several orders of magnitude our capacities, it is thus above all a matter of scale more than of any human nature which would be deviant or which would come under the "bug".

Technology invents nuclear energy, low-carbon energy.
Technology invented the green revolution which almost eradicated famines. We criticize it today, but what else should we have done?
The number and purchasing power create pressure on land and food. Hence the pressure on what remains of the equatorial forest. GMOs, better yields, requiring less pesticides in the case of Bt GMOs, can help alleviate the problem.

The technological system obeys the laws of evolution, so it can by means of disruptions "leaps over itself" to overcome its past contradictions.
But this trend should not be interpreted too hastily to consider it as real progress. It is in fact a process of optimization of the constraints aiming to saturate the whole of the biosphere, something hardly possible with technologies too polluting, these quickly triggering harmful consequences for all operators."Better polluted to pollute longer".

What surprises me is that in response to all this, I am told about capitalism. Which report ?

Capitalism, or in its most recent name neo-liberalism, is a doctrine which aims to maximize flows by increasing the degree of freedom of companies (I do this voluntarily at its simplest), which has the unfortunate consequences of considerably increasing constraints on the environment while allowing people to increase their purchasing power to satisfy their instincts, that seems to me to be related to the subject, right?

[Ahmed]

ecology, you write:

You write, humans are programmed. OKAY. Behaviors result a little from the culture of the time and place, and a lot from the program written in genes, from this famous striatum.

The specificity of humans among animals (the proportion of innate and acquired being variable in other species) is the absence of an initial wiring, hence a great cognitive plasticity whose counterpart is the need for a long learning and, which is associated with it, very slow physiological development before reaching adulthood.
Further:

What surprises me is that in response to the facts I am describing, I am told about capitalism. Which report ?

What is not so surprising is that you do not see the connection ...
And even:

When men were rare on an immense earth, they drew without restraint and shamelessly in nature ...

Anthropological studies do not in any way validate this abusive generalization which is only an anachronistic rear projection of the present on the past. Simple logic goes against this simplistic vision: why draw "shamelessly or restraint" when sufficiency was essential: can we eat more than necessary without inconvenience? What is the use of monopolizing anything if everything is available in abundance and at will?
Only a "civilization" could establish, through generalized competition, accumulation as an absurd finality (this perhaps answers your previous questioning).
When Sen-no-sen writing:

"All of the ecological problems are related to technology, I absolutely do not see how more technology could make things easier!"

you do not respond to his objection, on the other hand you perfectly illustrate the contamination of your neuronal system by the technico-industrial same-complex. What I could sum up as follows: "if we do nothing, we are going into the wall, so let's accelerate"!

[Janic]

Technology invented the green revolution which almost eradicated famines. We criticize it today, but what else should we have done?

it has not eradicated famines since they still persist all over the world (like vaccines!). This so-called green revolution has cost dearly to societies with perverse side effects such as the exhaustion of soils, the greater invasion of pests and the intensification of the use of chemicals ... synthetic (obviously, of course !) pollutant, soils, rivers, groundwater, poisoning flora, fauna, and humans of course. If that's technology: no thanks!

[realistic ecology]

There are facts, the addiction of men in search of pleasure, among other things through consumption. This has been verified almost everywhere, at all times, and is still verified.
There are obviously exceptions, I have mentioned, the monks, some ecologist who put their convictions into action, but these exceptions cannot hide the general case.

This bulimia of consumption obviously has a cultural component, but its deep roots are first in our genes, (...)

The bulimia of consumption and the different addictions are found in many domesticated mammals (dogs, cattle etc ...), again it is much more the environment (induced by industrial process) than a genetic component which is responsible for it .

As an example, obesity, which affects almost half of Americans, is actually the result of our survival instinct coupled with too rich a diet.
In fact, we are genetically programmed for energy efficiency, so in the wild nature animals instinctively define the risk taking to be carried out with regard to a situation in order to establish a balance between energy consumption, final result and implementation. minimum danger.
This therefore translates into a practice of the right gesture and limited effort. In a wild environment it often gives significant efforts for a poor result.
However, the same behavior applied within an industrial society boosted by cheap energies resulted in fast food and to drive or people don't even have to get out of their vehicles to eat ... it quickly gives an obese society in the eyes of other elements (junk food) ... nowadays we die as much from overeating as of hunger.

The strictly genetic aspect, although fundamental, does not allow a global explanation of the current ecological crisis.
A much broader approach is necessary including memetics, thermodynamics, economics and so on.

(When traveling, I answer late, and incompletely)

I did not write that the problem is "strictly" genetic.
We are indeed genetically programmed, we indeed have instincts, even if, unlike animals, we can partly overcome their "commands". You explain obesity today from, among other things, the genetic factor, it would be "the result of our survival instinct coupled with too rich a diet."
I almost agree, but I specify:
- We have innate behaviors, the search for sex or food for example.
- Innate behaviors towards food are adapted to the life of wild predators, and to that which we have lived for 300 years, the life of hunter-gatherers. The genetic adaptation is that when there was food we force-fed right awaybecause it was never guaranteed to find the next day. In addition, it was necessary to avoid having its prey stolen by competitors. And this adaptation worked.
- Today "force-feeding gene" no longer useful in a society where abundance is assured every day. But this force-feeding gene still works: when there is food, it pushes to consume it immediately, even beyond reason. Hence the obesity epidemic.
- This phenomenon also exists in companion animals, cats for example, which also become obese, even when they are "whole". Obese because they are given too much to eat on one side, and because on the other hand a cat has no regulatory mechanism, satiety does not end the meal.

In short, we live with a primate brain for behaviors, and a super engineer brain for production. Hence the obesity epidemic which is due, not to the abundance of food, but mainly to the innate mechanisms which push to consume immediately as soon as there is something to consume, and to continue to consume beyond satiety.
The primary responsibility is not offers of food but scheduling to consume as much as possible right away. It is not the economy that leads the dance, it is at the service of request. And demand doesn't need the sting of advertising, which just adds a layer to an innate demand.
This is why I fear that the ecological crisis is not soluble in regulatory or economic treatments. The weight of behaviors is the most important factor. The attempt at prohibition in the United States was a failure, the demand was the strongest. The phenomenon of Yellow Vests, who prefers to take care right now the end of the month without dealing with the "end of the world" reveals the weight of these innate behaviors. "The planet is burning, and we are looking at the end of the month."

There is still hope that behavior will change. That employees stop asking for pay raises, bitching when they don't get them, spending them when they get them, and stop voting for the "highest bidding" election candidates, those who promise growth the strongest ... Do not dream too much.
We hope a lot from awareness, education ... Young people demonstrate, "What is the government doing?" They "walk for the climate". Well done. Provided that this is not a way of entrusting the hot potato to governments, without considering oneself as being an actor other than by these famous "small gestures to save the planet" ... which have, relatively, only small effects. Opposite there is the competition of the cell phone, fashionable and if possible branded clothes, and the super-awesome two-wheeler.

And even supposing that behavior changes, it would still remain to get out of the mess of companies with tangled, hyper-interdependent, competing economic actors. This requires a minimum of acceptance of mechanisms of understanding, between the governments of all the countries. We are far from it.
This difficulty of peaceful relations between states is perhaps, without doubt, also dependent on a genetic inheritance: packs of wild animals do not have peaceful relations with other packs.


"This trend [towards more technology] should not be interpreted too hastily to see it as real progress."

I did not write that it was progress. I wrote that it was one of the rare means we have to delay difficult times, thus perhaps giving time to become more aware of realities and particularly of the weight of human behavior, regardless of political and economic considerations.

[realistic ecology]

ecology, you write:

You write, humans are programmed. OKAY. Behaviors result a little from the culture of the time and place, and a lot from the program written in genes, from this famous striatum.

The specificity of humans among animals (the proportion of innate and acquired being variable in other species) is the absence of an initial wiring, hence a great cognitive plasticity whose counterpart is the need for a long learning and, which is associated with it, very slow physiological development before reaching adulthood.

There would be no innate part (of "initial wiring") in humans? ! The cultural component, education etc. obviously have an important role, but also the innate one. Studies of twins raised in different backgrounds have shown the weight of the innate (from memory). The difference compared to animals is that humans are not completely subject to their genetic determinisms. Genetics push them to sex and to eat, and yet cultural conditioning manages to push hermits to live in the desert, in the young and in abstinence. But these are rare cases.
This freedom of men with regard to their genetic code also applies to the culture of their childhood: they are capable of deviating from it, and even completely denying it in adulthood. Nero, was brought up by his tutor Seneca in the path of the most demanding Stoicism ... We know what became of it later. And even today so many adolescents are the despair of their parents.

By seeing only the cultural component in human behavior, by denying the evidence of an initial wiring, we attack windmills, advertising, capitalism, which have only a limited share of responsibility , and we go to the wall. The princely courts did not wait for publicity and capitalism to spend like the sick.

[sen-no-sen]

I almost agree, but I specify (...):
- Today the "force-feeding gene" is no longer useful in a society where abundance is assured every day. But this force-feeding gene still works: when there is food, it pushes to consume it immediately, even beyond reasonable. Hence the obesity epidemic.
- This phenomenon also exists in companion animals, cats for example, which also become obese, even when they are "whole". Obese because they are given too much to eat on one side, and because on the other hand a cat has no regulatory mechanism, satiety does not end the meal (...)

Yes thank you but you are only rephrasing what I mentioned a few lines above ...

Hence the obesity epidemic which is due, not to the abundance of food, but mainly to the innate mechanisms which push to consume immediately as soon as there is something to consume, and to continue to consume beyond satiety.

As I explained earlier, biological determinisms are the result of an evolution relating to a given way of life (= behavior / environment harmonization).
When there is a break (transition from wild life to industrial farming, for example) biological determinisms can quickly lead to behavioral pathologies induced by the new architecture in which a given entity is deployed (this is disharmony).
Konrad Lorenz in his theory of degeneration had largely explained (with 40 years in advance!) the arrival of obesity in contemporary society by observing pathological behavior in animals from factory farming:
- eating problems and a lack of control of the appetite mechanisms which can lead to obesity;
-regulation problems of sexuality and hypersexualization;
-an infantile regression of individuals, adults behaving like immature individuals (parental dependence and play activity).
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_Lorenz
It is very curiously in line with all of this news!

So can we seriously incriminate the archaic behavior of a poor farm pig or on the contrary imply the system which saw these behaviors born?
All the elements go to corroboration of this last point.
Many studies (including the famous experience of milgram) or the case of torture in the prison (from Abu Ghraib) reinforce the idea that Criminal behavior can be induced by a given situation.
Would all humans be ignoble perverts, torturers or, conversely, beings of love, of compassion? It is the situation, and by extension "the system" that makes the thief.
As already said humans can be the most beautiful thing in this world as are worse nightmares ...
We can embark on a study of crime in the USA by comparing the suburbs of Los Angeles and the Amish communities ... we will always come back to the same observation: it is each time the model in which behaviors are deployed which positively or negatively determines a set of praxis.

[Janic]

when there is food, he pushes to consume it immediately, even beyond the reasonable. Hence the obesity epidemic.

not necessarily! everyone has already met these skinny guys who eat like 4 and big ones who peck. It is essentially a question of assimilation or not at the digestive level, as well as the importance of physical activity.

[Ahmed]

It is indeed a crucial point that this passage from the wild state to the stage of domestication and it is valid for humans (as well noted Sen-no-sen) in the form of self-domestication and its associated pathologies. Obesity results less from a "force-feeding gene" which was perhaps useful in certain situations (and unsuitable elsewhere, hence the evolutionary danger of making it an acquired characteristic) than from a compensatory addiction to the numerous frustrations of our hyper-everything world ... On the contrary, this famous gene would not explain why all those who would be able to become obese (that's a lot of people!) are not ...

Besides, why talk about ecology if, for the sake of "realism", it is only a question of subscribing to and plebisciting what already exists?

[sen-no-sen]

... Conversely, this famous gene would not explain why all those who would be able to become obese (it makes people!) Are not ....

The human body has a mechanism linked to satiety, without which indeed we would all be obese.
On the contrary, its mechanisms become powerless when individuals are literally "bathed" in the junk food.
The case of Mexico is a school, 72% of the population is overweight:

If more and more young French people suffer from junk food, the Mexicans have become the second largest people in the world, just behind Chile and in front of the United States. 2% are overweight, according to the OECD. A third are obese.

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/sante/alimentation/obesite-au-mexique-72-des-habitants-sont-en-surpoids_3594243.html
The relationship between overweight and gene is much less obvious than that between overweight and NAFTA (North American free trade agreement)!

Obesity, the epidemic that the United States is spreading

Today, 40% of the American population is considered obese. By spreading its food culture in Mexico or in Canada, via its trade agreements, the United States has a considerable responsibility in the progression of this epidemic in the world. (...)

https://www.lesechos.fr/2017/12/lobesite-cette-epidemie-que-les-etats-unis-propagent-188862

The correlation between behaviors and gene has little value (for homo sapiens) if it excludes the framework in which its behaviors are deployed.

[realistic ecology]

[From then on can we seriously incriminate the archaic behaviors of a poor farm pig or on the contrary imply the system which saw these behaviors born?

But it is not a question of incriminating one or the other! I do not blame the innate behavior of the "everything, right now"nor the new society of abundance. I emphasize that both exist, and that there is a contradiction, a conflict, between the one and the other. To ignore innate behaviors which were adapted to certain difficult conditions of the past, but which have now become unsuitable for new conditions of abundance, is to fail to see one side of a problem which holds true for the "poor. breeding pig ", for the obese person, as well as for the one who already has a good car but still buys a more luxurious car, etc. By ignoring the innate behaviors which are one of the important causes of these phenomena, one takes away the possibility of finding solutions.