It was better before, and the ecologism will make us return

[Janic]

Furthermore, the idea that one can abstract oneself from an omnipresent technical environment is pure nonsense, unless one has conceptualized, as our friend Exnihiloest did not hesitate to do, absolute and unconditional notion of freedom, completely disconnected from all reality.

the trap is that this technology is a kind of lark mirror that shines each time with a thousand additional lights and which is difficult to resist, especially for the younger generations who have known nothing else, but never presents to the buyer, the real balance sheet and cost often underestimated in misery, suffering, of those who have produced this technological advance. in fact, the consequences of smoking are shown on cigarette packs, but never the consequences of the mobile phone, for example.

[Janic]

Also valid in the bio subject and the glyphosate subject:
It's not a joke: Engineer by training, Laurent Pahpy is an analyst for the Institute of Economic and Fiscal Research (IREF). A contributor for many media, he studies how the market economy and science can build a fairer and freer society

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNlo-tDlczM

He is not a joke (supposedly competent) but he is funny!
Except for a few rare points where he reasons properly, everything else is mixing and confusion.
For example, it confuses the AB which is structured scientifically by agricultural engineers and agriculture, falsely called natural, of our grandparents who used the same toxic products, in agriculture, as medicine also of the same compounds in human or animal diseases.
In reality it is not the grandparents of the younger generations that is alluded to by the organic (that is to say at the end of the 19th century beginning of the 20 °, but well before the industrial use of these) but of the peasant heir to the cultural methods transmitted from generation to generation, even imperfect, where the notion of arbitrary selection of seeds according to their productivity, was not the most important, but only their capacity for permanence of the conservation of the nutritional qualities and their conservation until the following season, with a very large variety of these. So there is no need to invent cides of all kinds.
Permanent voluntary confusion of the gugusse! And everything to match! Its example of cabbage is just as ridiculous because it confuses chemistry and organic chemistry with complex and non-simplifying functions like its products of human synthesis. Equally ridiculous is his example of the Colorado potato beetles which are only indicators of the poor quality of the planted product and which participate in its destruction, its "Darwinian" elimination (which can be likened to microbes in human diseases). However, artificially maintaining a fragile and sick plant automatically has repercussions on the consumer and his own resistance to diseases.
So this funny ... sorry funny, is an influencer serving big agrochemicals.

[Ahmed]

If we put aside the cynical stratagem (which I mentioned above) aimed at discrediting his interlocutor, the fact remains that this indirectly poses a fundamental question (even if it remains theoretical): how many among those who walk "for the climate" and who demand action on the part of governments are really aware of the extent of lifestyle changes that this would imply? And how many would be resolved? On the contrary, is there not an absolutely conservative desire which is expressed in this way? Change by opting for an energy transition to avoid having to downgrade your comfort? It is on this feeling, based on correct premises that investors rely to instrumentalize these fears for their benefit.

As for the one "who is not a joker", We must appreciate his "technical" argument in the light of what he then declares: according to him, what bad anti-capitalists would blame Monsanto for, it would be to make profit! Not difficult then to speak out virtuously against this completely false accusation. And, in the process, to conclude masterfully on the superiority of capitalism ... I will let the consistency of the remarks be judged.

PS: something that seems to have escaped Janic: he tries to establish a parallel between the Judgment of science in matters of pesticides and tobacco, by affirming that just as it would have condemned the latter, it establishes the harmlessness of the former, which in no way reflects reality facts, since science, exploited by the tobacco industry has long barred the truth. If we retain his methodology, this would tend to demonstrate the opposite of what he supports ...

[GuyGadebois]

"Engineer by training" ... Engineer in what? Reinforced concrete, bridges and roads, engine manufacturer? "Engineer by training" means nothing and the rest of his CV does not make him an expert in agrochemistry, organic farming or cancer, far from it.

[Ahmed]

It does however mean a neural training that conditions him to revere the technique and the system that goes well with it!

[GuyGadebois]

It does however mean a neural training that conditions him to revere the technique and the system that goes well with it!

A good big doggie (shark) of liberalism.

[Ahmed]

Why big?

[Janic]

PS: one thing that seems to have escaped Janic: he tries to draw a parallel between the Judgment of science in matters of pesticides and tobacco, by affirming that just as it would have condemned the latter, it establishes the harmlessness of the former, which in no way reflects the reality of the facts, since science, exploited by the tobacco industry has long barred the truth. If we retain his methodology, this would tend to demonstrate the opposite of what he supports ...

I am particularly familiar with the history of tobacco. The condemnation made by the American Congress against the tobacco lobby, did not focus on the real danger of tobacco, but that this lobby had, UNDER OATH, denied having added products increasing the dependence of the smoker, verified as being a lie and it is on this lie that the sentence was carried.
We do not have the same congress condemning industrialists for lying. So even if the manufacturers of the herbicides were recognized as having lied, that would result in a rebuke and a small almond so as not to hinder the business in France since being under the jurisdiction of an administrative court and not a criminal court for homicides, like Servier.