Algae to save the planet!

[Ahmed]

I have already explained to you that the answer could only be collective and especially not fall from the sky (was it that of the ideas), or of a self-proclaimed genius. This understood, apart from the broad outlines already mentioned, it would be absurd to plan in detail what it would be wise to build; if this were to happen, it is by making that the choices should be made, with the risks of inevitable errors or approximations (but which do not bother me) in a completely new enterprise of conscious self-construction of a new social synthesis.
Company that does not adapt very well to a preliminary basis for reflection mainly based on enthusiasm (that's good, it is necessary!) And very accurate observations, fairly generally accepted without changing much , but which errs with its conceptual shortcuts. Which, let us remember, leads you to circumscribe the first cause in an eternal human nature driven by the desire to possess (or comfort?), Which is invalidated by History and which, moreover, represents a logical contradiction to the very idea of ​​the possibility of change.

[humus]

I have already explained to you that the answer could only be collective and especially not fall from the sky (was it that of the ideas), or of a self-proclaimed genius.

In a collective everyone brings their ideas, what is your starting point?

J a completely new enterprise of conscious self-construction of a new social synthesis.

Without necessarily aiming far from the start but simply seeing if you have original / interesting ideas compared to mine.
Here we lost ABC2019 on this one (no proposal )

which errs by its conceptual shortcuts. Which, let us remember, leads you to circumscribe the first cause in an eternal human nature driven by the desire to possess (or comfort?), Which is invalidated by History and which, moreover, represents a logical contradiction to the very idea of ​​the possibility of change.

So yes for desire as the source of everything. (desire for power, desire for security, desire for whatever we want)
What does history invalidate?
I would like to see that there is a desire at the base of all action, all decision, all that is human.
Examples denying please

Contradiction to the idea of ​​change?
I would like to see that
Desire is before reason, but reason can channel what we decide to do with a desire: follow it, reject it, constrain it.
The laws, the cultural implicit are there to limit the concrete expression of the desires.
Awareness and knowledge also limit the expression of desires in reality.
If the desire center in each of us never dries up (in my opinion? Except to stifle life in itself) the type of desire (partly cultural) is moderated by knowledge.
It is indeed an evolution through knowledge.

PS: I completely agree with A Barrau on the fact that the laws, even if they do not please us, are necessary to limit our desires. ex: drive at 300Km / h on the road.
I join myself on the fact that it seems impossible to get out of capitalism, except to go through a major crisis, which I absolutely do not want.
So before:
I completely agree with S. Rousseau on a sustained taxation of the big ones to develop virtuous which will never be done otherwise.
I totally agree with D Meadows on bringing a lot of renewables into manufactured items.
All of this can be done by law in today's world.
I fully agree with Gunter Pauli on the fact of making production sites with negative waste.

[Ahmed]

Obviously, any act supposes a prior intention, from there to explaining the current particular and systemic circumstances, it is on the one hand to infer from a banal observation because generalized which cannot therefore explain anything, since it manifests itself everywhere and always, and however, never leading to the same particular result. Clearly, since it explains everything, it explains nothing.
On the other hand, you imagine that our market system is a desired and conscious construction: it is indeed the deceptive justification that it gives itself. Here again, History does not endorse this interpretation. This is surely where my starting point is!
As for your proposals, it is in the hands of those who promote them (I put you outside of these accusations!) That harmless trinkets that they display in their shops and no law will oppose what could substantially oppose the valuation of abstract value: the rulers, whatever their speeches, their promises and even their possible sincere convictions cannot avoid these obligations for which they are accountable to those who exhibited them on the stage public or electoral.

[humus]

Obviously any act supposes a preliminary intention, from there to explaining the current particular and systemic circumstances,.

As if the current particular and systemic circumstances were not the result of someone's initial desires, somewhere?
If we want to solve a problem, it is at the root that we must go and not stay on the surface.
Of course, saying desire like that is too vague a term to explain a precise point.
It must be defined more precisely in relation to the point that one wishes to treat.
Give me an example of something systemic that you think would not be explained by a desire and I will try to define the initial desire.
Once this initial desire is revealed, you will see that it is difficult to continue as if you don't know.

On the other hand, you imagine that our market system is a desired and conscious construction.

Ah good because our market system has not been desired, theorized and implemented by anyone?
If you think so, your starting base is wrong, what's the point of continuing from a wrong base?
You often say "History does not endorse this interpretation". Give me specific examples please.

As for your proposals, it is in the hands of those who promote them (I put you outside of these accusations!) That harmless trinkets that they display in their shops and no law will oppose what could substantially oppose the valuation of the abstract value: the rulers, whatever their speeches, their promises and even their possible sincere convictions cannot be to avoid these obligations for which they are accountable to those who exhibited them on the public or electoral stage.

Without being more specific with examples, what you say is free and therefore worthless.

I gave specific examples in my PS, answer precisely above please, rather than generalities without substance (for me anyway)

[sen-no-sen]

Ah good because our market system has not been desired, theorized and implemented by anyone?
If you think so, your starting base is wrong, what's the point of continuing from a wrong base?
You often say "History does not endorse this interpretation". Give me specific examples please.

It is an obvious error to believe that humans will make history.
The economic system is the consequence of a natural selection operated through it.
It is the model most able to maximize the dissipation of energy with regard to a given cultural model which allowed the emergence of our system.
Desire, will, or whatever, does not exist as a fundamental force, so we cannot invoke them as a primary principle.

[Ahmed]

It is an obvious error to believe that humans will make history.

As it was said very lucidly Marx"It is men who make history, but not what they believe". He added that the real subject of capitalism was the abstract value to which all men are subject ...
Say, to complete the message of Sen-no-sen and avoid misinterpretations, that capitalism has obviously given rise to discursive illustrations to reappropriate the paternity of the model, but we must not be fooled by this which is only a posteriori justification. In addition, the subsequent triumph made us forget the initial resistances which were harshly broken ...

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Obviously any act supposes a preliminary intention, from there to explaining the current particular and systemic circumstances,.

As if the current particular and systemic circumstances were not the result of someone's initial desires, somewhere?

Someone or a group of people. With regard to oil, this is what happened in 1928: An interview during a hunt, where the bosses of the biggest oil companies literally "divided the world". The world of today, concretely arises from this meeting. The monster they spawned is now "in the hands" of algorithms, data centers and electricity. The slightest brake on this runaway can have enormous repercussions and generate chaos, moreover it seems to me that we can no longer even brake! Imagine the effect of a computer virus that would stop everything ... everywhere, except in systems disconnected from the network.

[izentrop]

What an imagination

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

What an imagination

What ignorance of history, what lack of culture.
https://www.herodote.net/17_septembre_1 ... 280917.php

[humus]

Apart from Guy who is on the spot at least in part, you do not understand what I mean, I'm talking about walls, it's okay, I'll drop it.