System anti SDF social progress ..... .....?

[Ahmed]

Except that giving in to the easy way by invoking "greed" or "excess" leads to a truncated analysis of economic phenomena of which these moral categorizations are only consequences (as irritating as they are).

Of course, ultimately, moral imperatives for choosing a different purpose are unavoidable, but this should not interfere with the analysis of the system.

[hic]

Ahmed hello
even Berlan, in his introduction, which nevertheless shows a thorough knowledge of the subject, easily drifts towards a perfectly unsuitable moralizing interpretation
can it be otherwise? Otherwise, there is no reason to ask questions about "human" values ​​precisely dependent on these morals, newly replaced by ethics, which define certain limits not to be exceeded without putting oneself in danger and therefore, in the case, without endangering our living environment.

Hi janic

counter-example:
selective sorting is linked neither to morality, nor to ethics, nor to the economic field,
but with an obligation!

- hence the flop of political ecology
reality is stronger than any bullshit

[Ahmed]

Hello, hic! You write:

selective sorting (Sic) is linked neither to a morality, nor to ethics, nor to the economic field, but to an obligation!

However, the obligation arises from economic considerations as well as the manipulation of public opinion (for economic purposes).

Further:

- hence the flop of political ecology.

The "flop", as you call it, of political ecology comes from its collusion with economic imperatives, which most often condemns it to futile gesticulations or, in the best case to very limited results which support new disasters.
Despite the quibbles of Luc Ferry, political ecology can only be radical*, otherwise it will limit itself to running eternally after patching up the consequences... it would be better, in this case, to call it "rustinology"!

*In the literal sense: at the root, ie addressing the causes.

[Janic]

hic hello
counter-example:
selective sorting is linked neither to morality, nor to ethics, nor to the economic field,
but with an obligation!
Yet it is precisely a question of ethics, it has only become an obligation because a certain part of the population (generally the same individuals regardless of the sectors concerned) has nothing to do with it. A quick trip to the garbage cans can verify this.
However, it directly impacts part of the economy through recycling.

[Ahmed]

If you mean by that that this obligation results from a reaction of the state to the lack of ethics (?) of the citizens, I cannot follow you...

The role of the state, as it currently stands, is to create an environment favorable to the accumulation of abstract value, not to compensate for any deficiency of the population in a matter of which it is singularly lacking.

[Janic]

Ahmed hello
If you mean by that that this obligation results from a reaction of the state to the lack of ethics (?) of the citizens, I cannot follow you...
The State only regulates what ensures order and social peace and therefore ratifies what already exists. No hygiene rules without awareness of the current disastrous state of health. No legislation on abortion, without pre-existing knitting, no highway code without accidents, no regulation on euthanasia without this already existing and therefore no regulations on waste, unemployment, the homeless without their prior existence.
So, yes, the State only intervenes when part of the population, often a minority, shakes the basket so that the State compensates for the lack of ethics by binding laws for transgressors: for example asbestos, endocrine disruptors, cigarettes, dog droppings, speeding and therefore the recycling of other waste from our French "pigs".
For the anecdote, many years ago, I had read in Geneva in a large public park, a sign that said: "pick up your papers, you are not in France here"

The role of the state, as it currently stands, is to create an environment favorable to the accumulation of abstract value, not to compensate for any deficiency of the population in a matter of which it is singularly lacking..
It doesn't change anything! Many parents who smoke recommend their children not to smoke (with more or less success, moreover, as with all laws that automatically imply transgressors) and despite their contradictory situation, they are in their role as educators. We are the State, despite the difficulty of obtaining the unanimity of 65 million individuals.

[Grelinette]

hic hello
counter-example:
Selective sorting is not linked to morality, ethics or economics, but to an obligation!
Yet it is precisely a question of ethics, it has only become an obligation because a certain part of the population (generally the same individuals regardless of the sectors concerned) has nothing to do with it. A quick trip to the garbage cans can verify this.
However, it directly impacts part of the economy through recycling.

Waste sorting is unfortunately a point that raises a lot of questions and whose (improvable) organization deters a good part of the population!

Some towns, or communities of towns (especially in my region), bring in only one collection truck that collects ALL the sorted containers in one and the same dumpster, in front of the amazed eyes of the citizens who have conscientiously sorted their waste!
After obtaining information from the service, it is cheaper to re-sort at the sorting center than to send several collection trucks.
(I even heard a minister questioned by a journalist, confirming this operation on France Inter! I imagine that many citizens had to change their habits after this revelation at prime time)!.

Another detail that made me jump concerns the Supermarkets (GS) which are now obliged to provide their customers with collection bins for batteries, light bulbs, small appliances, etc.
When the bins are full and their recovery by the competent service is long overdue... the bins are emptied... in the containers at the corner of the street!
All SGs certainly don't work like that, but for some, this collection imposed on them is a constraint they don't have much to do with in terms of their financial profitability imperatives!

Sorry for this off topic, but selective sorting appeals to me so much that I can't help but react!

[Janic]

good morningSome towns, or communities of towns (especially in my region), bring in only one collection truck that collects ALL the sorted containers in one and the same dumpster, in front of the amazed eyes of the citizens who have conscientiously sorted their waste!
your reaction is understandable. Indeed, it is not enough to set up selective sorting if the chain does not exist or is interrupted for lack of means or local political will.
For the mixture, a distinction must be made between mineral materials (paper, plastics, scrap metal) and organic materials. In fact, some manual sorting may prove to be more effective than preliminary sorting (in any case it gives work to some) however in total volume, it will take approximately the same volume of garbage trucks.
Now on an ethical level, sorting yourself makes individuals responsible (whatever happens next) and provokes a necessary anti-pollution reflex, for example by weighing/invoicing.
it therefore goes further by encouraging manufacturers to change their production and packaging methods (plastic bags have almost disappeared from super markets) in favor of shopping bags. But behaviors do not change with a simple snap of the fingers and this is sometimes expressed in successive generations.

[chatelot16]

is this off topic? You have to respond when a topic like this comes up.

ecology must be the fight against waste

when a recycling procedure costs too much it means that it is a waste, that the energy spent on recycling is greater than its efficiency... so that there is an error somewhere!

purists will say that recycling costs more work than energy ... well people who recycle must be paid so they consume energy

should recycling be subsidized as is currently done? not for me ! subsidizing inefficient systems is a waste... subsidizing a bad system prohibits a better system to start... how to do better when to make the bad system work it is made compulsory!

for me the good recycling subsidy system is to support a real sale price of well-sorted materials

if a factory wants to make something with recycled plastic, it cannot pay for plastic waste at a price sufficient to motivate waste collectors: if we subsidize a little to increase the purchase price of plastic waste, everyone will be able to organize as he wants to sell his used plastic bottles, and he won't lose one, and we won't mix them anymore

the same for the batteries and all the polluting stuff: you have to give the subsidy at the end of the chain where the good work is done... otherwise we arrive at the current absurdity, we do a first half of the work which is useless nothing, and when we arrive at the final treatment which unfortunately is expensive, we cheat and we balance anywhere

for the triatement of chemically complicated waste there is an absurdity: a company to recycle batteries must pay a lot of costs for the control of classified establishments, while it has a positive role ... reverse the one who gets rid of batteries no matter where has nothing to pay: the conclusion is clear we charge more to the one who does the right deed

the control of recycling facilities should not be paid by the person who recycles the batteries, but by the person who manufactures them!

I always come back to the same thing, it is by money that a competent state must govern: a tax on batteries, and a big financial aid for the real treatment of batteries: therefore used batteries will be bought at a price not zero, and the one who gives back his empty battery or it is necessary to recover what was paid in manufacturing tax ... the one who throws his battery in the trash stupidly throws away the money he paid

a tax on batteries would be useful to finance recycling, and would have an additional effect: reduce their use: encourage the use of rechargeable batteries, or devices on the mains

rechargeable batteries would have the same principle of taxation on the selling price, and subsidy of chemical treatment, but the influence on the price for use would be low since the battery must last a long time

[Ahmed]

Janic, you write:

Many parents who smoke advise their children not to smoke

The analogy between an individual defect and the functioning of an institution, in this case the state, is not admissible!
A particular weakness cannot be compared to a constitutive mechanism: what is accidental in the first case is principal in the second.

Further:

...on an ethical level, doing your own sorting empowers individuals...

Not so sure! On the one hand, these are practices which do not come under personal initiative and whose concrete use is not transparent, on the other hand it is clear that the purpose of the operation is to accelerate the cycle of the commodity and in no way to remedy it.

The term "selective sorting" that you shamelessly echo annoys me significantly: do you know a sorting that is not selective?