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

[Ahmed]

it doesn't only benefit the big factory that does the processing ... it benefits the whole chain.

Except that the subsidies in these cases are refunds of an eco-tax which is levied on the purchase of the product ... it therefore enriches the downstream sector, but retains strict neutrality for the individual.

Janic, the existence of a super organism, as said Sen-no-sen, has absolutely nothing to do with the energetic super-unit ...

It is the need of the moment that rules!

Yes, but necessity makes no decision! It is that of the military-industrial complex which effectively adjusts its communication according to the reactions of public opinion, with a view to adjusting it to its interests.
Faced with the doubts of many vis-à-vis the consequences of the ideology of "progress", it was urgent to set up a counterfire intended to fool the populations.

[chatelot16]

Faced with the doubts of many vis-à-vis the consequences of the ideology of "progress", it was urgent to set up a counterfire intended to fool the populations.

for me progress continues to be useful provided you understand where is useful progress ... tweaking stupid modernism

ecology should be important, but alas because of multiple incompetence often only serves as an alibi for nonsense and it is always the same who benefit from it

there has been a lot of technical progress, and political philosophy or whatever has not followed: we are therefore currently unable to use correctly what technical progress allows us to do, because we have left power has bad

science without conscience is only ruin of the soul ... said I no longer know who ... currently it is rather ruin of society

[Ahmed]

Science without conscience is only ruin of the soul.

dixit Rabelais!
Progress is a "package", unfortunately it is not possible to extract what is useful from what is harmful, because these two aspects are consubstantial.
This characteristic is difficult to understand, therefore to explain!

[sen-no-sen]

Janic, the existence of a super organism, as said Sen-no-sen, has absolutely nothing to do with the energetic super-unit ...

Effectively.
A super-organism is the sum of individualities added to their mutual interactions.
If we can write mathematically 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, socially we should write down 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 +x.
X being the product born from the interaction between different individuality.
3 separate intelligences will always be lower than its same 3 intelligences but this time connected.
This is called group consciousness, or the group soul.
It results from a level of information organization which is not visible but which is particularly effective.

In anthropotechnical society, we must add to this interaction the notion of technological feedback, which further complicates the understanding of the whole.

Progress is a "package", unfortunately it is not possible to extract what is useful from what is harmful, because these two aspects are consubstantial.
This characteristic is difficult to understand, therefore to explain!

It is the famous "Lucifer Principle" de H.Bloom.

[Ahmed]

"Science without conscience is only the ruin of the soul."

This maxim was written at a time when the term science meant knowledge in general. She wanted to warn against the possibility or the temptation to exclude the human; since then, science has grown so much that this term has taken on a very different, more precise and restrictive meaning.

As much the hyper-specialization of scientific fields as the cost of research henceforth rejects the question of consciousness far away, only a decorative variant remains, capable of creating the illusion (in the form, for example of committees " of ethics "*).

The few scientists who, during their career, have asked themselves these ethical questions have suffered an ostracism proportional to their doubts.

The alliance between science and the economic, military and political powers implied an entire allegiance of the first, in exchange for preferential treatment on the part of the second. This is not surprising since it is techno-science and its advances that the powerful expect a strengthening of their power.

Here is a beginning of explanation to the question formulated in the previous message.

* Because, whatever the intellectual honesty of their members, these committees, by offering a certain brake to unhealthy temptations, do little more than prepare for subsequent acceptance.

[sen-no-sen]

"Science without conscience is only the ruin of the soul."
This is not surprising since it is techno-science and its advances that the powerful expect a strengthening of their power.

I have linked an interesting analysis of Hedi Dhoukar on the notion of system, which joins the idea of ​​a techno-scientist super-organism.
https://www.econologie.com/forums/les-superorganismes-en-question-t13305.html

[chatelot16]

the super organism which works on its own, has the intelligence of a flock of sheep

a great philosopher said: it is not because many are wrong that they are right (coluche)

[sen-no-sen]

the super organism which works on its own, has the intelligence of a flock of sheep

a great philosopher said: it is not because many are wrong that they are right (coluche)

We must not confuse the "intelligence" of a crowd which decreases in proportion to the number of its participants from a global collective brain fruit of the knowledge of nearly 100 billion individuals over time!
How many humans are able to make - only - a computer or a smartphone?

[chatelot16]

is a rich and numerous society capable of doing something new? no never ! to make something new you need both a single and original man and the power of a society rich enough to have the means to do

even when an inventor starts something alone, he succeeds only if he can easily take advantage of the power of the country where he is: there are times when it is easy to invent, because any new invention is appreciated

right now in france it's not easy

[chatelot16]

"Science without conscience is only the ruin of the soul."

This maxim was written at a time when the term science meant knowledge in general. She wanted to warn against the possibility or the temptation to exclude the human; since then, science has grown so much that this term has taken on a very different, more precise and restrictive meaning.

As much the hyper-specialization of scientific fields as the cost of research henceforth rejects the question of consciousness far away, only a decorative variant remains, capable of creating the illusion (in the form, for example of committees " of ethics "*).

The few scientists who, during their career, have asked themselves these ethical questions have suffered an ostracism proportional to their doubts.

The alliance between science and the economic, military and political powers implied an entire allegiance of the first, in exchange for preferential treatment on the part of the second. This is not surprising since it is techno-science and its advances that the powerful expect a strengthening of their power.

Here is a beginning of explanation to the question formulated in the previous message.

* Because, whatever the intellectual honesty of their members, these committees, by offering a certain brake to unhealthy temptations, do little more than prepare for subsequent acceptance.

those who have done long studies to specialize excessively are the example of science without conscience, and leave power to the ignorant who hold it

I was almost part of it, engineering study, good job in a big company, hoping to make a place for me to do better than pure technique ... when I understood that it was a trap, that when you are a good technician it is difficult to do something else, I had another adventure

it is urgent that those who have sufficient knowledge to understand take things in hand, the one who uses his scientific knowledge only for a specialty is worth less than a ragpicker