Charles Sannat

Books, television programs, films, magazines or music to share, counselor to discover ... Talk to news affecting in any way the econology, environment, energy, society, consumption (new laws or standards) ...
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 28/01/16, 13:14

françois roddier also said a lot of nonsense from 1:00 am in his conference on the thermodynamics of evolution concerning the food mode. Admittedly, he has a lot of “cultural” imagination but hardly in the biological sciences and nutrition. If the rest is the same kind, there is concern about the credibility of his speech.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 28/01/16, 14:36

It is possible that there are some "artistic vagueness" here and there, this does not call into question the entire explanatory structure, which seems to me to be well structured and fruitful. Like any theory, it remains open to criticism and improvement
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 28/01/16, 17:15

Janic wrote:françois roddier also said a lot of nonsense from 1:00 am in his conference on the thermodynamics of evolution concerning the food mode. Admittedly, he has a lot of “cultural” imagination but hardly in the biological sciences and nutrition. If the rest is the same kind, there is concern about the credibility of his speech.


For criticism objective on the work of François Roddier, you must already - minimum prior - have read your work Thermodynamics of evolution(among others) and have fairly solid knowledge of science ... except I have the impression that you have "skipped" its few fundamental steps ... :frown:
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491




by Janic » 28/01/16, 17:40

Sen no sen hello
Janic wrote:
françois roddier also said a lot of nonsense from 1:00 am in his conference on the thermodynamics of evolution concerning the food mode. Admittedly, he has a lot of “cultural” imagination but hardly in the biological sciences and nutrition. If the rest is the same kind, there is concern about the credibility of his speech.
To carry an objective criticism on the work of François Roddier, it is necessary already -minimum preliminary-to have read his book Thermodynamics of evolution (among others) and to have fairly solid knowledge in science ... except I have l feel that you have "skipped" its few fundamental steps

You should read carefully what I wrote! I do not make any value judgment on what he said, in general, having no jurisdiction to judge it. However, I specified " from 1h 00 When he talks about physiology and anatomy where he is completely off the mark in terms of scientific knowledge on this subject. Hence my consecutive reflection that if it is the same for the rest: " there is concern about the credibility of his speech »
As for evolution and the ambiguity that exists between evolution and adaptation, this has already been examined.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 28/01/16, 18:08

Janic wrote:You should read carefully what I wrote!


I answer you on the subject dedicated to François Roddier.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 28/01/16, 19:31

Arnangu, to finally answer your questions: "How will the future evolve?" and: "Do we really have an idea?", here is what I can say.

A good part of the near future is roughly predictable, since it obeys economic determinisms, which is the backdrop for more secondary factors, even though the latter endeavor to appear as motors expressing a conscious will. But this, as we have seen above, results from the (unconscious) choice to submit to these determinisms.
The first consequence, which we observe today, is the progressive rolling down of the middle class, this same class which had been the support of the oligarchies in place and was part of the mode of management of the latter; when someone succeeds, he tends to consider his success as legitimate and reportable on his own merit, without the circumstances being mentioned too much; he also tends to regard the top executive with indulgence, even sympathy: this has long been the basis of a broad consensus.

Since unemployment continues to increase, the hope of simply stabilizing it becomes more and more improbable, that growth is no longer there and, as a result the standard of living falls, that the gaps As social security increases, as the precariousness of work and its constraints become more acute, this mode of management has become obsolete.
The passage then takes place from a soft totalitarianism, dominated by alienation by the "carrot" (cf. voluntary servitude), to a more muscular totalitarianism oriented more "stick"), which knows how to take advantage of favorable events to move forward. its pawns, like the attacks of the beginning and end of 2015, and which begins to restrict public freedoms. National cohesion focuses more on the fear of terrorism and behind the tutelary authorities, which partially erases, at least from what is visible, the basic insoluble problems.
What explains this success is the unthinkable mental deficit, already mentioned, which has shattered all ideologies, all utopias, all hopes, all faiths, in favor of a universal subjugation to the fetish of the commodity.

The same psychic atrophy explains the inability and therefore the anger of those who suffer from reverse evolution, to understand its mechanisms. An anthropological constant is that in similar circumstances, the cause is attributed to an "other" responsible, that is to say people close to, but appreciably different from the whole (presenting any strangeness), or real strangers.
The first stage is therefore to unite the population against something else. Thus, immigrants become, at little cost, the causes of the social security deficit, unemployment, lack of housing and insecurity; the fight against ISIS once again resonates a patriotic fiber that has long been lethargy. Exceptional measures and demonstrations of military presence in the heart of cities constitute an approach whose ambivalence need not be emphasized.

This applies to the present. As the blockage of the economic system which had led to the type of democracy that we know is proven, despite the incantations to the return of growth intoned at all times by our leaders (this vehemence is proof by the reverse of the inexorable character of the situation ) and that, on the other hand, the oligarchy will not renounce its own alienation of its privileges, it is easy to deduce the result.
Against a background of a permanent war against terrorism (unlike a war against an established state, this has the immense advantage of being indestructible) and of increased inter-individual competition, an expansion of delinquency (out of need or resentment), social class imbalances will continue to evolve towards more extreme and marked polarizations. Schematically, the poor class will grow, by migration of elements of the fallen middle classes; the middle class is emptying itself from the bottom, as we have just seen, and from the top, because of the decline of entrants; the ruling class, political, entrepreneurial or others, should experience better digital stability, but it will tend to create on its periphery intermediate categories, which already exist, but which should develop considerably: guards of all kinds, staff attached to its service , as well as anything one can imagine that would be likely to perpetuate this highly explosive situation.

To be continued
Last edited by Ahmed the 28 / 01 / 16, 20: 23, 3 edited once.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 28/01/16, 19:47

It's a very good analysis! 8)

It remains to be seen what will happen NBIC (Nanotechnologies, biotechnologies, data processing and cognitive sciences) whose dazzling advances will perhaps allow to maintain the building still some time ... unless it precipitates its fall.

Given current beliefs: commodity fetishism (to use your terms),exponentialism economic as well as the four philosophical pillars which allow the whole to hold: materialism, realism, determinism and presentism, I hardly see a favorable outcome there other than a merciless general collapse.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 28/01/16, 22:33

There are then several possible scenarios, following the shift from one side to the other, but it is difficult to imagine one which would be a progressive evolution to a fundamentally stable functioning and resulting only from the blind play of determinisms: it always missing a piece of the puzzle, if one maintains sufficient logical rigor. The situation described in the last message cannot be frozen, it would be possible to envisage two separate companies: one, high tech and oligarchic, continuing to develop the NBICs, as mentioned by Sen-no-sen and by drawing most of its power, the other, that of those who are now useless in the system and enjoy a certain autonomy, now living outside the reach of the economy, but under the potential threat of the first group. Jean-Christophe Rufin, who is an excellent observer, explored this possibility in his book: "Globalia". But it was only for him the support for his demonstration and the pursuit of technological progress outside his original ecosystem does not make sense. A self-sufficient human group and functioning with a small ecosystem footprint is possible (fortunately!) , but super-consumers need prey suited to their qualitative and quantitative needs: personally, I do not see where to find them ... Moreover, if one puts forward the hypothesis of a continuity of capitalism, under a shape that could be different, it is not the machines that could run the model, since they do not produce net worth ... On the other hand, it is absurd to consider a functional split between rich and poor, since it is precisely this relation which determines these categories.
In reality, we are so deeply embedded, including psychically, in the capitalism mode, that it is unthinkable to hope to escape its grip, since it is in its evolution that we collectively stake our hopes.
It is therefore futile to consider the various scenarios offered to us by the only truly active imaginations, those who have made a profession of it, artists and writers, screenwriters: it would only be to distract ourselves from more real data.

The impossibility of continuing to increase the accumulation of abstract wealth, once the potential of the financial economy has been exhausted, means that things will rock suddenly, probably to the amazement of many.
There is a very technical literature that has taken a serious look at the resilience of complex systems. It became necessary to tackle this problem head on, because the more the roles are divided, the more the actors are numerous, the more their interactions are close, the more the system is fragile. To remedy this danger, redundancies and branches have been developed, particularly at the level of networks (especially vulnerable, since an outage at one point renders the entire line inoperative). Also, many organizational arrangements have been put in place to overcome a crisis situation and kept functional, in a standby state. However, there is one essential detail that has not been dealt with and for good reason, since it does not appear in the psychic inventory of any of those who were the initiators or the directors of these parades: the economic and financial collapse. .
However, the evidence of the system's jamming is extremely simple to understand, I would even say trivial, but requires a parenthesis.

The traditional economy (which should be called another way, the term economy is confusing) was based on the exchange of self-produced surpluses, against other surpluses that they did not produce themselves. During most of the Neolithic (before, speaking of economy is even more anachronistic!), These exchanges were carried out without money, either by barter or, more convenient and surely more common, by symmetrical debt (which amounts to improved barter, allowing the exchange of very heterogeneous quantities and varieties). The structure of exchange is therefore a commodity for a commodity, a commodity for a future commodity or a mixture of the two formulas. It was only late (but it had existed in antiquity; in Greece and Rome) that the use of metal coinage spread, apart from small change for domestic use. This period therefore assumed an exchange of commodities for money, for commodities. It is a process which held little place in human history and which has been analyzed by the English economist Ricardo. Marx resumed and extended his analyzes to establish the originality of capitalism, then in full rise. In the new and real economy, the starting point of exchange was now money, and that changed everything radically: the formula was now written WADA '. The money was invested in the production of goods which were transformed, through the exchange, into a quantity of money greater than that of the start. As soon as this surplus can no longer be realized, the mechanism immediately stops, because who would be foolish enough to risk a sum of money on the market in the sole hope of receiving an identical sum?
We can clearly see where the systems are opposed: one strives through exchanges to improve balances in the consumption of products (concrete wealth), the other, to indefinitely increase an abstract value thanks to the production of commodity dedicated to the exchange only and without consideration for its concrete value (apart from that which could be detrimental to the realization of the exchange). In this difference lies the extraordinary dynamic of capitalism, but also its Achilles heel.

to be continued
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
arnangu
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 18
Registration: 24/07/15, 22:26




by arnangu » 29/01/16, 15:33

I am not as pessimistic in order to believe that civilization will collapse.

I just browsed the blog of Mr. and Mrs. Rodier, I find them radical. But maybe they have knowledge that I don't know, which is very likely.

I inform myself, I read, I listen. And I realize that even the most "learned" that some economists are hardly have "solutions", one would say to use an expression which one navigates on sight, that one avoided for the moment the giant iceberg looming in front of us, but until when.

Then should we not invent a new model of civilization rather than wanting to constantly go back, to take back knowledge that has proven to be ineffective ???

To be very down to earth, when will we finally put people back at the center of priorities? !!!! It is good to develop technology, I am not against it, provided that human beings have their place in this civilization.

And when will the taboo of global overpopulation be lifted?
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 29/01/16, 16:44

Optimism or pessimism has no bearing on determinisms. Every system tends to persevere in its being to the end of its possibilities, without consideration for those who, in a certain way, inhabit it.
Roddier, Maheust and many others, invite us to get out of these determinisms and choose another path; it is fortunate that "the more learned" have no solutions: are you not able to know how you really want to live?
Indeed, a new model of civilization remains to be invented collectively, but the lack of lucidity on the gravity of our situation and the addiction to this model makes it extremely improbable a turn to save life.
As you note, technology participates in this blocking, because it is the human who is de facto in the service of the fetish of value, via this famous technology.
The "softest" solution would therefore be this decisive bifurcation, but its improbability should lead us to consider what B.Maheust names "The big breakdown", a situation which will be more difficult to bear, but which has the advantage, so to speak, of not depending on us and of placing us at the foot of the wall.
It is therefore better to prepare for it than to cultivate willful blindness, because that is what it is: the impossibility of the "big blackout" is only in our psyches which refuse to consider it.
In broad outline, here are the main lines which would allow us to prepare to resist this civilization apax *.
Urban areas, by inverse symmetry, will become areas very unfavorable to survival; the countryside offers more possibilities, provided that it is prepared beforehand: the global agricultural context is no longer geared towards survival and must be reconditioned for this purpose. Current knowledge is no longer of much use and developing your skills in raw techniques is an emergency: market gardening, forge, carpentry, construction, hydraulics, care ... knowing that manual tools and materials will be easier to recover that know-how that makes them effective.
It is useless to continue this list which everyone can easily complete, but all this will be useless if, at the start, there is not what caused the disaster: the human. This is what makes the inanity of the survivalist project which consists of small, heavily armed and self-protecting groups in a nightmarish universe; without giving in angelism, it is only on condition of constituting mini societies open to everyone that there is a chance of success.
Parenthesis:
We recently had a debate on the relationship between society and the individual and their relative importance: Sen-no-sen and I supported the primacy of the individual over society and someone else, the reverse, but it was not satisfactory because we had not explained that it is not the individual, simple abstraction unitary in question, but of the person, a complex entity, since it automatically incorporates a part of society, its language, its culture, its history; and that is why the person comes first and why it is not just a binary opposition.

In a post-collapse society, abundance is possible since, if the means will necessarily be smaller, they will no longer be oriented towards exchange value, but towards that of use. If the old idols are no longer valid, the suffering caused by envy and the contempt that resulted from inequalities could give way to real "human relations", real antitheses to what the term means today.

Apax: single event, which takes place only once.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Media & News: TV shows, reports, books, news ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 160 guests