Ecolo skeptics, call for witnesses

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) ...
reporter
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 2
Registration: 10/11/09, 17:42

Ecolo skeptics, call for witnesses




by reporter » 10/11/09, 18:13

Hello,

I am a journalist and prepare a report on eco-skeptics.
So I am looking for a couple or family whose members do not agree on the subject: one respect for the letter of ecological orthodoxy / the other sees no interest in it, or even find it difficult to bear it. ..
Please contact me as soon as possible at 06-74-46-45-53
Kind regards.
Juliette Guerin
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 10/11/09, 18:57

Econology probably has nothing to do with it. A good econologist is already skeptical at the base ...

Then, don't you see the usual cliché given by journalists in the great tradition of the so-called ethics!

The famous "fair speaking time" given to both to "balance the debate" and leave the reader (respectively: listener and viewer) to "form his own opinion". Rubbish!

Sorry, but as a freelancer (rubriquard in different media in my spare time) I find that it does not care about the world.

Why should we give the same fair word value to those who resolutely sabotage the planet versus the still too rare who seek to do something that goes in the right direction for future generations ...

It's a bit as if we were giving, on a radio antenna, the same speaking time to a criminal as to his victims (and yet, alas, we sometimes see that ...). advertisement to "predators" of all stripes.

A journalist should have the courage to condemn, to say on a platter:
- I rebel, what you say there is completely intolerable [etc ...] and to have the lucidity not to engage in contradictory debates which have no place to be.

It is a big gap in the collection and processing of information that ultimately leads to disinformation ...

By pushing the plug a little further, why not then look for a couple or family whose members do not agree: some on the strict observance of the rules of road traffic and others who see no interest, or even find it difficult to bear it ...

Please: let's stop this type of sterile debate that has no meaning in human society.
Last edited by Obamot the 10 / 11 / 09, 19: 14, 1 edited once.
0 x
reporter
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 2
Registration: 10/11/09, 17:42




by reporter » 10/11/09, 19:13

PS: this is not the subject of the subject
thank you anyway for your intervention
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 10/11/09, 19:16

But if.

Despite the pirouette for not getting into the subject.

I find it very cowardly intellectually.

RTDC.
0 x
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839




by Flytox » 10/11/09, 20:07

+1 Obamot. And when will there be a real relevant subject on Ecology? A subject treated by analyzing to the end the contradictory arguments of the competent people on the subject and not of the "brings back audience" and other manipulators who are there to convey the message of the owner of the media. When will our journalists be more interested in the substance than the form (audience) and that they regain a little credibility ???
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
the boulle
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 519
Registration: 02/12/08, 20:44
x 12




by the boulle » 10/11/09, 20:12

^^

nothing to add
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79127
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10974




by Christophe » 10/11/09, 23:54

Obamot wrote:But if. (...) I find it very cowardly intellectually.


+1

It's still crazy: it's up to "us" to educate those whose duty it is to educate people ... : Mrgreen:

Ecology will become obvious to everyone when we look further than our interest in the ultra short term ... not being green (in every sense of the term) is a terrible lack of intelligence.

You do not agree? You have the right but simply re-read the definition of intelligence ...

Today's society is not intelligent.

ps: a couple who has such differences in behavior is no longer one ...
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 11/11/09, 22:08

I do not see any absolute opposition between, on the one hand a scrupulous practice of ecological "rites" on a daily basis and, on the other hand a skeptical or critical attitude.
Ecology being a critique of a certain majority mode of functioning in our societies, it is not abnormal that it presents the very character of the doctrine (economism) that it claims to fight: we can be reassured by the compulsive buying as by green "tocs".
Furthermore, in the name of the criticism it carries, would it want to be beyond the reach of any criticism?

I do not claim that the weight of our daily choices has no weight on environmental reality; what i'm saying is that a programmed guilt aims to convince us that we have full responsibility as individuals present problems.
This is to hide that the big options that organize the destruction of nature are beyond our control.

We therefore understand that a certain eco-skepticism does not necessarily mean unconditional rallying to blind consumerism.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 11/11/09, 22:36

hey hey ...

... yes and again beware of semantics: try to link "couple story" [...] "religion" [...] And "consumerism" with econology, has absolutely nothing to do in a "critical" context.

1 barrel of crude consumed = "X" Kg of Co2 dissipated in the air and in nature. Point bar.

WE CANNOT BE FOR. It is not negotiable and there is no pseudo-orthodoxy or existentialist fantasy behind it. This is pure pragmatic and accounting reality. Consequently, we cannot use an "economic-cultural" alibi of "societal practice" or even "private considerations" to justify or not such or such industrial choice, or choice of ore mined, for example with regard to oil through the practical case of the use of the car ... Because in the end we always and again:

1 barrel of crude consumed = "X" Kg of Co2 dissipated in the air and nature ...

... and I'm not even going to try to argue around the use of nuclear power to preserve "competitiveness" or even "GDP" in order to "stabilize the economy" and / or "preserve social order" ...
short-term electoral mandate ...

When you think of the 13'000 billion US $ which went up in smoke last year at the same time on the stock markets ... That those who "played" and "did not jump out of the game in time "have on average recovered only 10% of their initial stake .......

13'000 billion US $ that makes the trifle of 288 times the project "Desertec" which would solve this energy problem forever and for the whole planet ...... annual savings of 10 billion euros !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Amortizes in just 4 to 5 years ............................

Here is a good subject of emission for M6 (lol) ...

To submit to the contradictory agora:
To finance this project, a tax is levied;
- on stock market transactions or
- we take on traders' bonuses ...

There yes, that would make a nice debate.
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 14/11/09, 12:29

Forgive me, Obamot, if I don't understand your message correctly.
I do not know if this is an answer to my post, what I remember, however, is that for you the essential and almost unique problem is the increase in CO2 and its consequences on the climate.
Therefore, still according to you, the adoption of an energy production system as Desertec or other solutions less catastrophic than those in use today, would be likely to solve all or at least most of this problem.

As I have already written, if it is true that the abandonment of certain energies for the benefit of less harmful would obviously be desirable, that would in no way resolve the crux of the matter and only begin to reflect in depth.

The problem must be posed in a different way: there is, in fact, a close correlation between the means and the goal pursued when such (conventional) energies are deployed.
Their purpose is nothing less than total control over nature in the name of a pseudo rationality (perfectly irrational) of infinite production of goods. Destroying nature and man as part of nature to be done, it is therefore not surprising that energy devices reflect this contempt for the environment.
The transition to a less directly aggressive energy will not change anything in a use always directed towards self-destruction, on the contrary, that realizes at the same time the psychological and material condition of the continuation of this fatal action.
- Psychologically since it brings a pseudo solution to a very real and justified anxiety.
- Materially since this makes it possible to continue polluting in all the other facets of general production in proportion to the reduction in direct energy pollution.

To fix one's attention on this single aspect of substitution of energy sources is to ignore what our Western societies are oriented towards: the vain and compulsive accumulation of goods. Our societies were, in their time, carriers of ideas of universal scope, such as freedom or equality *; henceforth empty of meaning as of project (except repetition ad nauseam of production-consumption) they isolate most of us in a pseudo individualism which is in reality only a deep conformism.
It is only from the development of a common project that real solutions to the practical choices that arise can come out. Obviously, this is a fairly hypothetical vision given that the conditions are a priori fairly unfavorable for the reasons that have just been mentioned: loss of solidarity and withdrawal into the private sphere; however, this is the only chance open to us.
Productivism-capitalism is a system, objectively speaking, deeply stupid which owes its survival only to the challenge which was always opposed to it, and therefore to the modification of its own trajectory.
Rather than amending it by providing, once again, the possibility of surviving, why not explore other possibilities?

* Which they have partly achieved when you consider what is happening in other parts of the world.
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 : Google [Bot] and 283 guests