forums energies: society, ecology and clean technologies

It's quite short and this video is interesting. (relayed by Maïf, the militant insurer!)

https://www.danslescoulissesdelamaif.fr ... ispensable



The words of this speaker simply summarize a little all that we could say and write.
I find it unfortunate that it remains as "It is necessary that ..."
In short, the change that has been announced to us, the famous expected "Next World", is that now everyone agrees that the World before is not viable, especially for men. ..

Containment has already changed my way of life: to fuck my wife, take put on gloves and for cunnilinguer, I put on a mask .. (I'm still going out)

Grelinette wrote:It's quite short and this video is interesting. (relayed by Maïf, the militant insurer!)

https://www.danslescoulissesdelamaif.fr ... ispensable

The words of this speaker simply summarize a little all that we could say and write.
I find it unfortunate that it remains as "It is necessary that ..."
In short, the change that has been announced to us, the famous expected "Next World", is that now everyone agrees that the World before is not viable, especially for men. ..

We (almost) all agree with that ... The problem I encounter (because I talk about it ... if, if ...) is that I already have the feeling that everyone world wants to forget this covid-19 crisis, starting with the economic sector!
It's (it was) a kind of nightmare ...

Except that the worst nightmare is STILL in front of us ... If we don't think about it!
Your thread therefore seems essential to me to talk about it!

Perhaps we should talk about the KEY ARGUMENTS to change the paradigm?

Grelinette wrote:I find it unfortunate that it remains as "It is necessary that ..."
In short, the change that has been announced to us, the famous expected "Next World", is that now everyone agrees that the World before is not viable, especially for men. ..

ah? I however had the impression that it was the species that was doing the best in the world!

ABC2019 wrote:

Grelinette wrote:I find it unfortunate that it remains as "It is necessary that ..."
In short, the change that has been announced to us, the famous expected "Next World", is that now everyone agrees that the World before is not viable, especially for men. ..

ah? I however had the impression that it was the species that was doing the best in the world!

The best? ... everything is relative. The most correct sentence would have been "... the World before is not viable, especially for - a large part - men".

But it is not entirely correct to say that man is the best species in the world, given the uncertainty of his future, the diseases, famines, wars and other scourges of which he is the object, most of its own.

Besides, it would be interesting to know the% of men on earth who are in conflict regions, do not have enough to eat, live in poverty, live in shanty towns or on the street, are below the threshold of poverty, have illnesses related to human activities, suffer from mental and psychological disorders, etc.

I think the numbers would show that humans may not be the fittest species on the planet.

Obamot wrote: ...
Perhaps we should talk about the KEY ARGUMENTS to change the paradigm?

Ha! the Paradigm, this new, big and beautiful word (in fashion) which suggests that behind this word there is the explanation and the cause of our ills, and the magic recipe to cure the anthropic shortcomings and drifts.

The Paradigm, which must be changed, is in a way the rule of the game (of human societies) that certain men have fixed so that, it seems, human societies function "properly". However, we note today that this paradigm is rather the set of rules which allow some to grab powers, wealth, comforts and other advantages, which favor a small minority to the detriment of a large majority of human beings. .

It is difficult to imagine that those who profit from this Paradigm, who are also those who define it (as Power and Advantages merge), agree to make the effort to change this paradigm which offers them so many advantages; a bit like asking poker cheats to change the rules to stop their behavior and cheating!
If they accept, first we may doubt their sincerity, and then there is much to believe that the new rules defined will be riddled with loopholes to allow them to still enjoy the benefits they had ...

It is not the paradigm that must be changed, it is men, and more exactly certain men, and even more exactly what certain men have in their heads and which pushes them to want to dominate, to take, to steal, to eat. beyond reason to the point of upsetting the balance of the whole human family of which they are a part and upsetting the proper functioning of the society in which they live.

All these are words, wishful thinking, like when we say "we must change the paradigm" ... and once all that said, they must have the frankness to designate these "certain men" who seem devoid of common sense and empathy, reason, those who stuff themselves, those who cheat, those who choose to destroy human societies as soon as it brings them an interest or an advantage, however small it may be.

Let's look at the past, note all these cases (if only in France) where men of power (financial, political, economic) have cheated, lied, stolen, destroyed, and continue to do so for their small personal interest. In the last few years alone, the number of politico-financial affairs which have made the headlines of the media is questioning; without forgetting these lobbies, corporations and other networks which are created in opacity to impose their deleterious interests for the rest of men, deadly for the whole of society.

It is not the paradigm that must be changed, it is the behavior of certain men. Therein lies the key, in my opinion.

It is true that the behavior of the most powerful is shocking, but they do however only conform globally to economic determinisms which go beyond them and which also apply to us, independently of our own will. We are less sensitive to our actions and their consequences because they are less important, but we participate willingly, unwillingly in what we deplore (with possible modulation, but which remains harmless).
To change the powerful against others of their fellow men, which is the rather slim possibility offered by the existing form of democracy, does not in any way modify the usual functioning ...

Ahmed wrote:It is true that the behavior of the most powerful is shocking, but they do however only conform globally to economic determinisms which go beyond them and which also apply to us, independently of our own will. We are less sensitive to our actions and their consequences because they are less important, but we participate willingly, unwillingly in what we deplore (with possible modulation, but which remains harmless).
Change the powerful against others of their fellow men, which is the pretty slim possibility offered by the existing form of democracy, does not change the usual functioning ...

What we especially saw during the pandemic was that “our” authorities certainly wanted to deal with it, but above all do not change anything in the system. All the legislation in force should continue to apply as usual (except for exceptional measures: confinement, social distance, etc.)

No, you MUST NOT change anything ...

So yes, it's thin Ahmed, indeed.
There's the cursor, and the latitude of its movement, which does not depend on the direct will of the people, plutocracy I would say ...

And the average agent of the system (deliberately or not) is conditioned to participate in different forms (elections, purchases in the silent agora of temples of overconsumption (or confined media agora, limited in the comments subject to conditions of exemplarity ...), scholarship ... marriage or whatever ...) just to give it the illusion of democracy.

And I'm not a leftist

Grelinette wrote:

Obamot wrote: ...
Perhaps we should talk about the KEY ARGUMENTS to change the paradigm?

Ha! the Paradigm, this new, big and beautiful word (in fashion) which suggests that behind this word there is the explanation and the cause of our ills, and the magic recipe to cure the anthropic shortcomings and drifts.

The Paradigm, which must be changed, is in a way the rule of the game (of human societies) that certain men have fixed so that, it seems, human societies function "properly". However, we note today that this paradigm is rather the set of rules which allow some to grab powers, wealth, comforts and other advantages, which favor a small minority to the detriment of a large majority of human beings. .

you intrigue me Grelinette there, are you serious in saying that we only see it today?

It is not the paradigm that must be changed, it is men, and more exactly certain men, and even more exactly what certain men have in their heads and which pushes them to want to dominate, to take, to steal, to eat. beyond reason to the point of upsetting the balance of the whole human family of which they are a part and upsetting the proper functioning of the society in which they live.

I would like to know at what time and in which country the functioning of the company was "suitable" ...

Grelinette wrote:

ABC2019 wrote:

Grelinette wrote:I find it unfortunate that it remains as "It is necessary that ..."
In short, the change that has been announced to us, the famous expected "Next World", is that now everyone agrees that the World before is not viable, especially for men. ..

ah? I however had the impression that it was the species that was doing the best in the world!

The best? ... everything is relative. The most correct sentence would have been "... the World before is not viable, especially for - a large part - men".

But it is not entirely correct to say that man is the best species in the world, given the uncertainty of his future, the diseases, famines, wars and other scourges of which he is the object, most of its own.

Besides, it would be interesting to know the% of men on earth who are in conflict regions, do not have enough to eat, live in poverty, live in shanty towns or on the street, are below the threshold of poverty, have illnesses related to human activities, suffer from mental and psychological disorders, etc.

I think the numbers would show that humans may not be the fittest species on the planet.

in fact I was only talking about the number of individuals.
But if the criterion of living well is based on being above the poverty line (which by the way? There are several!), This therefore implies ensuring purchasing power and therefore consumption minimum resources for everyone, and there, Houston, we have a big problem ...