Tomorrow all the unemployed?

[sen-no-sen]

You spoke of a "subtle debate", you say "Here nobody spits on certain aspect of technical progress, nobody", you are completely illucid.
If to accuse allopathy of the responsibility for the dead that it could not cure when next to it it saves by the millions, it is to be subtle and not to spit on technical progress, you will have to explain to us what what to be subtle and what not to spit on technical progress.

I think you obviously confuse me with Janic, I never mentioned any opposition to pharmaco-chemistry or to vaccination, to advanced medicine ... on the contrary! You just have to browse the forum...

Of those I never read: "I live like that, I did this or that, I found this alternative to this problem, I recommend this method I tested it." But no, these diafoirus palaver, give lessons, and denigrate all those who act, politicians, scientists, technophiles, intellectuals in general and why not transhumanists on occasion, even if the latter have nothing yet made !

It seems to me that you are one of those: climato-skepticism through some conspiratorial aspect, criticism of the Minister of Ecology (as much for me!), Criticism of alternative medicine etc ... a lot of ideological positioning on the verge of trolling : pro-GMO, nuclear pro, pro-meat, pro-intensive pro-breeding, just about everything that goes against this forum...

Then the goal is not there to "transform the world" but quite simply to eliminate a handicap in an adult or a child. This goal of "transformation of the world" is what you accuse of technical progress by confusing the causes and the effects, and then you allow yourself to denigrate the goal of those who act.

Obvious inference, I don't disparage anyone.
Where did I criticize the work of the doctors? CERN? or what do i know? Reread and reread the other subjects again, I am most often the last bulwark (humor) of this forum facing obscurantism Janicean. *
You clumsily try to lock me in a box that allows you to keep your ideological positions except.
You do not seem to understand the difference between the human vision, ex of a premature child saved thanks to medical progress, of the meta-historical vision in which its progress put end to end leads to a demographic increase and results in a global collapse, effectively disabling the advanced gained dearly by years of research before ...

Progress is a synergy, everything is linked together, you cannot a priori select what you want nor impose vocations for this or that domain among the competent people from whom the innovations come. Progress comes mainly from individual vocations, from the evidence of problems, and from centers of interest.

Of course! I agree 100% ... but isn't this one of the most mundane truths?
If we talk about super-organism anthropo-technical this is not due to chance, all of our knowledge and productions are in perpetual interactions, thus allowing a plethora of tree of possibilities.
There is indeed no "good" or "bad progress" **, there are only technical developments more or less advantageous for observers given spatially and temporally.
What you call "progress" I call it historical phase of technologism, and if it could not be more clear that a certain number of inventions have led to major social advances (such as the steam engine eradicating the slave trade) there is objectively no more progress than socialism or Communism.

Rather than wave ridiculous Godwin points for a little kick in the anthill, you better answer on the bottom, that's what would be more subtle.

I would be grateful if you would do the same, because apart from resorting to the emotional (like your first 3 paragraphs ...) and to truisms I do not see for the moment any solvent arguments worthy of the name.

* I don't denigrate Janic however.


** The nuclear then thermonuclear bomb are considered to be demonic inventions resulting from "bad progress".
In reality nuclear arsenals have saved as much life as modern medicine ...
The world conflicts characteristic of the phenomena of globalization have respectively caused 18 million victims for WW1 and 60 million deaths for WW2 or 3 times more for the second.
Conflicts obeying the principles of statistical mechanics (laws 1 / f), WW3 should have caused at least 180/300 million victims, WW4 1 billion deaths and so on ... except that the development of LA Bombe introduces an adjustment variable:balance of terror( MAD), allowing a feedback loop blocking the situation at a pre-globalization period (multiple local or inter-state conflicts at medium intensity).


PS: the pacifists can insult me ​​by MP!

[Janic]

And then there is a category of individuals, found in large numbers on forum, the "PC heroes" as the Anglos-Saxons call them, who spend their time denigrating everything that is done, allopathy, the cure of one in two cancer,

I'm going to pretend that it concerns me.
Allopathy is not contested, nor denigrated except by itself when it loudly affirms the toxicity of its products, but justifying it by advantages VS disadvantages.
Scientists doctors, great defenders of this same allopathy, denounce the abuses (re patenting an already existing product by adding any element that adds nothing, but allows its sale at an exorbitant price) for cancers, the question there also is not to dispute the fact that she treats cancers (the cure can only be measured on the life of the individual by over 5 years maximum), but on the fact that she refuses any other type of care when she can't do anything about it. (totalitarian system) because it is afraid of losing its dominant credit there.

Of those I never read: "I live like that, I did this or that, I found this alternative to this problem, I recommend this method I tested it."

Except that when these say and prove in their life, not on forums, the validity of their "I did it like this or that" and that it is tried and verified in real life. Others on forums discuss and contest what they ignore completely by refusal a priori. It's an endless vicious cycle!

[Exnihiloest]

... Plus your anti-religious obsession with no real foundation! ...

"I fundamentally disagree with these leftist people who do everything to dissociate fundamentalism from Islam."
"For 50 years, Islam has radicalized. There is of course a tradition of an enlightened Islam. But it is not in power today".
Salman Rusdie (who lives under the threat of areal fatwa From 1988).

"Obsession"? !!!, "Without any real basis"? !!! You definitely don't decode anything in the world.

If we do not understand the impact of religion, see also this brilliant intervention:
https://youtu.be/rCLj5jKnsIU

[Exnihiloest]

...
Scientists doctors, great defenders of this same allopathy, denounce the abuses ...

They are right, they do it with caution, while you take the pretext (in vain) to discredit the allopathy.

[Exnihiloest]

You spoke of a "subtle debate", you say "Here nobody spits on certain aspect of technical progress, nobody", you are completely illucid.
If to accuse allopathy of the responsibility for the dead that it could not cure when next to it it saves by the millions, it is to be subtle and not to spit on technical progress, you will have to explain to us what what to be subtle and what not to spit on technical progress.

I think you obviously confuse me with Janic, I never mentioned any opposition to pharmaco-chemistry or to vaccination, to advanced medicine ... on the contrary! You just have to browse the forum...

I'm not confusing you. I know that you make moderate comments unlike those that I read others and that I see as obscurantism.

But you said:
"Here nobody spit on some aspect of technical progress, no one."
Oh yes!
I do quite well in French. If you were talking only about you, you should have provided the decoder. I think you are obviously "confusing" your thoughts with their expression, which doesn't always have much to do with it .

It seems to me that you are one of those: climato-skepticism through some conspiratorial aspect, criticism of the Minister of Ecology (as much for me!), Criticism of alternative medicine etc ... a lot of ideological positioning on the verge of trolling : pro-GMO, nuclear pro, pro-meat, pro-intensive pro-breeding, just about everything that goes against this forum...

It's not about being the finger on the seam and swallowing everything. I dispute the knowledge that one claims to have of the climate, it is insufficient, and particularly on the anthropic origin. Between that and systematically villipending everything that is done as soon as it is academic or coming from any power, there is still a margin. And it was you who spoke of subtlety?
As for the rest, note that I do not open a "pro-ogm", "pro-nuclear" or "intensive pro-breeding" thread, all the difference with proselytism of the religious type that we often find in environmentalism . The only one of its kind that I opened was against homeopathy, in reaction to its outrageous promotion. I try to bring moderation, nothing is binary.

Then the goal is not there to "transform the world" but quite simply to eliminate a handicap in an adult or a child. This goal of "transformation of the world" is what you accuse of technical progress by confusing the causes and the effects, and then you allow yourself to denigrate the goal of those who act.

Obvious inference, I don't disparage anyone.

You clearly say that the goal of those who created these wonders, like the glasses, would be to use "capacities of actions put at the service of a process of transformation of the world"! Well let's see ... just that, megalomaniac technocrats, surely, not simple people who in front of glaring problems are looking for things because they are interested and they can be useful to others. Yet that is the motivation, the interest, and particularly when we are concerned. It is common for researchers to be motivated by a particular path because they have been personally confronted with the problem. Their "capacity for action" is only at the service of themselves (this is interesting and rewarding) and at the service of those who will benefit from their tools.
You reverse the causes and the effects. All these little touches of progress, like glasses, when they multiply, end up transforming the world. But it is not a global goal in the service of anything, it is not a goal at all, it is what emerges from the multitude of small and big disparate progress linked to the activities of each, it is a consequence, it is neither an end in itself nor a planned process to which those who participate will adhere.

[sen-no-sen]

You clearly say that the goal of those who created these wonders, like the glasses, would be to use "capacities of actions put at the service of a process of transformation of the world"! Well let's see ... just that, megalomaniac technocrats, surely, not simple people who in front of glaring problems are looking for things because they are interested and they can be useful to others. Yet that is the motivation, the interest, and particularly when we are concerned. It is common for researchers to be motivated by a particular path because they have been personally confronted with the problem. Their "capacity for action" is only at the service of themselves (this is interesting and rewarding) and at the service of those who will benefit from their tools.

To use the terms of Howard Bloom:"the whole is greater than the sum of the elements which compose it".
Technology is above all a set of ideas that colonize our brains and that give us selective advantages, the more they are important and the more they are imitated, ethical considerations do not matter.
However, it would be naive to think that this set of ideas does not follow a logic (be careful I am not talking about finalism!).
This logic is inherent in any system negentropic, it is bound to evolve via quantitative and qualitative leaps.
This is as true for technology as for any other thought system, the determinisms are the same.

All these little touches of progress, like glasses, when they multiply, end up transforming the world. But it is not a global goal in the service of anything, it is not a goal at all, it is what emerges from the multitude of small and big disparate progress linked to the activities of each, it is a consequence, it is neither an end in itself nor a planned process to which those who participate will adhere.

We agree (obvious!), But a sum of technologies that gives something other than an addition of units, rather a whole that retro-acts, that then forms a non-local intelligence that will promote its development.
It is thus very naive to remember only part of the story, considering that if past technical advances have enabled humanity to progress then it would be the same in the future.
It’s about the same mistake in politics, or socialists (eg) don’t understand why the socialism does not work anymore.
The major error consists in giving a name to a given historical phase and in wanting to consecrate it by attributing it an existence independent of the conditions which have seen it born.
So if the liberalism doesn't work anymore, what do we do? Well we are trying to revive recipes that had worked before praying for it to work (that's what I'm trying to do D.Trump at the moment).
It is obviously a major reasoning bias.

[Janic]

Janic wrote:
... Plus your anti-religious obsession with no real foundation! ...

"I fundamentally disagree with these leftist people who do everything to dissociate fundamentalism from Islam."

It is only a political point of view!

"For 50 years, Islam has radicalized,

All religions or other systems radicalize and have radicalized throughout history whenever the possession of a power of domination over others, was at stake. It does not date from 50 years, but the media make it their cup of tea and go up in pin which is only minority.

There is of course a tradition of an enlightened Islam.

Hold on! What percentage?

But he is not in power today ".
Salman Rusdie (who has been under the threat of a real fatwa since 1988).

Salman Rusdie sees the tree hiding the forest! The majority of adherents of religions are pacifists, but " when you want to kill your dog you say he has rabies »

"Obsession"? !!!, "Without any real basis"? !!! You definitely don't decode anything in the world.

A minority cannot substitute for the majority by being noticed by the media.

If we do not understand the impact of religion, see also this brilliant intervention:
https://youtu.be/rCLj5jKnsIU

religions are systems like all systems existing on this earth. Sometimes they dominate, then are dominated. The fundamental error is to confuse systems and the individuals who share or oppose them.

Janic wrote:
...
Scientists doctors, great defenders of this same allopathy, denounce the abuses ...

They are right, they do it with caution, while you take the pretext (in vain) to discredit the allopathy.

If you were attentive to what I write (but you prefer to criticize without having read) you would have noticed that I distinguished:
a) Doctors who can be multidisciplinary and practice what they have learned, not what they do not know.
b) The dominant academic medicine without sharing
c) The power of laboratories exclusively imposing the prescription of their products
These scientists in question only note this hostage-taking of the system in place even if they are part of it and defend it for lack of anything better.
The same phenomenon occurs in agriculture where the vast majority of farmers have been trapped by promises (which only worked in the short term) and which has recently experienced a flip-flop in favor of a reasoned culture (which denounce the abuses, but which continue in the system) and organic farming which creates a break with the academic discourse therefore discrediting agrochemistry.

[Janic]

If we do not understand the impact of religion, see also this brilliant intervention:
https://youtu.be/rCLj5jKnsIU

The two interveners are, from their own point of view, right. The black woman seems to forget the history of her slave people, then discriminated against by the majority of South Americans taking advantage of this situation. She forgets the atomic bombs on the civilian population from Japan like Vietnam and then also the holocaust on the Indians whose "Americans" stole the lands and their goods. We ourselves lived the French revolution made up of our “jihadists” of the time, who engendered the terror which made countless victims (among the pacifist populations) and of which we commend and glorify ourselves today. Nazism had a ready-made model to follow!

[Exnihiloest]

Janic wrote:
... Plus your anti-religious obsession with no real foundation! ...

"I fundamentally disagree with these leftist people who do everything to dissociate fundamentalism from Islam."

It is only a political point of view!

"For 50 years, Islam has radicalized,

All religions or other systems radicalize and have radicalized throughout history whenever the possession of a power of domination over others, was at stake. It does not date from 50 years, but the media make it their cup of tea and go up in pin which is only minority.

There is of course a tradition of an enlightened Islam.

Hold on! What percentage?

But he is not in power today ".
Salman Rusdie (who has been under the threat of a real fatwa since 1988).

Salman Rusdie sees the tree hiding the forest! The majority of adherents of religions are pacifists, but " when you want to kill your dog you say he has rabies »

"Obsession"? !!!, "Without any real basis"? !!! You definitely don't decode anything in the world.

A minority cannot substitute for the majority by being noticed by the media.

If we do not understand the impact of religion, see also this brilliant intervention:
https://youtu.be/rCLj5jKnsIU

religions are systems like all systems existing on this earth. Sometimes they dominate, then are dominated. The fundamental error is to confuse systems and the individuals who share or oppose them.

Janic wrote:
...
Scientists doctors, great defenders of this same allopathy, denounce the abuses ...

They are right, they do it with caution, while you take the pretext (in vain) to discredit the allopathy.

If you were attentive to what I write (but you prefer to criticize without having read) you would have noticed that I distinguished:
a) Doctors who can be multidisciplinary and practice what they have learned, not what they do not know.
b) The dominant academic medicine without sharing
c) The power of laboratories exclusively imposing the prescription of their products
These scientists in question only note this hostage-taking of the system in place even if they are part of it and defend it for lack of anything better.
The same phenomenon occurs in agriculture where the vast majority of farmers have been trapped by promises (which only worked in the short term) and which has recently experienced a flip-flop in favor of a reasoned culture (which denounce the abuses, but which continue in the system) and organic farming which creates a break with the academic discourse therefore discrediting agrochemistry.

Still to be diced ?!
You have not yet separated all my words from each other, nor all of the sentences that I have quoted, to comment on each one. I'll give you a second chance, I'm sure you can make a lot more like that.

[Exnihiloest]

...
To use the terms of Howard Bloom:"the whole is greater than the sum of the elements which compose it".
...

I strongly dispute this common idea that the whole would be greater than the sum of these elements, but here we should open a new thread as the subject is dense.
I just summarize: in front of everything, we change paradigm. You see new things which are not objectively new, that is, they were part of the potentiality of the elements. I'm talking about elements in a broad sense, not just the rooms, but the basic principles of arrangement and the smallest details that make the whole stand up. The emergence of the "more" than the parts is only that of our interpretation. Cut a forked branch, tie a rubber band to it, and you see slingshot. The bird will always see a branch and a wire to land.

Technology is above all a set of ideas that colonize our brains and that give us selective advantages, the more they are important and the more they are imitated, ethical considerations do not matter.
However, it would be naive to think that this set of ideas does not follow a logic (be careful I am not talking about finalism!).
This logic is inherent in any system negentropic, it is bound to evolve via quantitative and qualitative leaps.
This is as true for technology as for any other thought system, the determinisms are the same.

[...]
a sum of technologies that gives something other than an addition of units, rather a whole that retro-acts, that then forms a non-local intelligence that will promote its development.
It is thus very naive to remember only part of the story, considering that if past technical advances have enabled humanity to progress then it would be the same in the future.
It’s about the same mistake in politics, or socialists (eg) don’t understand why the socialism does not work anymore.
The major error consists in giving a name to a given historical phase and in wanting to consecrate it by attributing it an existence independent of the conditions which have seen it born.
So if the liberalism doesn't work anymore, what do we do? Well we are trying to revive recipes that had worked before praying for it to work (that's what I'm trying to do D.Trump at the moment).
It is obviously a major reasoning bias.

You amuse me with the "bias" of reasoning that you would be alone to see. Beam, straw ...

The "whole" simply does not exist. Putting together piles of disparate pieces, thinking against all odds that they would be pieces of a puzzle and that the beautiful picture will appear, is doomed to failure. The image does not exist any more than the idea that one has of it, which is not, moreover, what another would have of it, and you understand that well, since you have taken the example of socialism.

Only "past technical advances have enabled humanity to progress", yes, so let's use the methods that work as long as they work and that no better ones have been found after trying.
As you see the least common sense and feet on the ground will shatter the plans on the comet.

With "technical advances", you create the pieces of your puzzle yourself. This is why it works. You can always retouch them if they don't fit together. Common sense and feet on the ground, nothing else allows you to move forward. As for knowing where, we do not care, do not listen to the prophets or the interventionist ideologues, the pleasure is on the way, in the discovery.