"Reinventing progress": essay to download

[Ahmed]

No problem, minguinhirigue, good reading and happy holidays!

[asset]

Ahmed @

sorry for this late response: I have a Master's thesis to be polished, and then it's summer ...

first of all, thank you for your very good critical reading that shows your fine knowledge of the subject

answering it is far from obvious, it would almost be necessary to write another book! I share some of your remarks for the simple reason that I no longer fully agree with my manuscript: mostly written over two years ago, I have since studied political sociology, anthropology, I read a lot, and my "weltanschauung" (worldview) has evolved accordingly ...
what is progress? it is obvious that my book is not clear enough on this question, but to answer it in a few lines is utopian

I will therefore content myself with some remarks or questions on the points of disagreement

he advocates a kind of decay without naming it

it does not seem to me that we are going towards a decrease, that's why I'm not talking about it, but towards an end of economic growth, a stabilization. I write a paper on this question, I will not fail to share it when I finish it, in a month or two

Finally, he considers the practical possibilities of evolution towards what he advocates. After reviewing the difficulties and the main actors of a possible change, always according to the same method, the difficulty of the task and / or the limits of the process narrows the field of the possible to the media only.
We can not blame the author for his embarrassment in finding a possible actor, a savior on whom to rely, however, it must be admitted that this achievement barely convince. To be naive by choice is respectable, but it is a constraint which ultimately becomes unacceptable and which leads, in particular, to lend to the media virtues they do not have: they are not these organs subservient to economic powers and politicians who can choose to be the spearheads of a material decline.

I say at the end of the book that the different actors are interdependent and that it is in fact positive feedbacks. but I maintain the preponderant role of the media, especially as the news seems to me right: since the media speak of climate (I will choose 2005 with the film of al gore as pivotal date) everything begins to change!

as for the "leaders" that I evoke, I reproduce below an article of the weekly challenges which seems to go in the same direction

this is reminiscent of WW Rostow's thesis on the stages of development. Thesis that convinces only those who want to believe it. If today we can see a decline in poverty in the world, it is to benefit ... misery.

I think we buried Rostow a little too fast. his model is probably a little too simple but there is something to keep. for having lived a few years in the poorest African countries, only one criterion seems to me sufficient to justify the idea of ​​progress: the fall in infant mortality, spectacular

I do not see, for my part, such an absolute opposition between the two ideologies * that divided the world in two during most of the twentieth century: in both cases, it was an imperialism and a capitalism (state in the case of the Soviet Union, private in that of the "free world")

100% agree with you, that's why it seems derisory to see the opposition that we are always presented, it is less fundamental than we think

The most curious is that during the book, despite considerable efforts to try to "relocate" the economy in areas where it would be less harmful, the author comes to fight his own assumptions (this is to say put to the credit of the intellectual honesty of J Chamel)!

what do you think are my assumptions ??? economic liberalism? perhaps, as long as it gives positive results, not beyond

Which brings us to the concept of freedom, never mentioned, and for good reason, in this corpus. Because of the behavioralist option, the social individual is only a puppet subject to simple determinisms, the current system not being materially durable or humanly satisfying, it must be reformed. The alienation ** due to work is never evoked, unlike that which is the consequence of consumerism; however, the author intends to use the various conditioning that led to overconsumption to divert each individual. Curious reversal that proposes to replace one alienation by another and that ignores what is truly desirable, ie increased autonomy of each.

I am not in favor of this idea of ​​a clause, I think that consumption or work fulfill functions of maintaining social cohesion. these functions are essential, so I am looking for other forms, less harmful to the environment and therefore humanity. according to your logic, I actually replace one alienation by another, but I do not have this a priori negative (Marxist?) towards work or consumption. more autonomy of course! it would be ideal, it is the idea behind the new non-polluting activities that I defend, but the purpose of the book is to find solutions to ecological problems, not to propose a perfect and utopian world ...

He tries to attack the idea, I quote, "widespread" (p.90) according to which the companies and the rich are the main culprits of environmental problems: for him there is equality of nuisances.

I do not say that there is equality of nuisance but that even the poorest (in OECD countries) have an unsustainable way of life, accusing the rich (who of course pollute more) is not productive. as for companies, they only produce what we want to buy from them, so their nuisances are our

the difficulties of changing things are not so much a generalized inertia as a desire for social regression for, it seems to me, two reasons:
On the one hand the old opposition with the USSR having disappeared and with it its unhealthy balance, but still balances: there is no longer any need for increased democratization.
On the other hand, the resources needed for the current waste being in decline, it is vital that those who have the power to make sure to reserve themselves a proportionally larger share of an ever smaller cake. We see that the solution will not be on the side of the "elites", but can only be sketched from below, both by resistance to power and by the establishment of solidarity between the individuals who work for a greater democracy.

disagree. the class struggle (the opposition between the "elites" and "below") is relevant in relation to the sharing of economic, cultural, political capital. changes in lifestyle are carried by the upper classes and then adopted by the rest of the population (see another article in Challenges below, a little Marxist weekly it is true!). I bet that it will be the same in the coming years: it is the young "CSP +" who no longer buy cars, eat organic food, etc.

I would see a system that, despite appearances of abundance, obviously does not provide a framework conducive to human fulfillment (the use of legal or non-legal drugs (the most legal is ... money!) psychosomatic and other pathologies clearly demonstrate this) and that, from a material point of view, it is also unsustainable.

if the current sources of energy persist, would it solve all the problems (armed conflicts, inequalities, frustrations, pollution ...)? I am even convinced that if a cheap, non-polluting and infinite source of energy appeared we would make little profit.

100% agree with you on the second part. on the first I am more nuanced: our world is not perfect but it is enviable in many ways, just look at our history or stay (long enough, the first impression is misleading) in countries with low standard of living to realize it. we are both men, but many women, I think, prefer to live in a society where they are treated on an equal footing with men (at least that's the trend)

Where I do not share the views of the author, it is in this mechanistic vision, interesting in its deductive approach, but at the same time not very fruitful in its conclusions and especially very dangerous, because containing in it the premises of a Orwellian universe.

there you would have to specify ...

I invite you to enjoy your holidays (?) And read this book.

thank you for this encouraging conclusion, despite flagrant differences of opinion!

[asset]

as promised, two articles published in the Challenges of the month of July:


Fortunes. The new codes
They spend themselves on sustainable development

Our millionaires are no longer content to buy a conscience by offsetting their carbon footprint. In between jets, they also change their way of life and convert their business to green values.

The rich 500 ranking Challenges have a colossal debt to the planet. Private jets, helicopters, haciendas, sedans and 4 × 4 ... At home, everything is often bigger, bigger. And therefore more polluting. But the earth is showing signs of exhaustion, and mentalities are changing rapidly. Including 500. For heirs or new rich people, sustainable development is now a symbol of sustainability. "There was PPR before Home, and there will be PPR after Home," says, for example, François-Henri Pinault, the CEO of the retail and luxury group that financed Yann Arthus-Bertrand's film on the state. of the planet. And to add: "Our way of life is not viable, if companies do not take care of that, I do not know how we'll get by."

Personal deniers

Before him, Pierre-André Sénizergues, the creator of the brand of sneakers Etnies, had invested his personal funds in The Eleventh Hour, the film produced by Leonardo DiCaprio on the misdeeds of man. Installed in California, this Frenchy who made a fortune summarizes his fight: "When I meet other bosses, I ask them: what do you plan to leave for your children? And they understand that there is more to the return on investment. "
Franck Riboud, CEO of Danone, agrees. "Growth does not have to be an end in itself," he says. In just a few months, his group has just created an investment fund for nature, another called Ecosystem, and an environmental blog, Lespiedssurterre.danone.com. Let it be said, the rich live cleanly. From now on, each time he takes the plane, François-Henri Pinault compensates his CO2 emissions with the company Action Carbone of his friend Yann Arthus-Bertrand. François Pinault's son has also put on his sports coupe and is riding in hybrid Lexus. Like Antoine Arnault, the son of Bernard, equipped with the same car less polluting. "This awareness, we have not discovered by viewing Home, Yann Arthus-Bertrand's otherwise magnificent film. It has been achieved gradually, "explained the president of LVMH at a conference on sustainable luxury in Monaco, the 15 June.
Like Reinold Geiger, the owner of L'Occitane who only drives in Vélib'à Paris, Aliza Jabès has also given up her 4 × 4 Toyota for the small city car iQ, much cleaner. And this vegetarian is now dreaming of turning her corporate fl eet into an armada of green vehicles. The founder of the cosmetics brand Nuxe, a fusion of the words nature and luxury, has begun its green revolution. Removal of leaflets, launch of an organic range, recycling of printing cartridges, carbon footprint ... "We must show the example."
"Yes, our status as a leader in luxury forces us to exemplary," said Bernard Arnault, who has invested this year in Edun, the eco-friendly company of singer Bono and his wife. It is difficult to publish reports on sustainable development without submitting to more economical rules of living. But to what sacrifices are our dear millionaires ready? "My vision, my definition of sustainable development is not the return to the cave age, total stripping, the renunciation of all pleasure, all fulfillment, all satisfaction," says the boss of LVMH. That is said.

Daily management

Charles Kloboukoff does not live in a tepee, but he has his body-pegged beliefs. When questioned, the CEO of Léa Nature (115 million euros in turnover) pulls his organic boxers pants to show off. Certainly, this green boss, also councilor in La Rochelle, has a mobile phone whose harmfulness waves is poorly known, but it applies the precepts of sustainable development in its daily management.
His company was equipped, for example, computers Evolutis, the company Ashelvea, fully biodegradable, compostable and recyclable. And since 2007, Léa Nature gives a share of its turnover to the club 1% For the planet created by Yves Chouinard, the founder of Patagonia. "We have also set up an Amap [Association for the maintenance of a peasant agriculture. Editor's note] at the company's headquarters, he explains. Every week, 80 baskets are delivered by Ferme de Magné to employees who wish it. "
He is happy to admit that this winter, his four children have eaten a lot of cabbages. But it's for a good cause. At his home, he installed a sump of 300 liters to collect rainwater, the floors are made of bamboo (renewable resource), and the family linen is washed with ecological laundry, in this case washing nuts 100% biodegradable, harvested in the Himalayan piedmont.
Jacques Rocher devotes his life to the environment. In 2008, he received the Golden Scepter for Sustainable Development in the Senate. The president of the Yves Rocher-Institut de France Foundation travels the world to reforest it. He set himself the goal of planting 5 million trees before ending 2009. In India, in Madagascar, in Senegal ... "Every day, it is the equivalent of three times the surface of Paris which disappears because of the deforestation," he denounces. In his daily life, he multiplies the microgestes. "I sort my rubbish, of course, I take showers preferably in the bath, I just swapped my oil boiler for a heat pump ..." The son of Yves Rocher, who eats three apples ... bio a day, has also proscribed coffee pods and rolls in Toyota Prius.
The eco-hotel spa Yves Rocher group has just inaugurated in La Gacilly, its cradle, is a model of its kind. La Grée des Landes has green roofs, two wood-fired boilers fed by the nearby Brocéliande forest, a greenhouse with bioclimatic architecture, and high environmental quality materials, such as hemp, which is also known for its thermal performance. And no question of installing Wi-Fi, the connections are made by a wired network in each room, where the single-dose products of the bathrooms have been replaced by refillable dispensers. The restaurant offers Made in Brittany products and organic menus. And outside, a garden planted with reeds filters all the wastewater. An ecological paradise for rich rehabilitation.

Kira Mitrofanoff


Obviously it's still ridiculous, but it's the trend that's interesting.








Fortunes. Thank you rich people
Guinea pigs without the knowledge of their own free will

The rich are the first served in novelties, goods or services, when they are rare so expensive, even to wipe the plasters ... Then the product will be trivialized.

Near the vegetable department of this provincial economic store, they wait. Tiger yellow, very straight in their flasks. Above their evocative petals for all fantasies, a panel breaks the charm: "Orchids 2 euros room only!" We braid the orchid that has long been a chic attribute of France from above. This rare and expensive flower has become a supermarket gift. "The price of orchids has been divided by twenty in twenty years, since the discovery of the microscopic fungus that promotes its multiplication", is saddened Geneviève Lecoufle, specialist in this wonder of nature that we cultivate by whole fields in flower factories in the Netherlands.
The orchid market illustrates the precursory role of the rich in the consumer society. It is because he found a minority of customers able to pay up to 100 euros that we could develop an orchid sold today to 2 euros.

Democratization

The process was even faster for home theater. Still reserved for a few happy few 2000, he was paying 6 000 15 ... 000 euros. Today, this symbol of co-cooning is available from 500 euros, plus technical improvements. "The elite, and among them the rich, have a prominent role in the economic game that has been described by the American economist Everett Rogers from 1962," said Bertrand Venard, professor of management at Audencia. Thanks to its high purchasing power, 2% of the population can afford products made in small series and therefore very expensive, allowing manufacturers to switch to mass production at reduced prices. "
Pioneers of new consumer trends, the rich are then imitated by the rest of the population for better and for worse. Cocaine has thus, too, quickly descended the social pyramid: "At the beginning of the 1990 years, a gram of coke was bought 150 euros, today it is 40 euros, ensures Laurent Karila, doctor addictologist at the hospital Paul-Brousse de Villejuif. Long confined to an elite, the consumption of this narcotic has exploded and now affects all circles, young, old, rich and poor.
Guinea pigs of mass consumption, the rich buy the new products at the high price and wipe the plasters. As early as the 1930 years, they were the first to travel by plane at a time when security was not optimal.
Today, some are ready for weeks of physical preparation and a $ 10 million investment in early space tourism.
Similarly, on the memorial to the monument to the rich pioneers of consumption, we could write the names of those who were the first to use cosmetic surgery at a time when the hand that held the scalpel was less assured than today and where the healing was long and painful. Some wear lasting stigmas: Mickey Rourke or Elizabeth Taylor to name two famous cases. Not to mention the late Michael Jackson. "In twenty years, the facelift has been considerably simplified and requires only one night of hospitalization, says Dr. Stéphane Smarrito, a cosmetic surgeon working in Paris and Switzerland. Botox has arrived, liposuction has become safer, and breast implant surgery has been cut in half while reducing postoperative discomfort. "
Another example, that of the GPS, illustrates well this tribute paid by the rich precursors, even if it is less tragic than the first facelifts. At the beginning of the 1990 years, early navigation systems fitted the Safrane and Mercedes with CEOs at an additional cost of more than 20 000 francs - the equivalent of 3 000 euros. Today, the Dutch TomTom offers satellite guidance to everyone with its small boxes sold 150 euros for the entry level. "We are determined to offer a high level of service to the greatest number of consumers," says Antoine Saucier, TomTom's Automotive Sales Manager, who is constantly adding features to his boxes. These developments are very fast when it comes to high-tech products. Thus, when we see that the Black Berry is among the favorite models of high school students, who use it to connect to Facebook and Twitter, it is hard to remember that this mobile terminal once gray, heavy and expensive n was reserved only for senior managers. "All this was premeditated, says Arnaud Villeger, head of the telephony sector of Fnac, the BlackBerry was first put in the hands of the elite for everyone to want."
Companies are well acquainted with the so-called "product life cycle" theory described by Bertrand Venard: "At launch, an innovation is always very expensive and therefore intended for wealthy customers, in a second step, its diffusion helps to mitigate the weight of fixed costs, thirdly, we reach a critical size that allows economies of scale and we can, if there is competition, lower prices. Finally, in the maturity phase, it is opening up to a clientele that is less and less solvent. "
The jeweler Mauboussin has bet on this logic and multiplied his turnover by three since 2003. "We decided to offer jewelry accessible to the greatest number, says Alain Nemarq, the CEO of the brand that offers a ring at the floor price of 890 euros. Never seen Place Vendome!

New virtue of the "green"

And today, when the bling-bling is forgotten because of crisis, we clear the rich? According to marketing expert Jean-Noël Kapferer, the rich of 2009 buy a pipe. If they blaze, it's in the "green": "Rich consumers are clearing the ground in the green equipment markets: passive houses, heat pumps, electric vehicles, natural pools ..." As always France from below wisely waits her turn, and will enjoy without knowing it, when the time comes, one of the most compensating mechanisms of the capitalist system.

[Ahmed]

Absent myself several days, I receive with pleasure your answer.

You say:

"To answer it is far from obvious, it would almost be necessary to write another book!"

Absolutely agree! My criticism would have also deserved further developments to be more precise.

Further:

what is progress? It is obvious that my book is not clear enough on this question, but to answer it in a few lines is utopian.

Certainly ! Whole books have been devoted to him without exhausting the subject ... This does not prevent this ambiguity from being embarrassing because this concept falls into the category of the words "suitcases" where everyone thinks they hear the same thing while everyone puts a meaning of its own.

On growthit is quite obvious that it first goes through a transitional phase of stagnation before initiating a real decline: the conditions of growth have objectively ceased to exist but the practices retain a certain inertia, as will be seen later. (in the following post).

Concerning RostowI maintain my point: the arguments he puts forward are indefensible and laughable. If I remember correctly, it was a command work for propaganda purposes.
The reduction of infant mortality is an indisputable fact due to a certain medicalization, but this does not corroborate the claims of Rostow.

"What do you think are my assumptions ???"

The pre-eminence of economics, of work as a social bond ... Which I do not deny as a fact, but this approach immediately rejects other possibilities.

On the economic liberalism, you seem to draw argument of the disappearance of its competing system to conclude to a better efficiency of this one. However, we must take into account the dynamic aspect: the USSR collapsed, but liberalism can disappear in turn, there is no evidence that causes, perhaps not so far away, will not the same effect ...

On the alienation in the work and the consumption, there would be a lot to say: I think that (re) to read Illitch, Marx and many others whose name does not come to mind, is imperative ... ( Marcuse was famous in his time but his style is particularly indigestible: good luck!).

On freedom the choice is even greater: all the philosophers have treated since it is the cornerstone of this discipline ...
you say you don't "propose a perfect and utopian world" ...
For perfection, I follow you: only dictatorships can claim this quality; the opposite proposition is also relevant: when politics ceases to be the art of the possible to aim for perfection, dictatorship is in sight.
For utopia, I believe that we must leave open the door of possibility, on pain of confining ourselves to a perpetual reiteration of the existing.

I will continue with this response very soon.

[Ahmed]

I quote in full one of your answers, because it slips, in my opinion the same error as in the case of the alienation that I simply fly over above.

I do not say that there is equality of nuisance but that even the poorest (in OECD countries) have an unsustainable way of life, accusing the rich (who of course pollute more) is not productive. as for companies, they only produce what we want to buy from them, so their nuisances are ours

If I judge by this text, the difference, in terms of consequences, between the consumption of a poor man and that of a rich man would be of a similar nature, but different in its degree.

This is to forget that the opposition between poor and rich is not anecdotal or indifferent, as would be for example "blond or brown", but refers to a power relationship (I did not write "class!" ") between dominated and dominated. This power relationship structures society in such a way that the essential choices are made by the dominant, the dominated can only choose within what is offered to them.

The last sentence allows me to clarify a little: it seems to accept the idea of ​​symmetry and perfect equality between the two economic agents that are the company, on the one hand, and the consumer, on the other hand .
It is quite obvious that this is an illusion: the mass technical production presupposes an organization pushed to the highest degree, it also implies a control of the consumption, control that operates through the advertising and mass-media and aims to circumvent the consumer as completely as possible.
I would give a concrete example of the real non-choice of the consumer: in the United States there existed a very tight network of public transport, when the factories of automobile production were developed at the chain, this network was knowingly dismantled.
As another example, we have a choice of a large number of brands and models (often manufactured by the same company!) Many objects but all are designed to be quickly out of use, either by manufacturing or by obsolescence due to incompatibility with other newer objects or just trendy.
I stop there, it would be possible to multiply them to infinity.

You are asking for details on: "Where I do not share the views of the author, it is in this mechanistic vision"
Our society is entirely dominated by the technique, or if you prefer this formulation, the dominance is organized starting from the technique *. Therefore, it is not surprising that technique invades our interpretation of the world; you choose a sociological approach that does not lack interest but can not give more than its limits.
Explaining the man in his determinisms which are numerous and powerful, I admit, this method as you apply it goes too far in its conclusions: even if the determinism operated on 95 or even 99% (the percentages are not there than for image ...), then would remain 5 or 1% of unexplained, the part of the freedom, share minimal but essential part!
You did not pretend to provide "turnkey" a perfect world, (I strongly approve!), You want more modestly to bring more autonomy and well-being to the individual ... thanks to a conditioning by media or "Models": that poses at least two problems.
1- who will determine (that's the word!) The direction of this conditioning and on what criteria? How can one only imagine that there can be not only a recipe for human happiness, but a quasi-obligation to happiness?
2 - there is an absolute contradiction between autonomy and conditioning: what to say of an autonomy that would result from a conditioning, if not that it is absurd.

* and not technology, which you use as its synonym. It is an anglicism too often used wrongly, since in French technology means science or study of the technique.

[Ahmed]

Let us come to the 2 articles cited in support of your thesis (but there are many others on "green economy").

For the first, the most interesting, a small detour is necessary.
At the start of the 70s, political ecology was a confidential movement that aroused incomprehension and sarcasm in public opinion. Then, under the joint influence of certain influential groups (club of Rome) and the disillusionments of the end of the "glorious thirties" (which were not so much), this same public opinion turned completely to sink. little by little in the ecolomania which prevails today.
Some on this forum rejoice in what they perceive as an "awareness", when, in reality, since ecology is everywhere, it is no longer anywhere.
Triumph of propaganda, this Machiavellian recovery of ideas carried, initially, by sincere and disinterested people can, therefore, serve as a machine of war to relaunch the growth which was running out of steam! A height, ecology at the service of waste!
For this it was enough to outbid the initial momentum and, of course, to inactivate the original critical dimension. Great plan that however took time to rally all those who hope to benefit from it, probably had not evaluated its full potential ...
The icing on the cake, green marketing does not only hope to continue looting the planet "respectfully", it is also a diversion from the social and political problem. The most discerning of the dominant know that the size of the cake will inexorably narrow and that if he wants to keep the largest shares, there is little that a strategy of possible: on the one hand, to hide behind the smokescreen of a justificatory ideology (it will no longer be religion as formerly, nor growth like yesterday, but the environment *), on the other hand, for those, minority, who will not be abused, the increased use of state violence.
The first article ends with this comment:

obviously it's still ridiculous, but it's the trend that's interesting

The true tendency is, precisely, to the derisory, the symbolic; the little mystifying investment that will drive and deceive the crowds.
You see I agree that it works well as described in your book. As for the consequences, they will likely be very different than the ones you were considering ...

The second text cited is a variant of the smoky liberal economic theory called "runoff"; in this case, this clearly explains the mechanism of conspicuous consumption dear to Thorstein Veblen. This only confirms the role of opinion "leaders", which is not the subject of debate: what I dispute is the relevance of the use of this medium which should not be assessed solely on its effectiveness but on its purpose. There is a radical antagonism here between the means and the end.

* or the "religion of the environment" with its rites, its creed and its guilt.