Hello,
I have just posted an unpublished essay, Reinventing Progress, dealing with responses to climate, ecological, energy, economic and social crises. All these areas are indeed linked and this book brings a new look, above all sociological. Some points are now acquired, which was not the case when I started writing in 2005, others are still innovative, probably for a long time. This is the major feature of this book: the transformations it proposes are being realized, and probably faster than we think. So read urgently to be sure not to miss the train of history!
REINVENTING PROGRESS
Jean Chamel
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17179036/Climat-fin-du-petrole-etc-fautil-reinventer-le-progres
(free download)
Summary
The first part is a summary of the current situation in terms of ecology, climate and energy. The observation is simple: the current situation is untenable and no technological solution will solve all our problems by itself (the informed reader can start directly in the second part).
The second offers a perspective, it allows us to understand how we got there, that the industrial and economic revolution is only one aspect of a social transformation towards modernity and that the different societies are all following more or less the same path in this process of "development".
The third part constitutes the heart of the work. Starting from Maslow's pyramid of needs, it shows the operating logic of our modern society. The main idea is that we provide a nested response to our physical needs for existence and our social needs for belonging and recognition. The result is a huge waste in terms of resources, energy and work. We therefore deduce that there is considerable room for maneuver: it is possible to live as well or even better with much less and without speaking of "going backwards".
The following section is based on the observation formulated to provide an overview of what tomorrow's world might be like, it proposes economic solutions but also tends to show that the economy is only a look at a reality more more complex social The idea of economic growth is also called into question; it is suggested that this instrument is no longer valid for measuring the progress that is being pursued by other means, also mentioned.
Finally, the last part examines how to "move from one world to another". She reviews the different social actors to show that change is everyone's responsibility. Without dismissing the function of politics, businesses and consumers, the focus is ultimately on opinion leaders and the media who seem to have a decisive triggering role.
Good reading !
"Reinventing progress": essay to download
direct download
To download directly (without registration on scribd) the book in PDF:
http://sites.google.com/site/jeanchamel ... rogres.pdf
https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... lC2yF5.pdf
http://sites.google.com/site/jeanchamel ... rogres.pdf
https://www.econologie.info/share/partag ... lC2yF5.pdf
0 x
Promised thing, thing due! Here is the first delivery.
For the sake of clarity, I will first examine this book in broad strokes, reserving for myself the study of certain particular points at a later date.
The first part is a preliminary observation of the impasse faced by our society because of its excessive greed in natural resources and the consequences of their implementation. The purpose is clear and concise: it constitutes an easy digest of this problematic.
After this introduction, the subject becomes much more original. Declaring wanting to free himself from all ideology and dogma, Jean CHAMEL chooses to try to understand the evolution of humanity until today by a sociological approach (sociology would be considered the fundamental determinant) with as a tool , the logic.
This approach which he qualifies as "pragmatic" suggests a kind of historical determinism whose meaning it would be possible to decipher, by means of a careful examination of each cog constituting reality.
Of course, he is not the first to get caught up in this intellectual game, Freud with the unconscious, Marx with the relations of production, Laborit with behavioral biology and many others have tried to unravel the skein of the world. human by grasping a single thread, to understand the whole starting from a part, to substitute for subjectivity an unambiguous causal relation.
It must be admitted that the author deploys an exemplary application of it, in a kind of dialectic in which, drawing conclusions from a first observation, he submits them to the same critical trial to arrive at a new proposition and so on. along the book.
If the process leaves doubtful at first (especially since there are some inaccuracies here or there, which is normal for such an ambitious work and addressing as many topics), as the progress of reflection, the outlines are more clearly defined, a little like a "heavy" internet image that would load slowly.
What appears is a new utopia (I use this term without any pejorative connotation), a kind of ideal society, according to the author, that would solve both current constraints and would be more conducive to individual fulfillment. In short, he advocates a kind of decreasing without naming it, which is surprising at first glance, but in fact consistent with this approach based on a purely mechanical logic.
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 that becomes ultimately This is particularly crippling and leads, in particular, to lending to the media virtues they do not have: they are not those organs that are subject to the economic and political powers that can choose to be the spearheads of a material decline.
Another limitation to this work lies precisely in the fact of the author's ideological inclinations, which if not explicit are no less real.
In my next post, I'll try to report on it.
For the sake of clarity, I will first examine this book in broad strokes, reserving for myself the study of certain particular points at a later date.
The first part is a preliminary observation of the impasse faced by our society because of its excessive greed in natural resources and the consequences of their implementation. The purpose is clear and concise: it constitutes an easy digest of this problematic.
After this introduction, the subject becomes much more original. Declaring wanting to free himself from all ideology and dogma, Jean CHAMEL chooses to try to understand the evolution of humanity until today by a sociological approach (sociology would be considered the fundamental determinant) with as a tool , the logic.
This approach which he qualifies as "pragmatic" suggests a kind of historical determinism whose meaning it would be possible to decipher, by means of a careful examination of each cog constituting reality.
Of course, he is not the first to get caught up in this intellectual game, Freud with the unconscious, Marx with the relations of production, Laborit with behavioral biology and many others have tried to unravel the skein of the world. human by grasping a single thread, to understand the whole starting from a part, to substitute for subjectivity an unambiguous causal relation.
It must be admitted that the author deploys an exemplary application of it, in a kind of dialectic in which, drawing conclusions from a first observation, he submits them to the same critical trial to arrive at a new proposition and so on. along the book.
If the process leaves doubtful at first (especially since there are some inaccuracies here or there, which is normal for such an ambitious work and addressing as many topics), as the progress of reflection, the outlines are more clearly defined, a little like a "heavy" internet image that would load slowly.
What appears is a new utopia (I use this term without any pejorative connotation), a kind of ideal society, according to the author, that would solve both current constraints and would be more conducive to individual fulfillment. In short, he advocates a kind of decreasing without naming it, which is surprising at first glance, but in fact consistent with this approach based on a purely mechanical logic.
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 that becomes ultimately This is particularly crippling and leads, in particular, to lending to the media virtues they do not have: they are not those organs that are subject to the economic and political powers that can choose to be the spearheads of a material decline.
Another limitation to this work lies precisely in the fact of the author's ideological inclinations, which if not explicit are no less real.
In my next post, I'll try to report on it.
Last edited by Ahmed the 22 / 07 / 09, 21: 40, 1 edited once.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Continued criticism of the book "reinventing progress".
What is the content of this ideological substratum not openly claimed but which is reflected in the book?
First of all the concept of progress, not very well defined, which is both embarrassing and understandable because of its complexity. However, it appears that it is a linear and oriented progress, as with Marx, Hegel or, in another register, Theilard de Chardin. It is a progress first and especially economic; another characteristic is that it is contaminating, in the sense that it tends to become universally accepted: this is not unlike 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.
For Chamel, this development and the market economy go together, and economic liberalism is obvious, and even more since the disappearance of the Soviet Union.
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"). That the communist system has collapsed in no way guarantees the durability of the competing system: ideologies are human creations, so they express themselves in a period that has a beginning and an end. The story is not over ... 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 be credited to the intellectual honesty of J Chamel)!
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.
Of course, I do not deny the preponderant part of cultural automatisms on human societies, I simply say that the only desirable way is to maximize the freedom of everyone and that to institute the obligatory happiness is an absolute nonsense.
The author implicitly recognizes this freedom, in two ways: the first by postulating agents likely to produce this alienation on the mass of the population, because what he refuses to the latter, it must be granted to the first, the second by creating this book that testifies to his own freedom.
It may be admitted, however, that the ideological character of economic liberalism is less marked in that it amounts to a "dressing up" of international power relations and is therefore "of variable geometry".
** For those whom the word alienation repels, replace it with "company of cretinization".
The next post will deal with specific issues not yet addressed.
What is the content of this ideological substratum not openly claimed but which is reflected in the book?
First of all the concept of progress, not very well defined, which is both embarrassing and understandable because of its complexity. However, it appears that it is a linear and oriented progress, as with Marx, Hegel or, in another register, Theilard de Chardin. It is a progress first and especially economic; another characteristic is that it is contaminating, in the sense that it tends to become universally accepted: this is not unlike 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.
For Chamel, this development and the market economy go together, and economic liberalism is obvious, and even more since the disappearance of the Soviet Union.
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"). That the communist system has collapsed in no way guarantees the durability of the competing system: ideologies are human creations, so they express themselves in a period that has a beginning and an end. The story is not over ... 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 be credited to the intellectual honesty of J Chamel)!
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.
Of course, I do not deny the preponderant part of cultural automatisms on human societies, I simply say that the only desirable way is to maximize the freedom of everyone and that to institute the obligatory happiness is an absolute nonsense.
The author implicitly recognizes this freedom, in two ways: the first by postulating agents likely to produce this alienation on the mass of the population, because what he refuses to the latter, it must be granted to the first, the second by creating this book that testifies to his own freedom.
It may be admitted, however, that the ideological character of economic liberalism is less marked in that it amounts to a "dressing up" of international power relations and is therefore "of variable geometry".
** For those whom the word alienation repels, replace it with "company of cretinization".
The next post will deal with specific issues not yet addressed.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Some points of discussion, about "reinventing progress".
On agriculture:
The author presents the passage from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic as a "progress" (this term still to be defined), perhaps in the sense that this change was at the origin of many others but the best specialists agree. on the fact that the adaptation to this new way of life was far from easy compared to the previous state and that it could only happen under the effect of a great environmental constraint.
Further he asserts that organic farming can only provide relatively limited yields compared to conventional farming; this is more or less true under current conditions which are "tailored" to this type of operation, but the reverse would be observed if conditions were to evolve (for example towards smaller farm structures, due to the increase in petrol).
Later, he assimilates the agriculture of the impoverished countries to bio since not using chemical inputs: it is to forget that these practices are not defined negatively.
On the social question:
Assuming a progressive leveling of incomes (p. 161) due to the efficiency of the market economy, he does not wish, quite logically, to expand on income inequalities which, I quote, is "not our topic". Yet the current growth in inequalities is indeed a reality.
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.
However, it is easy to understand two things, on the one hand each social category constitutes a kind of model to be imitated for the immediately "lower" class, on the other hand it is indeed the individuals at the top of the social scale, as well as large companies that have the means to influence all the others to follow a behavior favorable to their profits (advertising, fashion but also design of objects with pre-programmed wear). This power entails an overwhelming responsibility of the ruling classes over global consumption.
Continue and end the next post.
On agriculture:
The author presents the passage from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic as a "progress" (this term still to be defined), perhaps in the sense that this change was at the origin of many others but the best specialists agree. on the fact that the adaptation to this new way of life was far from easy compared to the previous state and that it could only happen under the effect of a great environmental constraint.
Further he asserts that organic farming can only provide relatively limited yields compared to conventional farming; this is more or less true under current conditions which are "tailored" to this type of operation, but the reverse would be observed if conditions were to evolve (for example towards smaller farm structures, due to the increase in petrol).
Later, he assimilates the agriculture of the impoverished countries to bio since not using chemical inputs: it is to forget that these practices are not defined negatively.
On the social question:
Assuming a progressive leveling of incomes (p. 161) due to the efficiency of the market economy, he does not wish, quite logically, to expand on income inequalities which, I quote, is "not our topic". Yet the current growth in inequalities is indeed a reality.
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.
However, it is easy to understand two things, on the one hand each social category constitutes a kind of model to be imitated for the immediately "lower" class, on the other hand it is indeed the individuals at the top of the social scale, as well as large companies that have the means to influence all the others to follow a behavior favorable to their profits (advertising, fashion but also design of objects with pre-programmed wear). This power entails an overwhelming responsibility of the ruling classes over global consumption.
Continue and end the next post.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
On the political question:
Voluntarily ignoring the balance of power at work in our society, J Chamel's perspective is a-historical in the last part of the book, when he suggests solutions: the difficulties of changing things are less of a problem. generalized inertia only to 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.
On the central issue:
J. Chamel begins his book with the statement of the double impasse resources / pollution and adds further, that all these destructions are not even offset by a gain in terms of approval of life (consumerism frustrates those who have little access and does not satisfy others ...).
This is consistent with his approach, which is based on immediate experience and also as a starting point for the awareness of the greatest number; personally, I would be tempted by the opposite approach: I would see a system that, despite appearances of abundance, does not provide a clear framework for human development (the use of legal or non-legal drugs (the most legal is ... money!), psychosomatic and other pathologies, clearly testify) and that Furthermorefrom a material point of view it is also unsustainable.
As I said, many come to ecology by what is most visible, however, that they honestly ask the question: if the current sources of energy persist, would it solve all the problems (conflicts armed, inequalities, frustrations, pollution ...)? I am even convinced that if a cheap, non-polluting and infinite source of energy appeared we would make little profit.
In conclusion, this book has the great merit of examining with rigor the solutions usually invoked to solve the environmental crisis, and to denounce the impossibilities. In particular, it has the merit of showing the absurdity of the dogma of green crescent (without naming it) preached by skilful hucksters.
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.
I invite you to enjoy your holidays (?) And read this book.
Voluntarily ignoring the balance of power at work in our society, J Chamel's perspective is a-historical in the last part of the book, when he suggests solutions: the difficulties of changing things are less of a problem. generalized inertia only to 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.
On the central issue:
J. Chamel begins his book with the statement of the double impasse resources / pollution and adds further, that all these destructions are not even offset by a gain in terms of approval of life (consumerism frustrates those who have little access and does not satisfy others ...).
This is consistent with his approach, which is based on immediate experience and also as a starting point for the awareness of the greatest number; personally, I would be tempted by the opposite approach: I would see a system that, despite appearances of abundance, does not provide a clear framework for human development (the use of legal or non-legal drugs (the most legal is ... money!), psychosomatic and other pathologies, clearly testify) and that Furthermorefrom a material point of view it is also unsustainable.
As I said, many come to ecology by what is most visible, however, that they honestly ask the question: if the current sources of energy persist, would it solve all the problems (conflicts armed, inequalities, frustrations, pollution ...)? I am even convinced that if a cheap, non-polluting and infinite source of energy appeared we would make little profit.
In conclusion, this book has the great merit of examining with rigor the solutions usually invoked to solve the environmental crisis, and to denounce the impossibilities. In particular, it has the merit of showing the absurdity of the dogma of green crescent (without naming it) preached by skilful hucksters.
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.
I invite you to enjoy your holidays (?) And read this book.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
-
minguinhirigue
- Éconologue good!
- posts: 447
- Registration: 01/05/08, 21:30
- Location: Strasbourg
- x 1
Back to "Media & News: TV shows, reports, books, news ..."
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 265 guests