So I want to say a laconic: April 1 has passed, the imbeciles stayed ... and I refer the author to this song
If I was paranoid I would say that the author knows us and that he wants to discredit econology for the benefit of ecolonomy, trademark registered by PSA Citroën, for info ...
Anyway, let's forget this text ...
Virtues of Fair Liberalism on Sustainable Development
Ecological savings in the Ecological Policies of Economies.
To be right too early is often to be wrong.
And the wrong kills, it is well known! This is why the idea of economic ecology died before having lived. Advancing too early to be taken seriously, "econology" has fished by its excess of contradictions as well as by an overly systematic questioning of the economic choices of developed countries and has therefore ended up blurring the listening of decision-makers. The result is up to the methodology: today, no economy in the world seriously puts ecological issues at the heart of its policy. This is at least one point on which we save (…)
It must be admitted that the warnings on ecology were also wrong to play on fears and to use language that was far too technical and theses too controversial. All leading to a misunderstanding of the general public. Worse, by becoming politicized, the very notion of ecology became suspect and gradually lost credibility.
The most striking example is that of the criticism of excessive energy consumption. On this subject we attack our whole model of society, based 100% on the use of energies of all kinds. And if the merits of this challenge are not to be doubted, the rub when the speech denounces the whole model without a credible alternative to the key. Then comes the idea of a hydroelectric dam; immediately criticized for its social and environmental challenges. Comes an idea for wind turbines; "But my good lady, you do not realize the noise and visual pollution" ... enough to lose its Latin! As for nuclear power, let's not even talk about it! So, everyone on a bike and by candlelight?
The lesson to be learned from these communication failures is that there is no point in opposing and criticizing without making constructive proposals. And questioning an entire system does not serve the cause. By acting in this way, ecologists have finally obtained only a sparing consideration of their claims, and ecology has never found its place at the heart of the economic policies of countries.
Why not propose solutions that register the change in continuity?
To admit that we were wrong on the approach would be a lesser evil. Because by wanting to change everything by arguing in the general interest while attacking the particular interests of each, supporters of ecology have achieved nothing that really transforms our society.
But this does not call into question the need to advance the ecological cause, an essential component of the true well-being of men. And if the idea of econology seems dead and buried, nothing should stop the idea of ecology.
It is in this that the idea of ecological economy (and no longer economic ecology) becomes interesting. Unlike its big sister, eco-economics (it needed its own neologism!) No longer revolves the economy around ecology but integrates ecology into each link of the economy. It is not a lesser difference. From questioning mode, we go to adaptation mode!
In other words, we change everything without changing anything! It is no longer a question here of questioning our society and its lifestyle, but of changing the content while keeping the container.
But to concretize the deep meaning of this notion, it is still necessary to bring new content (failing this, ecolonomy would end up in the same boxes as econology). And new content is mentioned in the concept of sustainable development.
From deconology to sustainable development…
Produce more to earn more to consume more ... and end up wasting it, here is the model of society that we have impatiently built in recent decades. And as we have shown above, by dint of crying wolf… we ended up no longer believing the alerts of environmentalists. Ice melting, disappearance of animal species have become simple news events followed with less interest than reality TV. Not to mention the hole in the ozone layer, to stratospheres of general public understanding. In fact, apart from the defense of wood pigeon hunting and the uprooting of GMO plans, the action of environmentalists today seems extremely limited, and we can only deplore it!
To restore order in all of this and make the economy a clean, ready-to-use, income-generating raw material, its outlines should be defined. Or quite simply to redefine the contours of what has served as the foundation for our economic choices of recent decades. Because there is no point in reinventing the wheel if to make it turn faster you just have to associate a new motor!
Let's start from the 3 pillars of sustainable development that are the economic, the social and the ecological and ask ourselves about the solidity of this building! This concept is based on a dissociation of its 3 components and therefore leads to multiple combinations (4 in total) ranging from viable to livable through fair to achieve sustainable according to the "product-mix" that we want to put .
At first glance, this conception effectively defines distinct stages of development depending on the options chosen. But in use, this structure has major flaws! In fact, it carries within itself nothing less than the seeds of its own death (it is a mania for the ecological thing! A very "natural" cycle in a way). Because if it integrates well the 3 main human (pre) occupations, for as much it considers them as 3 distinct entities.
However, the concept is based on the mix of pillars, offering de facto 3 possibilities of exclusion: viable without the social, livable without the economic and fair without the ecological. We can then wonder about the effective "viability" of the concept without the social and wonder if it would be "livable" to reject the economic. As for the fairness of the lack of ecology, our study totally rejects it ...
A particularly unbalanced scheme therefore! It did not take less for the states to feel legitimately authorized to put the concept of sustainable development aside: "Durex Index" (...). You actually lose your Latin!
... and from sustainable development to Fair Liberalism.
Let's summarize: the old econology of the end of the 20th century in the trash and sustainable development based on the foundations of the Club of Rome in oblivion, we can therefore return to ecolonomy and define this eco-economic concept adaptable to Fair Liberalism.
Let us remember that Fair Liberalism aims to give birth to a new model of society that puts people back at the heart of the economy (*). However, man is himself at the heart of ecology since it is an integral part of the ecosystem ...
Eureka! Ecology is therefore one of the components of the economy since without man there is no economy. It is for having forgotten this obviousness of human nature that the econology and the concept of sustainable development have undergone an ecological regression rather than evolving towards the standard balance of a natural ecosystem.
Once this oversight has been repaired, we can then redefine the concept of sustainable development, this time with only two pillars: eco-sociology and eco-economics. Because man and ecology are one, it becomes possible to include them together in social and economic matters so that only one combination remains to be composed: eco-sociology and ecolonomy now forming a whole "Sustainable" and "equitable", "livable" and "viable" at the same time, ecosocionomy!
No compromise, no compromise therefore needs to be, and decision-makers have no more alternatives to which to take refuge.
We can therefore conclude from this reflection that Fair Liberalism contains in itself ecological evidence in all its relations with the social and the economic and that ecosocionomy can henceforth take a place left meaningless by late sustainable development. .
According to this scheme, any social or economic decision must henceforth integrate the ecological dimension, integrating de facto man!
Source: http://www.agoravox.fr/actualites/econo ... isme-54637 (if you are registered, you can react)
Rather, read Mermet's excellent text, which is much more "powerful": https://www.econologie.com/crise-bancair ... -3955.html
The hollow talk without pain
