Un autre monde est possible: la Société de l’Accord

Les mouvements politiques, notamment d’extrême gauche et écologistes, affirment qu'”un autre monde est possible”, qui serait différent de la société actuelle, avec ses inégalités énormes et son suicide climatique collectif.

Toutefois, ces mouvements politiques n’ont généralement pas réussi à décrire ce que serait une telle société alternative. Au besoin, ils décrivent quelques expériences déconnectées et partielles. Ce n’est pas suffisant, car ce qu’il faut, c’est relier ces expériences partielles les unes aux autres.

Cet échec a considérablement affaibli leur capacité à convaincre les gens de s’engager dans le type de changement radical qu’ils soutiennent. Il est normal et sain d’hésiter quand on sait ce qu’on perd (le confort du monde connu, même si son avenir est sombre), et qu’on ne sait pas ce qu’on peut gagner (parce que personne ne peut décrire concrètement à quoi cela ressemblerait).

Afin d’éviter ce piège de la peur (légitime) que j’ai décrit ci-dessus, j’ai fait l’effort de décrire, assez complètement et avec quelques détails, ce à quoi pourrait ressembler une société heureuse et durable pour 2050 et au-delà, avec la perspective de faire durer indéfiniment la civilisation humaine. Je l’ai appelée la Société de l’Accord, parce qu’elle identifie les deux questions clés à résoudre comme : (1) se mettre d’accord entre les humains et (2) être en accord avec nous-mêmes et avec notre environnement, en s’alignant sur l’état de l’art scientifique concernant les lois du bien-être humain et de la nature.

Je l’ai décrite à l’aide d’une carte cognitive, afin de faciliter la navigation entre tous ses aspects, et de garder une vue d’ensemble facile. Vous pouvez la trouver ici.

La Coopérative CosmoPolitique que je soutiens vise des transformations radicales de la société, vers (1) la durabilité environnementale, (2) la justice sociale et (3) la démocratie paneuropéenne, dans une Stratégie 30-40-50 vers cette Société de l’Accord.

Je présente la Société de l’Accord à Lille, lors d’un atelier participatif de découverte, le 04 juin 2019, dans le cadre de la Semaine Européenne du Développement Durable. Je serais heureux de vous y retrouver ! Le site d’inscription présentant tous les détails de cet événement est ici.

An other and better world is possible: the Society of Agreement

Political movements, specifically in the far-left and ecologically-minded part of the spectrum, claim that “another world is possible”, which would be different from the society we currently have, with its huge inequalities and collective climatic suicide.

These political movements have however generally fallen short from describing what such an alternative society would be. When required, they describe a few, dis-connected and partial experiments.  This is not enough, because what is needed is to connect these partial experiments with one another.

This failure has significantly weakened their capacity to convince people to engage in the type of radical change that they promote. It is normal and sane to hesitate when you know what you lose (the comfort of the known world, even if its future is bleak), and don’t know what you may gain (because nobody is able to describe to you concretely what it would look like).

In order to avoid this trap of (legitimate) fear that I outlined above, I made the effort to describe, with some detail, a comprehensive description of what a happy and sustainable society of 2050 and beyond could look like, with the prospect of sustaining human civilisation indefinitely. I called it the Society of Agreement, because it identifies the two key issues to be solved as: (1) agreeing among humans and (2) agreeing with ourselves and with our environment, by aligning with the scientific state of the art regarding the laws of human well-being and of nature.

I described it using a mind-map, so as to facilitate the navigation between all its aspects, and to keep an easy overview. You can find it here.

The CosmoPolitical Cooperative that I support aims at radical transformations of society, towards (1) environmental sustainability, (2) social justice and (3) pan-European democracy, in a 30-40-50 Strategy towards this Society of Agreement.

Debt towards humans, or towards natural / social phenomena? Classical accounting gives the wrong answer

I identify two very different types of debt:

  • towards human creditors, or
  • towards natural or social phenomena.

Debt towards human creditors is the most visible form of debt. It is recorded in public or private accounts, and is the purpose of active monitoring, in order to ensure that the debtor keeps a sustainable capacity to pay the creditor back. The rights of creditors are defended by national and international law.

However, debt towards humans is not as hard as what could appear prima facie.

Continue reading “Debt towards humans, or towards natural / social phenomena? Classical accounting gives the wrong answer”

Feeding the reptile or promoting the human in us: why political communication is not morally neutral, and how to improve it (2/2)

(Figure: Media Respect Cube, displaying the level of respect of the receiver, per technical feature of the communication medium. The higher the score, the higher the respect. Author: Sergio Arbarviro, under licence Creative Commons)

(Follows the previous post)

Regarding now the technical medium, I would have the following considerations:

Continue reading “Feeding the reptile or promoting the human in us: why political communication is not morally neutral, and how to improve it (2/2)”

Feeding the reptile or promoting the human in us: why political communication is not morally neutral, and how to improve it (1/2)

Social medium Facebook and “big data” firm Cambridge Analytica have broken the news in March 2018 when their methods of political manipulation in the electoral campaign of Donald Trump in 2016 were made public. Why is it that the revelations on the Facebook – Cambridge Analytica affair appear morally so unacceptable?

I would like here to suggest a method, based on the well-established layer-based model of the human brain, to trace a moral distinction between tools used in political communication.

Continue reading “Feeding the reptile or promoting the human in us: why political communication is not morally neutral, and how to improve it (1/2)”

Costa-Rica as a role model for humanity

The ultimate goal of public policy in the 21st century may be expressed in very simple terms: ensure good living conditions to the population – while respecting the 9 environmental planetary boundaries that set limits to our production and consumption (climate change; rate of biodiversity loss; interference with the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles; stratospheric ozone depletion; ocean acidification; global freshwater use; change in land use; chemical pollution; and atmospheric aerosol loading). Is this goal achievable? The answer is yes, because it has already been achieved by one country: Costa-Rica. The good news is: this achievement is the outcome of deliberate policies, not of mere chance.

Continue reading “Costa-Rica as a role model for humanity”

The shareholders aren’t any more the most legitimate to govern companies

Source of data in the image: World Bank, stocks traded, turnover ratio of traded shares.

When asked about who should govern companies, the most obvious answer seems to be: the shareholders. And the reason: because they are the owners. Period. Debate closed. Recent discussions about the increased role of other stakeholders, be they the workers, representatives of external interests such as those of the environment or of suppliers, are seen like nice add-ons, little more than an inflexion to a generally valid rule.

I disagree, and believe that the role of the shareholders in the governance of companies should be radically reconsidered.

Continue reading “The shareholders aren’t any more the most legitimate to govern companies”