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”

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”