mandarine

I get angry when I see theories and schemes which do not acknowledge failure and justify an eternally delayed success by trying to turn the guilt on me. They tell me that I did not try enough, that it will work only if I do more, that if I do not do exactly as they say, if I make but one false step, it will fail and be worse than if I had done nothing. These are totalitarian theories. Generally, they do not deliver.

Below is a list of such theories, which have consistently failed in the past but keep asking us for more:

• capitalism will reduce poverty
• communism will improve people’s lives
• GMs will feed the third world
• preventive war will stop terrorism
• increasing agricultural yields will abolish hunger
• vaccines will eradicate infectious disease
• the telethon will find a cure against myopathy
• science is good

If you look around, you can find such theories by the dozen. They always have the same modus operandi: an unchallengeable basis relying on circular logic, unquestionable dogma or good intentions. Let us quickly flip through the list above. [more]

A car is faster than a bike. At least, that’s what we all believe. But in fact, it is false. We already know that in congested downtown traffic a car is hardly faster than a bike, but I am saying that riding is faster than driving — always [more]

The definition of work in our complex economic world is difficult to establish, biased by cultural prejudice and the effects of money. Let us go back to basics with my reductionist model. Imagine a fictitious tribe of prehistoric humans, with little specialization and no currency. Let us try to sort their activities between what was work and what was not:

• Hunting and gathering: work
• Knapping flint tools: work
• Hut building: work
• Ritual dancing: not work
• Cave decorating: not work
• Bathing: not work
• Making love: not work
• Sleeping: not work
• Eating: not work
• Standing guard: work

From the above classification, I could try the following definition: work is any activity that is necessary for survival and that involves unpleasant effort.

It seems fair enough, and yet, even in a very primitive society, I can find activities that fit the definition and yet can hardly be considered work: [more]

Believe it or not, school is a very egalitarian system.
However elitist a given school may be, kids with better grades do not have fancier uniforms, they do not eat nicer food at school lunches, they do not get better chairs in classrooms or better spots in the schoolyards. This absence of objective short-term reward in return for a learning effort is probably why so few schoolkids are eager to learn more and better. This is totally rational: if there is no reward, why bother. If you do, you are stupid and are treated as such. School excellence is frowned upon by popular kids, and bland mediocrity is the golden standard if one wants to get respect from one’s teenage peers.

In addition, this egalitarian system gives kids the wrong idea about society: when they leave school, they will be totally inadapted to today’s economic system when one does not get anything for nothing. Unless one strives to be among the best, one is gradually sucked down into the economic drain. The sooner they learn this sad truth, the better armed they will be.
[more]

Piracy is theft: now and then, when I watch a DVD, instead of the typical legal warning text, I have to watch a complete video sequence involving people stealing cars, purses, and other objects, and the ending shot is someone downloading something from the internet, with a vibrating slogan in large red letters: Piracy is Theft. I say no. Piracy is piracy, theft is theft, and it is not up to Sony Music or Warner Home Video to brainwash me into redefining what theft is.

What is theft?

I believe that ever since the concept of property has germinated inside the narrow conscience of a pervert Homo not-so-Sapiens (germination accurately captured by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in Discours sur l’origine et les fondements de l’inégalité parmi les hommes), theft has always been two inseparable things: the victim is deprived of something he/she has worked for, while the thief obtains something without having worked for it. Prejudice for the victim, benefit for the thief. Which one is more important?

I frankly doubt we would consider theft the same way today if historically it had not deprived the victims of their property. If people could still use their stuff after it had been stolen, I doubt they would even contemplate filing a complaint with the police.

[more]

A list of 19.99 non-commercial things that are invaluable nonetheless:

[more]

A post about the bright side of the impending energy crisis: what if sustained development was the next big growth reserve for our greedy economy?

[more]

I am no economist. I have only had a varnish as a student, just enough to be able to read business magazines. But I believe economy, like politics, should not be the private playground of a self-proclaimed elite. They are a commons which is ours to shape. [more]