Living beings have to cooperate to build an equilibrium, an equality,
to be able to survive inside their contexts.
2-Equality / 2-Organization Inconsistencies / 0
Historical inherited main organisational inconsistency
One single tool, money, to manage simultaneously ACTION and DISTRIBUTION:
We cannot meaningfully build our home if we have in mind
to accumulate a strictly increasing quantity of shovels and trowels...
Money is today our main trowel and the planet our home, the single one for the moment, with ISS our first 6 bedroom flat (rather high tech) in space...
It is not because we would stop producing strictly increasing quantities of computers, smartphones, planes,... that the same food, consumed by all these workers who would find themselves stopped without work, would be no longer produced. Yet in the current organization of the game of Monopoly that we have inherited, all these people finding themselves without activity, and therefore without salary, would no longer have the right to have this same food always produced that they consumed the day before. In the same way, the house in which they live would not disappear overnight and there would in fact be no reason for them to lose their right to use these houses.
The paradox is all the stronger when the need to preserve the future of living beings on our planet might be to really reduce our production of technologies. So all of these less productive workers would actually be well on the way to success for all of our global future, and so they shouldn't lose their right to have their food, or even the use of their house, in this example.
This example illustrates the general confusion generated by the monopoly of the powers of our exchange tool (money) structurally imposing a permanent production loop, potentially incompatible with the finite resources of our planet.
2-Equality / 2-Organization Inconsistencies / 1
One life, two working organizations
Analysis realized in 2020 from the exeperience of a group of aerospace engineers who did most of their studies in France, realized a Master of Science exchange program abroad, and worked during the last 15 years in the industry and public research on aerospace technologies; this diagram is an attempt to synthesize the inconsistencies of their own working exeperience and of all their colleagues along the way.
While we spend the first 20 years of our lives working like never after in the school context, where it is well explained to us from the beginning that we do not work to win points but to learn and produce some relevant work for us and the society, there come out of the blue in the work organization, at the end of our studies, some tokens (money) to which we delegate all authority and all value.
Those tokens, money, being the value, they value themselves for themselves. What is therefore the most valued in the second market context is the direct participation in the economic result, therefore those who bring money directly into the company, or who are responsible for the wallet.
It does not correspond at all to the skills and value scale of the first context of work during the first 23 years of our lives: if we take mathematical skill for the example, the monetary exercise corresponds to manipulating relative numbers (plus or minus sign), with 2 decimal digits, very largely limited by a few billion, for which we perform the classic operations + , - , times, divide, and the famous linear relationship... that is to say a good school level of a 15 years old, or one could say less than 10% of the wealth and power of mathematics studied until the end of university. Though it is true that with these 10%, we do 90% of the daily life of the majority of the population, but we must remember that it is in these other 90% that lies the capacity of the human species to equip each one of us with the smartphone or PC that you use to read this site, to cure us of cancer, etc (if you feel motivated and if you do not know it - university 3rd year level mathematics course, try to understand the meaning of the Fourier transform... one of the amazing mathematical results at the heart of the realization of all our planetary and space telecommunications).
Mathematics is just one example, this gap is relatively true for many disciplines (the exercise of a philosophy dissertation is much more intellectually dense than a week of work in many companies). In one day at the end of our studies, it seems in reality that we switch from a "working world" to a "money world".
Working in the first context is our permanent duty, while working in the second context is a chance, an opportunity, a conjuncture... up to almost become a privilege : the world is turned upside down at the frontiere of this two working contexts, the second context of work giving way to the chance of the presence or not of a budget, to the opportunistic subjectivity of "competitiveness", to guarantee our central dignity to be able to participate to the world every day of our lives.
The paradox goes to its end allowing situations where we may have worked well, producing some goods or some activity with very high intellectual capacities, but where if no customers are interested, we are not rewarded for our work : this is clearly a complete rupture of value from first working context where the action is permanent and where any production is considered and evaluated.
Honesty, social justice, equity, the fact that everyone has the right to the same things at lunch whether they are bottom or top of the class, is obvious to everyone and is not questioned until 23 years old (for those who go up to the Master).
This meeting with the market organization and its exchange tool (money) takes place in adulthood, around 23 years old (Master level) for many of us today, is coming with all these years of expectation to get a first job, a “real work” as some people may say, ratifying the authority of the monetary tool as the only counter, the norm in the mathematical sense of measurement becoming a societal norm, to validate and allow the action of a human being to become a “work” (devaluing in passing our 23 years of study on something which was therefore not “real work”).
In our today human organization (in 2020), this transition appears to be a real recession of our everyday action accompanied by a very significant culture shock : important reference rupture, clash of values, phantasm, rejection, ...
2-Equality / 2-Organization Inconsistencies / 2
Detailed work referencials discontinuities analysis
2-Equality / 2-Organization Inconsistencies / 3
Money paradox: simultaneously tool and goal
Our historical inheritage of the definition of value, which has full authority in the second context of work, thus is money : we print tokens to which we delegate all powers and all value.
As money itself becomes the objective, the salary (whatever its place in the global economic chain), our working time, our days which cost the company, seem to come into conflict of interest with the economic result, the competitiveness, the business success of the companies.
All solutions then to minimize expenses (i.e. the sum of all salaries), such as automation or relocation to countries where labor is "cheaper" (population which accepts, without their knowledge or by abuse of power, to receive less for the same work), are obvious solutions deployed during past decades to increase "business success".
The fight to increase our purchasing power, that is to say to minimize the salaries expenses to produce always a thousand times more products at ever lower prices, thus carries with it, because of this paradox, the path towards our own exclusion from our own activities, meaning our own inaction, our own inexistence...
This economic constraint, of generating the economic turnover greater than the sum of the salaries in order to be able to maintain a company, if we look at it carefully and compare it with respect to the context of the work definition during the studies, does not correspond to the fact of "producing some work", but corresponds to the fact of "being allowed to work" : this is the duality of this tool simultaneously managing action and distribution, the divergent and non-humanistic node of the central problem mentioned in the Equality page (the circular organization, the "tail-biting snake" organization to image it).
The “company” structure then becomes the contradictory node of the economic system, formally existing in this system by the flow of money passing through it. This entity then may seek to exist on its own even though a given activity could cease or be greatly reduced. The possibility that a p roduction can be "finished" then becomes an "economic failure": the human species equipped the Earth with 250 Airbus A380 between 2000 and 2021, a real building of the air, a feat and an incredible technical efficiency of the human species (apart here from the pollution aspect)... whose overall image in our society is an “economic failure”! When we have finished something, finished equipping the Earth for a given need (planes, cars, TVs, etc.), we can be proud of ourselves!
"To have finished something" cannot be a "failure", and we do not have to look for ways to keep producing more and more stuff afterwards!
This obligation to play the Monopoly game, to constantly run after our exchange tokens, feet and fists bound to this unique counter, causes us to lose a very large part of our freedom, our intelligence, our ability to be truly relevant for the future of life: we would already have everything to live very comfortably, that we would have to continue to innovate, produce and consume more to generate wages for all, if possible strictly increasing.
This paradoxe combined with our increasing global automation capacities eventually allows the concentration of gigantic productions in the hands of a few people. Inequalities are then growing mechanically, as some reports show: the NGO Oxfam analyzed in 2020 that 1% of the richest on the planet own more than twice the wealth of 90% of the population.
The increase in the number of multimillionaires... up to billionaires, becomes the symbol of the nonsense of this game of Monopoly in place on the planet that we all play (because it is obvious that as living beings, they never have produced by themselves the equivalent of what they own), with the potential emergence of a legitimate feeling of injustice, anger and betrayal towards these leaders and "stars", that these gigantic inequalities may arouse.
Economic liberalism, which seems to be based precisely on the hypothesis of the delegation of full powers to our exchange tool (money) to demonstrate the stability and global convergence of our human organization, seems therefore to be logically, due to the fact of this "tool and objective" paradox of money, due to the duality of this tool simultaneously managing action and distribution (see mathematics/systems analysis university second year course on systems with a positive feedback), a structurally divergent organization potentially a source of so many absurdities, and should therefore be renamed more precisely "economic obscurantism".
2-Equality / 2-Organization Inconsistencies / 4
A missing common sense of "equity"
To illustrate to what extent the delegation of full powers to our exchange tool can lead us to real absurdity and blindness, we could define equity as the fact “to receive a good” equivalent to “an action / a work done ".
Let us illustrate this missing sense of equity in our market organization by an example:
=> being able to acquire a laptop computer or a smartphone for 350 dollars means that a person earning a full-time minimum salary of 1400 dollars per month, produces a richness equivalent to this laptop computer or smartphone in 5 working days, meaning a full week which is a quarter of a month (5 days out of 20 working days per months). In the meantime, all the other people who earn more than the minimum salary would therefore produce this equivalent richness in less than a week.
Nonetheless, it is obvious that no one on Earth is able to produce by his own working capacity the equivalent of a laptop computer or a smartphone in 5 working days.
If being able to acquire such a technology for 5 working days were a reality of our organization because of our technological progress, which would be homogeneous for all throughout the global economic chain, while respecting the environment, there would be no problem.
But if children "barely get enough to eat" for "12 hours of work a day, every day, in mines to extract the raw materials to build these computers" then it is obvious that no one has the right to get a computer or a smartphone for 5 working days or less.
The whole ambiguity of the full powers of money, with its "law of supply and demand" is that we completely lose this common sense of "equity" in the global economic chain.
Which eventually causes us to lose our ability to respect each other, to respect the environment ... and ultimately, blinds us to the reality of our biosphere and can go so far as to endanger the future of life, of the human species and of all other living beings.
This analysis joins many demonstrations already carried out in the past, going from Karl Marx in the 19th century up to Thomas Piketty today (from the European window), whose major works are entitled "Capital" [in the 21st century", for Thomas Piketty], which, by this simple title, points out all the Power ambiguity of our time: Capital, money, our exchange tool, tokens that we ourselves print... would be the central power?
The set of contradictions of our organization centered on a single counter (money), "tool and objective" of which we no longer know who is "the master or the slave" at the origin of its structural paradox, is thus generally called "capitalism" and ultimately corresponds to a blind organization disconnected from the reality of the rhythms and needs of our biosphere.
This paradox and its risks for the future of life on Earth are today developed and popularized by many scientists such as Aurélien Barrau, Arthur Keller, Jean-Marc Jancovici (to name only a few active examples in Europe, in particular the comics by Jean-Marc Jancovici World without end to read to have a great perspective on the energy point of view of the planet of our last two centuries).
From a mathematical point of view, we could summarize this structural paradox of the economic organization that we have inherited as:
the attempt to project onto one single unbounded dimension, onto one single counter to which we delegate all authority and all value, money (belief in permanent growth, salary raise dogma, letting go of rights to have without limits - millionaires, billionaires,... when others do not own anything)
a bounded and constrained multidimensional problem: the coexistence of living beings in a finite volume (numerous parameters, among others: pressure, temperature, chemistry of the environment, available space/volume, quantities of inert resources, mass of autotrophic living beings, mass of heterotrophic living beings, numbers of human beings,... etc.).
Despite these numerous demonstrations and the many alerts of recent decades (IPCC reports, many activists - Greta Thunberg) concerning the structural divergent property of our organization and its proven negative impacts on the planet, we have not yet been able to invent a human organization that respects living beings as a whole and guaranteeing its perenniality...
However in some countries many "intermediate solutions" have already been invented within the market organisation to build a structural perenniality : the civil service, national eductation, social security, health care, retirement, insurance, etc, from which we can draw inspiration to invent a global solution.
The global solution is not a goal in itself, but the problem we face is precisely global: the game of Monopoly in place on the planet in which all authority and value is delegated to our exchange tool. Moreover, Justice between living beings obliges us to guarantee homogeneous evaluations of our ACTION and of our rights to HAVE. Hence the need to progressively converge towards a global solution.
2-Equality / 2-Organization Inconsistencies / 5
Studies, a humanist example of working referential...
maybe a bit taken to extremes
In the context of studies, the value of work may itself be taken to the extreme, accentuating the large gap with the market organization. We work all day long at school in many different disciplines, then in the evenings, late at night, and on weekends on our homework, dissertations, revisions and projects; whereas when we get into the "job world", we generally only have one single activity, we do this activity on our contractual working hours and suddenly have nothing to do outside of those hours.
The example of preparatory schools in France is an illustration of these extremes: they monopolize 100% of the time of young humans at a pivotal point of their lives, a period when it is essential to be able to explore all the dimensions of life, with the society leaving place for it and valuing this life discovery. In addition, this extreme working capacity is never exploited in society afterwards, and in itself it has no reason to exist : there are no recurring and permanent situations in everyday life which would require to have a population capable of working 70 hours a week, putting aside their personal life (except on the International Space Station, but it is only a small population of 6 people on mission during few months, a few dozen waiting (so very far from the number of people on Earth), whose time is optimized as it still very rare to be onboard ... and they would not have a lot of other things to do up there anyway).
Another very demonstrative example of the great gap between the two worlds of work: activities in industries or society which complexity requires a very high level of skills and a considerable time for deepening (equivalent to Master level), are practically always delegated to doctoral projects. Thus they are delegated to the best scientists of Master, to the most skilled and valued people in the first context of studies, to whom we will make carry out the most complex task of the company or society by paying them at the minimum salary, meaning the minimum value in the second context. There is also no guarantee to get a job exploiting these high level skills after this very significant personal investment (very few expert positions in the specialties, since 90% of scientific production is therefore carried out by these young and motivated PhD students which are really profitable in the market organization), whereas when you have reached this level of skills and capacity of work, there should be no doubt that these scientists can keep on working : no competition, no motivation interview, no selection, that continuing to work, to participate in the world and its future, would only be a question of orientation...
Which should actually be true for everyone, each one at their own level and motivation, as explained in the Equality/Action page, and this independently of any "network", of any affinity or conflict with such or such person: feelings are strictly personnal (who is our family? who are our friends? who we like and do not like? ... are strictly private issues) and should not interfere with our rights to ACT and to HAVE; the time and place of work should be a moment and a space where all the inhabitants of the world find themselves partners, no living being prevailing over another, to build ourselves and the future of the co-existence of the living beings.
Democracy, the governing people, would actually be this guarantee that everyone has the same rights and duty of ACTION in the world, and the same proportional rights to HAVE (salaries) every day of our lives. The school is a real success in this sense, first brick already in place of a Universal Participation eventually, by giving a place and a fair chance to everyone to participate in the increase of his capacities (in any case it has been progressing very well for the last 200 years).
The value of anonymity in the evaluation of work at school (official exams with hidden identity and evaluated by strangers) is a humanist key that disappears all of a sudden on the "job market", where the "sexy resume", the cool and fun attitude of a seducer who knows how to sell himself and everything, suddenly becomes the most valued skill (indeed working itself is not anymore what is the most important in the market organization, but to bring in as much exchange tokens as possible is...)
2-Equality / 2-Organization Inconsistencies / 6
This discontinuity, between both school and market work referencials, is a real recession in terms of personal development, a real lack of respect of the humanist values, a real lack of respect of the work values definition of the first school context, in addition to the inability to guarantee permanence and continuity of work.
Are we working to get paid? Have an ever bigger salary? Keep on accumulating everyday always more tokens ?
Or for things to turn out well for all of us, in a permanent and long-term projection of our lives, of life on Earth and beyond?
The game of economics is not clear at all.
The objective of the economic exercise does not guarantee at all that our lives, our days, are respected, the priority, and made really relevant for the construction of ourselves and of the future. More broadly, these rules of the game do not guarantee that life remains the center or our values and that its future is preserved.
2-Equality / 2-Organization Inconsistencies / 7
If humanist values have never been so widespread on the planet, that we are so many on Earth to really want all the good for our neighbor and our environment, that we really carry within us the best of intentions for the future, the fact is that we have inherited an organization that is structurally not humanist, given that it is economic and therefore places our exchange tool (money) as the central value ("to win" at the game of Monopoly is to get all the bet, without knowing too much or worrying about whether everyone is well):
This would be the underlying value shear in our current society, amplified by the confusion generated by the extremely rapid technological developments and by the environmental collateral impacts, wished by no one, of our productions.
Finally, if we want to peace out the tensions present in our society, we must find solutions to get out of the contradictions and absurdities generated by the delegation of full powers to our exchange tool (money), by harmonizing the definition of work throughout life, making it continuous in nature and in value.
The Universal Participation organisation proposed on this website, based on the separation of Action and Distribution powers, is an open guideline to initiate the transformation...
2-Equality / 2-Organization Inconsistencies / 9
Facing the inconsistencies of our current human organization, the media, omnipresent in our daily lives, play an important role in the interpretation and understanding that we have of them.
The "News" given by the media may often turn into the list of current difficulties, even the list of the disasters only that have occurred on the planet, seeming to seek more sensationalism by speaking of extremes, rather than the description of the state of the world as it is as a whole:
The repetition of the News from day to day (three times a day for some of us, morning, lunch and dinner... even sometimes continuously thanks to our connected tools - smartphone - connecting us at all times to the global network, a tool that may seem disproportionate for our daily lives when we know that it is a computer that could pilot a space station) can then play the role of an amplifier, negative events taking up all the space, obscuring the overall positive direction of the human species and life on Earth which makes far less noise.
Indeed, information always has a weight and will load our conscience according to its degree of gravity, which can go so far as to generate feelings of panic or revolt annihilating all the rest. Our spontaneous aspiration to life can be undermined by disasters in the face of which we ourselves have no means of acting, and we may then feel helpless in the face of this "terrible world".
So "Giving the News" is clearly not "Crying Wolf".
Imagine that we are in a train launched at full speed, that you, a passenger, learn that there is really a ravine in front of the train at 1 hour of ride. "Breaking the News" in this case is clearly not publicly shouting the information to the hundreds of travelers, alarming that the train is surely lost and all the passengers may not make it out.
This is called creating panic and confusion : it's a bit of the feeling we may have when we listen to the information on global warming.
In this case, the approach is to make every effort to succeed in getting out of it, and for that, it is necessary to coordinate the action in the most effective way possible, without creating a feeling of panic or revolt which could fail any attempt before the real arrival of the problem: it is therefore necessary to master the information and call on specific needs to solve the problem.
For example in the example of the train, it would be wiser to start by going directly to find a train employee to contact the driver, without informing all the travelers...
But of course, no game being won in advance, this solution may not be enough... and it will sometimes be necessary to find "non-conventional" solutions to adapt, perhaps requiring the help of all the travelers to get the train "off its rails" so that it does not fall into the precipice.
In the case of our planet saturation due to our economic model of limitless growth, to begin the transformation, we may all have to accept to earn less, to consum less, to share and pay more... especially all those who have already reached a largely comfortable standard of living, all the millionaires and billionaires on the front line showing the example, would spontaneously decrease by themselves their rights to HAVE in order to respect everyone.
At a large populsation scale, the need to give this or that information to everyone should still be measured according to what it can bring to everyone. In a nutshell, when we make the "News", it is not a question of believing ourselves free to be able to say everything, when a large part of the population risks feeling crushed by all the pain of the world, powerless.
An idea then for the broadcast of information could be to work a separation between:
"alert messages" which require action by a given group: a specific alert channel could thus be created with the purpose to make available important key information aimed at the immediate safety of people where they are (e.g. risk of hail, riot,… in the morning in your neighborhood).
This alert channel could also work in both directions, allowing anyone from the general public to send an alert to the competent group capable of dealing effectively with the identified problem.
and the broadcast of general information, the “News”, exercises which seek to give a "global vision of the world" to the entire population in half an hour: these should ensure in their approach that we come out of their listening with a positive feeling that pushes us forward, a vision of the world whose reflection corresponds more to the graph above, life continuing its journey against all odds... rather than leaving us very often faced with a series of cataclysms that announce the arrival of the apocalypse.
The media, you have understood it, your mission through "The News" would therefore be to animate our motivation by making us proud to be living, proud to be able to resist earthquakes, tidal waves,... by doing it humbly, without making ourselves believe or aspire to perfection, a zero rate of accidents or catastrophic events, over-demands that we will never be able to meet... proud to be able today to consider warding off the next meteorite that will strike the Earth and perennializing life in space!
Parentheses, even if the aspiration to a “zero rate” of accidents could be achievable at a cost of a relatively significant effort (a bit like a commercial aircraft which does not increase our natural probability to die), it could lead us to live in a sanitized prison desired by globally noone, or even to lifestyles which would be in contradiction with the principle of co-evolution and could therefore endanger the perenniality of the living if deployed on large-scale.
2-Equality / 2-Organization Inconsistencies / 8