Français Français Français        Smaller page        Larger page          more readable page  

General Epistemology        Chapter VI-7       

 

VI-7 ECOLOGY

 

Reality check

It is often said that ecology is about our relationship with nature, and even with the «environment». Such a vision is very egocentric. Indeed the Human species plays no special role in the ecology of our planet, neither in its functioning nor in its determinants. Clearly the Human is an animal like any other, which has no particular right or privilege. To assume such rights is then a super-racism: specism, or speciocentrism. For this reason, I speak of «ecology movement» rather than «environmentalist movement», for the english version of this book.

 

However, our intelligence endowed us with considerably higher technical means than any other specie, whereas our spirituality offers us a very superior understanding of all the stakes of ecology, consciousness and life.

This situation brings a considerable responsibility on our shoulders:

-Not to destroy the ecology of our planet, by our masochistic irresponsibility

-Develop a Human society in harmony with nature, including in high technology

-Due to our meditation skills, our understanding of the meaning of life (chapter V-5) gives us the opportunity to intelligently guide the evolution of Earth. A point which brutally contradicts some ecologists who confuse ecology with deification of nature or with return into the past. It is therefore the ecology of today 2016 that I shall present here, not the one of the last century.

 

To begin this work, I devote the following two sub-chapters to two facts which «oblivion» has seriously damaged the ecologist movement and its image:

-Ecology is a science, not an «opinion», not «everyone its truth».

-Ecology is a spiritual approach, which automatically connects it with other spiritual approaches: non-violence, harmonious society, psychoeducation, search for beauty, etc.

The scientific basis of ecology

Ecology is a science. Thus, any claim in this area must be based on scientific studies. This condition is basically realized for the denunciation of the dangers (pollution, pesticides, nuclear industry, climate, overpopulation...) and the proposed solutions (organic farming, renewable energies...).

However, the proliferation of fanciful or dogmatic claims is leading toward a growing disconnection between activists and scientists (and the growing frustration of the later). Above all, the ecologist movement is becoming a kind of «religion», in which affirmations are increasingly dogmatic and less and less relevant. Example: investments in «gluten-free» and other scams are at the expense of real organic food producers, and above all at the expense of the understanding of the general public, for whom organic food is becoming a simple fashion, a kind of astrology in which we must «believe».

Indeed we are quickly moving away from any scientific truth or spiritual ideal, when we look in the organic food shelves, or in the shops of the «green» parties: snake oil powders, waves harmonizers, «incombustible» hemp, «carcinogen» glass wool, gluten-free diet, legalization of drugs, sectarian atheism, anti-occidentalism, homosexual adoption imposed to children...

In France, these deviations have several well-known causes:

-Naturalism and anti-science, which find a favourable terrain among the victims of pollution or «modern diseases».

-The activity of the meat lobby, which strongly influenced organic food standards, and continues to disseminate disinformation and calumnies about alternatives to meat ( «green» newspapers, which ownership and funding is not indicated)

-The historical relationship of the ecologists, in the 1970s years, with the leftists and the anarchists, notably by the fundamentalist atheist magazine «Charlie Hebdo»

-The infiltrations by materialist, capitalist and atheist militants claiming to be the «left». I personally saw several speaking time thefts by foreigners to the movement, in a technical meeting of Ecology 78 in Paris.

-The movement against nuclear power was also the target of massive infiltrations by the far left, which stopped only when the ecologists irreversibly choose non-violence. This polarization against nuclear power only, resulted in a considerable impoverishment of the local associations, which had mobilized all their energies in the fight against the nuclear plants, at the expense of buying groups and other ecological life projects. Once the fight against nuclear power was abandoned, there was nothing else left.

-There even is a nazi influence, due to the support of the latter to the German naturists (ancestor of the today ecologists). Hence the adoration of species regulation based on the superiority of the «strong» (cult of predators) and the elimination of the «weak» or the «unsuitable». Of course, in today ecological milieus, people instead evoke Darwin's scientific theories on natural selection and regulation of species. Yet Darwin's theories only point at the functioning of ecosystems, without asserting that this functioning would be «good» or even the only possible one. Darwin even lost his Christian faith when he discovered the brute horror of predation and parasitism. Therefore, admiring such a system goes much further than Darwin, it is a position taking, which loves this unjust violence. So we clearly are in fascism. We shall see much better solutions further in this chapter, aboutthe future Earth.

The defence of predators has other more honourable sources: the Natives of North America, their animal totems, and their way of praying for the souls of the animals they were killing. However the Natives were not killing out of ideology, but out of survival need. A need which, today, can be satisfied otherwise, without killing. In more the animal totems were including all the animals, not only the wolves.

Clearly, if we count the good points and the bad points of each political party, the «greens» do not have a better score than the others (Chapter VI-11). This very well explain their stagnation in the votes: the voters are not fooled.

 

Thus the statements in this chapter are based either on existing scientific studies, or on the ethical and spiritual foundations we have established in Part 5.

The spiritual connection of ecology

We can of course do pure ecology, whether in science or with the militants. This is what ecology associations do, which do not take positions on other political, religious, social or spiritual problems, so as not to put off their adherents.

However, ecology, as a method of survival, cannot indefinitely elude the question of which life it protects. The independent ecology movement in the 1970s explicitly posed the question of the social connection of ecology (which is a step in the spiritual direction). Thus we can state that ecology must imperatively be in phase with:

-A more free life, and therefore a social, democratic, and even libertarian approach (which is different of «anarchist» or «libertarianist»).

-The search for beauty (chapter VI-9). Communion with nature and its preservation go precisely in this direction.

-Non-violence, as illustrated by some opponents to nuclear power, or by the historic organization Greenpeace.

-Peace

-And especially with spirituality. We could even paraphrase the slogan of May 68: Those who speak of ecology without explicitly referring to the spirit, these have a corpse in their mouth.

(The original slogan was: «Those who speak of revolution without explicitly referring to everyday life have a corpse in their mouth». But I demarxized it up, hi hi hi) (I even have a better one: «Those who speak of ecology without explicitly referring to vegetarianism have corpses in their mouth». Whouah ha ha ha ha)

 

The spiritual connection also has a very pragmatic function: the necessary changes in behaviour, state of mind, mentality, are possible only with the methods of psychoeducation to control our neurosis and our egocentrism (speciocentrism in the instance). Thus, in rejecting spirituality, the «Greens» engage in the same sadomasochistic approach as the Marxists: pretend to undertake a change, while preventing people from accomplishing it.

 

To be precise, the relationship between ecology and spirituality is more complicated than in the simplistic view of the media or political activists. Thus the media's look on ecology in the 1970s revealed (and destroyed) a complex world where many movements already existed for a long time: hygienism (1920) macrobiotic Zen (1945), organic food (1950s), various movements inspirited by India, and even humanists or right-wing movements (chapter VI-11). Certainly there was some household cleaning to do, but the decision for example of the french Marjolaine Salon to «refuse the gurus» openly engaged ecology in atheism and sectarian materialism, paving the way to the ecology of the electoral manoeuvres disconnected from the terrain and from science. Thus, these disoriented «green» politicians support increasingly crazy claims (legalization of drugs, homosexual adoption imposed on children) and associate with the niqab hunt or with the sadomasochist austerity policies (chapter VI-8).

 

Thus we shall not be surprised to see the real militants escape the electoral strategies and the cosy lounges of the upper Parisian bourgeoisie, to take refuge in a protective «apolitism» close to the people, far from the sterilizing light of the media. (The well-known french Nicolas Hulot illustrated this approach in 2016. But many others less known have deserted the politicking ecology long before him).

Nor will it be surprising if, since the 2000s, several spiritual currents openly support an ecological society, to the point that the essence of reflection and concrete action now passes there. And Pope Francis's encyclical Laudato si, for important as it is, only formalizes in the eyes of the majority an approach which is already in the minds since years. Thus the ecology itself defends itself, to escapes the grasp of materialists and reducers.

 

Non-violence is also part of the spiritual connection, but it deserves a special development:

The spiritual connection of ecology: non-violence

The ecologists today are basically non-violent (It was not always easy to make it accepted, but we got there). (Sometimes a little too much, when they confuse the fight against Al Qaeda with the Vietnam War).

However, this political non-violence is of little use if it does not fit into everyday life and respect for others. Well, I think most ecologists, even «greens», agree to avoid small violence and daily disputes, racism, sexism, hazing, etc. I just tell them with a little smile that these problems are being treated with psychoeducation. Yesh, with gurus, lol. Too bad to have fired them, I wonder what price they will ask to come back, ha ha ha!

 

The problem is that this non-violence serves practically nothing, and it is even frankly hypocritical, if we continue to massively slaughter animals, with eating meat:

-Each year tens of billions of innocent beings, more than the whole Humanity, endure a life of prison and death row. Which makes several kiloShoah.

-Meat is not justified by dietetics: all the nutrients of meat can be provided by other foods. (These statements are based on dietetic science, which chemical bases are taught at school). (To be precise, to abstain from any meat or dairy product requires supplements, among others calcium and B12 vitamin. This is quite easy to achieve, even if it is «chemical». It is even easier that way, than to cultivate, in the end).

-Meat is a highly unbalanced diet, and it contains toxins.

-The farms produce greenhouse methane.

-The farms are incubation laboratories, where appear new viruses and resistance to antibiotics.

-The yield of the transformation of vegetable proteins into animal proteins is very low: to feed a person with meat, three to five are deprived of food. Or we could live with three to five times fewer fields, and replace them with forests.

-The lost proteins are converted into manure, smelly and polluting.

-In spite of the uselessness and wastes of such a system, the meat producers are subsidized with our taxes.

-This makes the transformation of vegetable proteins into meat a parasitic activity, which consumes labour and life time without producing anything. But it receives a lot of money.

-Finally, in an atheistic and anti-spiritual milieu, the meat lobby had no difficulty in denigrating non-violence (vegetarianism). This work of disinformation has resulted in a dramatic decline in the supply of some organic foods: it becomes difficult to find wholegrain foods, and protein supplements remain very expensive: soy beans are sold at a higher price than meat, of which they are the raw material! Find the mistake...

 

Despite these ecological and social arguments, we continue to see «organic meat», and even «organic wine» (according to the principle that «natural» alcohol is «not toxic», hahahaha). They are increasingly taking the place of vegetarian or wholegrain foods. Especially since merchants and stores renounced to the educational role which nevertheless was their basic trade in the 1970s...

It is therefore clear that we need a fundamental renewal of the ecologist movement, a return to its scientific and spiritual foundations. I do not know how this will happen, I just hope that nobody will try to put himself on the path of the stick.

Insertion of Humans into nature

This subchapter presents the general foundations of ecology, before considering more specific points.

Ecological insertion

As seen above, the human species has no special prerogatives. Thus invading or destroying nature is a new kind of colonization, even a genocide. Or both combined: an ecocide.

In reality, it is possible to live in many places, as long as we do not destroy them. The trick is not to impede the movements of animals or plants, and especially not to destroy their habitats or their resources. This is easy, as long as intensive human occupation (roads, constructions) remains a small percentage of the soils. Agricultural land necessarily takes up more space, which is why it must alternate with forests. Then the natural zones and the human habitat inter-penetrate each other, in the way we shall see in the sub-chapter «to live together». These forests can be used as a resource, provided we preserve their biodiversity and poetry.

For the same reasons, our bases of life, such as houses, small factories, collective places, must be made of natural materials, or which are easily recycled by nature: wood, brick, stone, adobe. Since these constructions are small, with few storeys, the materials do not need high performance. Some artificial materials are also possible, as long as they degrade naturally: lime, aircrete, expanded clay, glass wool (for recent industrial products, designed to be non-inhalable and biosoluble, which can therefore be considered as «organic»).

An advantage of having easily recyclable homes is to avoid the accumulation of bad vibrations (Chapter V-17), after people have been sick or dying. Indeed, a house made of natural materials cannot really be cleansed or disinfected. Recycling then plays this function.

Since high tech products, or non-biodegradable products, are limited to specific uses, they are easy to recover for recycling, when the houses reach their end of life. This would allow for an industry based on a quasi-infinite recycling of different metals and elements, instead of stupidly basing it on soon exhausted mines.

Basic metallurgy can work with metal alloys such as silumin (silicon-aluminum), which can be produced from clay, that is everywhere, without mines. These alloys have interesting properties, while being light weight, which would allow to build trains, cars and ships. They are also suitable for 3D printing, allowing for decentralized production.

 

All this is of course possible only if the human species regulates its own population. Problem, we are right now in a time of severe overpopulation, which pushes to destroy more and more natural environments. There is an urgent need to intensify research on contraception, female AND male (chapter VI-5) and to criminalize any form of natalist propaganda or «population denial».

The integration of the economy

The preceding subchapter leads to a rigorous conclusion: human economic cycles are part of ecological cycles. There is nothing wrong with that, on the contrary: it is to ignore it which leads to catastrophes, and must be criminalized. Thus, there can be no open economic cycle: mine → use → landfill, due to the depletion of resources and the accumulation of waste. All economic cycles must therefore be conceived as closed: recycling → use → recycling. However, depending on the case, this recycling can happen either in factories or through the natural ecology cycles. Also:

-Resources must all be renewable. And they will soon all be, since the mines are already well used, or even for some almost exhausted.

-Raw materials must be completely recycled, especially limited resources, such as metals, rare elements, etc.

-Otherwise, it is possible to leave in nature the materials likely to be integrated or decomposed: stone, wood, organic waste and excrement, etc. The right way to do this is to promote their integration or decomposition, for example with composts, ponds, etc.

-The trace elements must also be in closed circuit, under penalty of totally exhausting our food resources in a few centuries. Especially, the phosphorus crisis could reduce the human population by force, to less than a billion. This involves the complete recycling in fertilizers of all the wastes from farming, forestry, carpentry, food wastes, excrement, ashes, and even cadavers (which will have to be composted or incinerated).

As long as we remains in egocentric economy, it will be needed to impose taxes or deposits on scarce resources. Or on resources which weigh on ecology, for example a forest clearing tax, or the famous carbon tax. Of course, these taxes must be used to fund depollution or protection activities which cannot be funded by the companies.

We must think that, nature may be part of the economic cycles, but it cannot be paid in money, nor it can sign contracts. Therefore it is up to us to protect its interests, and especially to pay our debts. Before it comes itself to be reimbursed...

The human, aesthetic and spiritual aspect

The two preceding points make sense only if the human aspect is respected: we need contact with nature, in a rich and beautiful nature. Humans need nature to fulfil their spiritual potential, or simply to be happy. In a symmetrical way, nature also needs the Humans to go beyond its miserable or cruel aspects (see the future Ecological Earth).

Personally, my first realizations were in the beautiful spring nature. I think that, facing nature in bloom, we must do it on purpose to avoid realizing the beauty of life and the petty artificiality of our disputes.

This implies an aesthetic integration of human constructions and activities in nature, in a relatively discrete way for everyday activities. It is of course possible to have more visible constructions for temples, or other special cases with an aesthetic significance.

This also implies an as free as possible access to nature:

-Paths and passages in particularly interesting places. It must be possible to walk many kilometres while seeing only nature, and especially hearing only nature.

-Discretion and absence of noise

-Absence of dangerous animals (see how to proceed in the sub-chapter on the future Ecological Earth).

On this last point I want to acknowledge the immense privilege I had in my life, to be able to walk freely anywhere in nature (at least in France) without any risk of this kind. Especially the last wolves disappeared in the 1950s, the years of my birth (the last was in my department, it is said), and they are only beginning to reappear today. I realize that this privilege is probably unique in the history of mankind, to be able to enjoy a completely safe and benign nature.

Well, to temper this remark, I also lived in a place which was infested with vipers for a whole season. But we had made the «pact of the Indians» of mutual non-aggression, and absolutely nothing bad happened: nobody... walked on a viper.

-The previous point has a mandatory consequence: prohibition of hunting and other sadistic practices.

Today, very few people depend on hunting for their survival. The necessary adaptations can therefore be made easily.

 

But, more than to protect, it is needed to magnify nature itself, as if it was a garden: variety and interest of trees, flowers, fruits, etc. This work of course makes more sense near inhabited places or paths, but it can be useful also in pristine nature, or in particularly interesting places.

Indeed the Human needs the beauty and silence of nature, for his own development: the beautiful nature produces Prana (chapter V-5) and spiritual inspiration.

Transforming nature into a huge garden will undoubtedly be an exciting job, and the most achieved form of art. Close to the houses, this will rather be a physical work, harmonization and maintenance of gardens and paths. But in the wilderness, it will be rather a meditation work. Indeed, I have observed that nature is quite receptive to our efforts in this field, which translate into more beauty and harmony.

Organic food

Organic food is today the privileged access point of the majority toward the bases of ecology.

The notion of organic food appeared in the 1920s (hygienist movements), in response to the appearance of toxic pesticides and of a «modern» lifestyle favouring many diseases: obesity, cancers, addictions, etc.

The principle of organic food is therefore simple: to abstain from toxic pesticides. But it is also spiritual (vibrations and beauty of food, prana, contact with nature), botanical (relationships between plants) microbiological (functioning of humus) and dietary (complete and balanced food, fulfilling the needs of the body, without excess or unbalancing «refining»).

These principles were gathered in the «standards» of organic farming, during the 1950s and 1960s. The problem, however, was the frequent denial of science among activists, which prevented them from justifying their recommendations through dietary, toxicological or medical studies or facts. Hence the only known definition of organic food: «natural» products. Thus, following this basic defect, the specifications were conceived as simple collections of dogmas, without reference to the underlying scientific principles which justify them.

For a long time, this situation did not seemed problematic. But in 2016 (date of writing this chapter) it becomes rapidly a severe issue: in the face of new scientific data, or new claims, there is nobody left to determine which is the good organic practice! All the more that now the standards are no longer managed by activists, but by government bodies, as a simple «label» or a trade name.

-Proliferation of snake oil powders in organic shops, anti-waves filters and others, while the useful bases (wholegrain bread, virgin oils) are depleted in proportion

-Denigration of alternatives to meat (soy, seitan, quinoa, wholegrain bread)

-Denigration of aspartame, female contraceptives, etc.

-Unreasonable alternatives to house insulation, based on meat by-products (wool), replacing glass wool falsely accused of being «carcinogenic».

-Organic pastries, but as much overloaded with fats and sugars than their «chemical» counterparts.

-Creation from nothing of pure scams such as the «gluten-free»: since the so-called symptoms of «gluten poisoning» include all the benign ailments associated with digestion, it is easy to make naive people believe that they are «intolerant to gluten», and thus create from scratch a very lucrative «market», which has nothing to do with organic food, but which parasites its stores and its reputation. In fact, if the gluten was toxic, the pyramid builders and the Roman legions would never have existed.

-The GMOs as presented today show three serious dangers (toxicity, risk of ecological imbalance, dependence of the farmers), which justifies their prohibition without nuances. (The dangers of genetic engineering will be studied in chapter VI-15) However, it is possible to design GMOs without any of these dangers. For example grafting the colour system of bird feathers on cotton would produce intrinsically beautiful fibres (therefore spiritual), totally non-toxic, eliminating the highly polluting dyes industry. Thus the only argument which would remain to deprive ourself of such a marvel would be that it is «not natural» (or eugenic, we shall see this point a little further).

This naturalism sometimes poses some curious claims: the body would be unable to assimilate «mineral» substances, and all the more less «chemical» ones. In fact, it does it very well, for most micronutrients, starting with salt. But this belief allows for an entire parasite industry of costly fake medicine, which succeeds passing tricks such as selling calcium (stone) more expensively than gold, and in addition in «homeopathic» quantities which makes such products useless. In an organic store one day I was actually proposed such a product, which is strictly speaking a fake drug, and thus a dangerous crookery.

 

It is urgent to end up with these tricks, before organic food becomes a kind of astrology, and to return to the scientific bases of toxicology and dietetics, as well as the spiritual bases of non-violence (vegetarianism) and prana (food quality)

Indeed, like other forms of serious ecology, organic food is based on proven scientific knowledge: toxicity (often cumulative) of pesticides and certain additives, food balance (dietetic), harmfulness of certain processing methods («refining», in reality impoverishment, elimination of mouldy taste in order to use low-quality products).

The bases of organic food are now well known: wholegrain bread and grains, virgin oils, protein supplements based on soy or seitan, etc. These bases result from a scientific analysis of the various needs of the needs of the Human body (dietetic), versus the effects of various pollutions (toxicology).

 

Ideally an organic day contains:

-In the morning: wholemeal bread (or boiled grains, muesli, etc.), with vegetable pasta high in protein (seitan, soy, quinoa, lupine, etc.)

-Lunch: salads, cereals associated with legumes, vegetables and protein supplements (seitan, soy, etc.) all cooked with water or steam.

-In the evening: a light meal (to sleep well. If you are overweight, it is even recommended to do without), vegetables, soups.

-At all times, except immediately after the meals: fruit.

-The meal stops when we begin to feel satiety, not when it becomes painful.

-Children have a more complete meal in the evening, and a more gourmet snack between friends, without excess of fat or sugar.

-No refined foods (white bread, industrial oil) or unbalanced (fatty cakes, meat)

-No drugs, including no alcohol or tobacco.

-Infants are breastfed at regular time, and weaned gradually by offering them other staple foods (cereals and vegetables). They do not need «special» foods (small pots, etc.), and can take the same thing as us. Just prepare them in the form of soups as long as they cannot chew.

-It may be necessary to bring certain trace elements or vitamins: generic, iodine, calcium, magnesium, B12 vitamin, etc. Take medical advice for prolonged or intensive cure, or for certain vitamins which excess is dangerous (D). Most of these products can without problems be «chemical»: they have exactly the same effects.

-Overweight people have no other resource than to restrict their calories: skip meals, or even whole days. Prefer non-sugar sweeteners. Avoid fat, and prefer sugars or carbohydrates (dry diet, or xerophagic). The reason is that the body can use its reserves of fat to make the muscles work, but it cannot easily convert them in sugar, to power the brain. Hence the weakness that we feel after some days of fasting. The diet without fat but with sugars solves this problem, and allows to hold for months. However we need to have pauses, as a lack of fat is dangerous for the nervous system. But above all we need to reduce the size of the meals, in order to decrease the size of the stomach.

 

This was for the scientific basis of the diet. But there are also spiritual bases:

 

-The meals take place in a positive and relaxed atmosphere, without television or negative discussions. Whether it is with family, friends or colleagues, they must be a place of respect, neutral to the current issues, and an opportunity to exchange positive energies (chapter V-17).

-Foods are prepared to enhance and harmonise their tastes, colours and aromas, in order to preserve Prana and contact with nature.

-The well developed sense of Prana goes well beyond the mere pleasure: it informs us about our needs, and about the quality of our food. For example, forced fruits, without vitamins, have no Prana. With a little training, we feel it very well: we feel no pleasure in eating them, we must even force ourselves. This is even not «spiritual»: it is simply our body which informs us of what it needs, through pleasure or disgust. It is to think at something else, instead of listening to it, which is madness.

-We should all have a garden, with at least our spices and flowers, ideally our vegetables.

-Practices of prayer or thanking nature before a meal helps to anchor oneself into the reality of our belonging to the ecosystem.

 

All this is pointing at an art of living in harmony with nature and with others, in a search for beauty and high vibrations. We shall discuss this in Chapter VI-9.

 

It should also be pointed at that pesticides are a major source of chemical pollution, diseases and cancers, and for some, a serious risk of biodiversity loss. Some need to be urgently forbidden, others need to be quickly replaced by alternatives. The methods of organic farming make it possible to do without. This certainly brings additional work, but farmers appreciate being less dependent on inputs. Just that this additional work, in the order of 20%, does not justify twice higher prices in stores!

The energy transition

While many chemical pollution and sound pollutions require urgent solutions, energy has attracted a special attention, from two specially serious problems:

-Nuclear industry, which threatens our genetic heritage (the appearance over the centuries of many recessive genetic diseases, in addition to the cancers and leukaemia that we already observe today). In more of the several millions years of work to look at the wastes.

-Fossil energies, polluting (sulphur, acid rain) and especially responsible for greenhouse effect and global warming.

Note that there is a graduation of the risks of fossil energies:

-Coal, of chemical formula C, is 100% carbon and very rich in sulphur, not to mention the horror of the mine.

-Oil, of generic formula CH2, is less rich in carbon and sulphur.

-Methane, of chemical formula CH4, is the least rich in carbon, and zero in sulphur, which makes it the best choice while waiting for the green energies. To be noted that shale gas, or fracking, is methane too. Yet it is probably the worse of all fossil fuels: destruction of watertables, and their poisoning by fracking fluids, which composition is not kept secret at random.

-The winner, however, is hydrogen sulfide, which, once neutralized, produces pure hydrogen. But these deposits are rare and dangerous to extract.

On the other hand, there is no nuclear power which would be proved less dangerous (Thorium also produces long-lived wastes, and fusion produces an enormous neutron flux which makes the structure radioactive. We hear of aneutronic fusion, but it is still more distant than classical fusion).

 

These dangers are serious enough to reduce the world's population, and even to threaten the existence of Humanity. Therefore, to oppose the solutions is a crime against Humanity, more serious than the Nazi Holocaust. Yet this is what many politicians and lobbyists of madness are doing, altogether known as «climate deniers». These imbecilities actually delayed the solutions by nearly 20 years (The definitive proof of climate change was provided around 1998 by drilling in polar ice showing the clear correlation between temperature and CO2, the whole published by Greenpeace), before finally, the first serious international agreement, the COP21 (2015).

The climate deniers made us lose 20 years, which probably translates into tens of millions of deaths, a decaShoah. Not counting of course the hundreds of billions of additional financial costs. All this for a transition which otherwise would be near complete now. History will remember you, dudes.

 

Solutions to energy problems are of several kinds:

-Energy savings

-Alternative energies, or green energies.

-Different modes of storage and distribution.

 

I am proud to present here a scientifically and technically sound analysis, thanks to my study of thermodynamics, undertaken for this purpose in 1972.

 

Switching to «green» is not trivial, and requires a significant development work. Indeed, the terrestrial biosphere does not contain concentrated energy sources (this is the reason why coal and oil were used). It is therefore difficult to collect high power in a specific point, as can be done easily with coal or with a powerful electrical network.

The first point is therefore to move to a more distributed production of small but many units. This, on the consumption side, also leads to avoid large units, or only if necessary (which in this case involves a network to collect power).

The second point is to have more varied transportation and storage means: metal-sulphur or metal-air batteries, hydrogen, biofuels, ethanol, synthetic hydrocarbons, etc.

Remembering that today there is no really efficient mass storage of electricity itself, and that there is no predictable solution in the short-term. For this reason, electric car projects seem rather to stem out of fashion, or from people fortunate enough to impose their beliefs with millions of dollars. That such cars actually exist today should not delude us: their technical irrelevance translates into a high price (dependence on rare materials).

Note that I do not believe too much in hydrogen either, because it is cumbersome and dangerous. However, hydrogen produced by various processes (electrolysis, thermochemistry) can be easily combined with CO2 to produce more easily usable products: methanol and gasoline (which would not require adaptation of existing vehicles) or methane (which can be injected Directly into the gas pipes). Fuels obtained in this way are therefore as carbon neutral as pure hydrogen. The difficulty, however, is to concentrate the CO2 from the air, an expensive process. It is the American Navy which found the solution: it is much easier to separate the CO2 dissolved in seawater simply by passing it through a low pressure chamber. And in addition it cleans the oceans of this CO2 excess which seriously threatens it.

With regard to production or storage solutions, I list here the most well known, in decreasing order of availability. The first are ready therefore status to spread. The second ones work, but requires development, so status to develop. The third ones require to be validated by scientific studies, therefore status to study. This state of affairs dates from the end of 2016. The use of «I» indicates my contributions, theoretical or effective.

 

Offshore wind turbines (Wind turbines on Earth are limited, or vulnerable to crapouillous anti-ecology).

Status: to spread in emergency.

Supports: In progress. Ideological oppositions. It will be noted that the major oil and nuclear groups are beginning to understand, well before the political or financial ideologues, that oil and uranium reserves are coming to an end, and they are beginning to invest shyly in this field.

Photovoltaic. There is still a tendency to think that photovoltaics is only for small scale. This is not the case, and I illustrate it with one example: even in the north of France, lining the ten metres of empty space on either side of the TGV lines would provide power for 20 trains a day, with just a local storage, and the technologies available in 2016. And when we see in China, whole hills covered with photovoltaic cells, we understands that price is no longer really an obstacle either.

Status: to spread and develop urgently (yield and prices can still be improved).

Supports: ongoing.

It will be noted in France that the imbecile opposition of the public authorities against ecology cost us the bankruptcy of the national producers, which were the most advanced in the 1980s. So today we import cells from China. Well, in France, we have democracy ... but for how long, if we withdraw the means to defend it.

Thermal insulation of houses.

Status: to spread and to develop

Supports: ongoing. Public financial incentive policies. Pseudo-ecological prejudice against glass wool.

Biofuels. This expression can cover very different realities, from simple firewood (viable if the place provides forest surplus) to industrial products on a biological basis. The only problem is that these crops sometimes compete with food crops, which could force us to abandon meat and replace the cow meadows with energy crops. My proposal is to use cellulose, which is an infinitely more abundant raw material than vegetable oil, and available in many agricultural wastes or carpentry. Cellulose can be transformed into methanol, while residues can make excellent fertilizers.

Status: varied, to spread and develop urgently.

Support: variable, ideological oppositions.

Preferring rail to road, for goods transportation. Today this is mostly achieved by placing trucks on trains, which is not optimal. The best solution in none other than multimodal transportation using containers. Trucks are then used only for local servicing, the containers being loaded on trains in the stations. This can also be made with semi-trailers, but then we cannot pass on boats.

Statut: to spread urgently.

Support: still not enough, bureaucratic or ideological oppositions. A curious «detail» is that we sometimes find «ecologists» opposing train transport, for instance against the Lyon-Turin line. Indeed we find on the passage several habitats of threatened species: nationalists, retrograde naturalists, etc. Then wildlife crossing will be needed for these species.

Thermal solar energy.

Status: to spread in emergency.

Support: efforts, still insufficient.

Nocturnal electric storage The idea is to compensate for the irregularities of resources such as the sun or the wind, thanks to a daily electrical storage, if required by the user.

Status: to spread and develop urgently

Supports: insufficient. Initiatives available to individuals, but still expensive (eg the «Tesla Powerwall»)

Other daily energy storage Same as previous, but not under the form of electricity. The idea here is more to use the surplus solar electricity or wind electricity in favourable moments, for industrial processes which consume a lot of it (aluminium, zinc-air batteries) or to produce methane, methanol, oil, gasoline or jet fuel, which can be stored easily and do not require replacement of the existing distribution, machines, vehicles and industry.

Status: to spread and develop urgently

Supports: insufficient.

Decentralised production (Added October 30, 2017) Due to the dispersion of green energy sources, it is no longer possible to have large power plants. Thus we arrive at an industry network made of plenty of small production units, where the former power grid plays a lesser and more local role. Local minigrids are spreading. Even the scale economies of large plants are being superseded by the advantages of autoproduction and local independency.

Status: This new trend is just emerging (2017), and spreading spontaneously. First clues appeared about 2015 with large Internet companies creating their own electricity plants. Now small companies rent roofs, so that anybody can become a producer.

Support: market structures and taxes are being adapted to the new deal. This is the best example of what to do.

Bioclimatic houses. The idea is to make the best use of natural temperature differences such as sun, shade, etc. with playing on the orientation and shape of the houses. This also includes the aesthetic integration in nature (trees, gardens ...)

Status: to spread and develop urgently

Supports: very inadequate. This is more a problem of will than of financing, the extra cost being low.

Electric cars. It is false to say that an electric car would be «non-polluting»: it depends on the source of this electricity, nuclear, fossil or green. Electricity only deports pollution! Moreover, battery technology is still very expensive, and it is unlikely to improve (reliance on rare materials). However, I note that there is a much cheaper solution: zinc-air non-rechargeable batteries (or aluminium-air, less developed). Such batteries would take the place of the fuel tank, without being more bulky. But above all, they have a considerable advantage over gasoline and other batteries: in case of an accident, they cannot catch fire. The production of these batteries can use the peak energy of wind turbines or solar power plants, resulting in a much better overall efficiency. Certain thermochemical cycles using zinc could be used directly to recycle the latter and remake new batteries.

(Added on August 2017) Since I wrote the above, emerged a political will, and even an industrial will (Volvo), to eliminate vehicles with internal combustion engines, within twenty to thirty years. Good, but the above technical constrains remains true: this objective cannot be met if we do not fund today the development of technologies to achieve it at an affordable price for all. Indeed, an all-electric car is simpler than a petrol car, thus it should be cheaper: $6,000 for a petrol car with 700kms autonomy, compared to $30,000 today with 150kms autonomy: a factor 20 to grab! And this without dependence on rare materials (lanthanum, lithium, etc.). Lithium may be replaced with potassium, much more available. Zinc-air batteries do not recharge, but they can be exchanged or refilled at stations. We also have fuel cells, for which research is still needed, especially for solid electrolytes at low temperature.

Status of zinc-air batteries: to be developed.

Supports: insufficient

Desertec project The idea is to use the solar energy of the Sahara to power Europe, via submarine cables in direct current, joining its robust high power distribution networks. Technically and financially, this is quite plausible. The main problem, however, is political: this project may turn into a recolonization of the concerned countries. Therefore a clear fair trade contract is essential, from the onset. Another problem is the political instability of some of the concerned regions, which may delay projects for a long time, or involve European countries in local conflicts or in dictatorship complicity. The Nour solar thermal plant in Ouarzazate, Morocco, can be considered as the first element of the project, although Morocco probably absorbs all the production itself.

Status: to be spread (a pragmatic approach in small steps is foreseen)

Support: still insufficient.

In France, offshore energy plants. From the incompetence of the successive governments, France faces a specific problem: the dependency on a pool of ageing nuclear plants, which can fail at any moment (if not exploding). However France (and many other countries) has vast continental shelves, allowing to quickly install, at low cost and without neighbouring problems, vast parks of intensive production of energy. In the urgency the basis can be wind energy or solar cells, with cables sending the energy to the network. In a second time, we can implement thermochemical plants, or use production spikes to make classical fuels, while extracting CO2 from the ocean.

Status: to implement in urgency.

Support: weak, some small scale public or private initiatives.

Public transport. Trains, carpooling, bus, bicycle, etc.

Status: to be developed urgently.

Supports: insufficient, sadomasochistic oppositions. My contribution here is that we need to accept that a line is not «profitable», but that the return on investment is made otherwise, directly to the user, as saved time or saved energy. This is called «public service», which fully justifies financing the «unprofitable» lines by taxes, instead of suppressing them and thus ruining whole places. To be noted that the «laws» forbidding states to fund private companies in this case are anti-ecological laws, and thus criminal laws which must be considered null.

Alternatives to the engine Beau de Rochas (Otto). In a classic car engine, when the exhaust valve opens, there still are five bars in the cylinder. This explains the noise, and is also a significant loss of energy. Many alternatives have been proposed to complete this truncated thermodynamic cycle, and for some developed: Atkinson cycle (several variants), Miller, 5-stroke, 6-strokes with steam, free piston, etc. Note that I also independently invented the Miller cycle and the 5-strokes cycle, but unfortunately, effectively patenting at an international level is not simple. Anyway these things are already patented, since... the nineteenth century!! The pseudo-Atkinson cycle is well known since the Toyota company used it on its Prius cars. The five-strokes cycle was developed by Ilmor, which has demonstrated its enormous advantages. It is quite amazing to hear a 5-strokes engine running: we hear all the mechanical noises, but not the traditional roar of the exhaust. But the most amazing is its consumption! All this for a compact device (unlike the Atkinson engine, which must be oversized), easy to build with existing processes.

Status: to spread emergency.

Supports: pigheaded ideological opposition of the automotive industry against ecology.

Aerothermal heat pump with enthalpy. This is my only thermodynamic calculation, lol. An aerothermal heat pump extracts heat from the ambient air, to heat a house with less energy (electric in this case). If the air itself is used as the working fluid, it can then be brought at low pressure, which cools it. A passage in a heat exchanger heats it again to room temperature. Once recompressed, this air is then warm enough to heat a room. But there is more: the air contains moisture, which will condense during the decompression, and therefore bring an additional heat (enthalpy of liquefaction of the water). My contribution is that such a system works well in cool and rainy weather, a common winter situation in many countries. But if it is too cold, then it is ice which forms.

Status: to develop, to spread.

Supports: none, as for everything I propose, ha ha ha!

Thermochemistry. The principle is to use a solar oven to decompose the water into hydrogen and oxygen. The trouble is that this decomposition occurs only at 2500°C, and we also need an mean to separate the gases produced before they recombine. I studied the possibility of a temperature-resistant ceramic oven, which would allow hydrogen to pass trough its wall, but not oxygen. A heat exchanger would recover the heat from the descending gases to heat the rising steam, while a vacuum pump would extract the hydrogen. Operating at low pressure would lower the required temperature to 2000°C. However, such an oven remains difficult, and so far untested. The laboratories are therefore working on indirect methods, called thermochemical cycles. Each has different advantages and disadvantages, but the lack of funding greatly hinders this area.

Status: to be developed urgently.

Supports: timid work in progress, official silence.

Limiting transportation. Bring closer working places and living places, use of more local resources, decentralization of shops and services, teleoperation of activities through virtual reality.

Status: to spread urgently.

Supports: very insufficient, ideological oppositions, sadomasochistic austerity, libertarianism. For example, in France, fashion is to the closure of small shops, local post offices, courts, etc. The «savings of public expenses» achieved by the state are much more expensive for the citizens than the corresponding tax savings. And in any case the taxes are not reduced, because they serve to pay the «debt» scam.

Carbon sequestration. refers to several different proposed methods for storing carbon or carbon dioxide:

- Plant trees or fight deforestation. Some think at this as a panacea, yet the efficiency is only temporary, since trees always end burning or rotting.

- Store CO2 in depleted gas reservoirs. As the previous, it is still a temporary measure, although at a longer scale. The problem here is rather the risk of leakage (slow or catastrophic). The least caution is to add methyl mercaptan to make the stored CO2 detectable by human senses.

- Pyrolysis of wood or of fossil fuels (oil, methane) allows to recover the hydrogen fraction, and store the carbon fraction as coke, tar, etc. This storage is safe, under water to avoid combustion.

- Fixation of CO2 into carbonates. This process is used in spaceships or submarines, to remove the CO2 from breathable air. Some kinds of volcanic magma naturally convert in carbonate rocks. The point here is to find a cost-effective process. The resulting products are totally safe, and can be used as building stone, and perhaps as cement. The required calcium can be obtained from some kinds of clays, when using them as a source of silumin metal.

Status: to be developed, to be studied.

Supports: not enough

(Added June 2017) Climeworks offers a new system for direct extraction of CO2 from the air, thanks to an amine filter which absorbs CO2 (a process commonly used in industry to purify gasses). This CO2 is recovered by heating the filter. This company claims to be able to recover a substantial share of the CO2 from the air at an acceptable cost, at least for the local uses of the extracted CO2.

Aerothermal. An aerothermal plant uses the draft in a giant tower, as in a chimney, to operate a turbine. There are variants, mainly the tower, the downdraft and the vortex. The financial aspect would be similar to that of a nuclear power plant (But there are far fewer neurotics to frantically impose their use everywhere!). The disadvantage is the large size of the facilities, which keeps them for deserts and oceans.

Status: to be developed, to be studied.

Supports: almost zero, official silence. An experiment in Spain has shown the feasibility.

Fuel cells as night storage, or directly as a vehicle engine.

Status: to be developed, to be studied.

Supports: insufficient.

Low-Temperature Solid Electrolytes These fuel cell components operate only at high temperatures, which is problematic for a vehicle. Research is being done for substitutes at room temperature, but we are dependent on fortuitous finds.

Status: to be developed, to be studied.

Supports: scientific or technological research.

Algae Genetically modified algae could massively produce hydrocarbons, alcohol, or other substances, from simple crops in ponds. The advantage would be a local production easily appropriated without technology. I warn however that the arrival of such algae in nature will cause a catastrophe, for example to cover the ocean with oil, or to cause a devastating greenhouse effect. For this reason, these algae must not be able to live in natural habitats. This requirement makes them far less appropriable. In any case, algae massively producing hydrocarbons must also have an important source of CO2, more than the normal atmosphere: seawater, or sewage (which would double the treatment of water with production of energy).

Status: to be studied, evaluated

Supports: scientific or technological research. Risk of investor scams.

Superconductors Superconductors at ambient temperatures would not only improve the operation of existing machines, but they would allow for entirely new ones, which would revolutionize energy and other areas: trains, cars and bicycles with magnetic levitation, linear motors, inertial energy storage, lossless mechanical converters, etc. Research is being done, but we are dependent on fortuitous finds.

Status: to be studied, evaluated

Supports: major scientific or technological research

 

Here I quote some FALSE SOLUTIONS:

-Theronuclear fusion. Unless fortuitous discovery, the fusion remains dependent on extremely expensive machines, massively generating nuclear waste by neutron irradiation, and of which the feasibility is not demonstrated. For example, neutrons escaping through the cover are still enough to heat the superconducting coils, which however must be cooled at very low temperatures. Moreover, plasma inevitably produces violent instabilities, which can destroy the reactor and create large quantities of radioactive elements. 50 years of intensive research even not allowed to understand how these instabilities appear. Fusion is what engineers call an «ideological development», forced by unrealistic politicians.

-Free energy (chapter VII-5) and perpetual motion are impossible. So we can wonder what is the purpose of the massive amplifying disinformation on this topic.

-Animal traction and Human effort are not «sources of energy»: the energy comes from the food, and thus from the fields. This brings these processes to the case of inefficient biofuels, and would significantly aggravate the inconvenience of the latter: to divert food resources. A common analysis is that Antiquity missed the Industrial Revolution because of slavery.

-A new physics remains entirely speculative.

-Solar stations in orbit sending their energy to the ground via lasers would also be terrible weapons, and for this reason they will probably be prohibited.

The lesson here is to be satisfied with what nature offers us, which is already much more than what we really need to live happily on our planet.

 

Living together

The economic or industrial aspect is by far not enough to define Human society, which also has social, aesthetic and spiritual aspects. Human society even finds its determinants in the latter, whereas economics and technology are only utilitarian. Moreover, these various problems are exacerbated by the current severe overpopulation, which requires to take more care of a closer neighbourhood, and therefore to make a special effort to avoid to hinder others or to be hindered.

 

In a general way, we need nature: the habitat must therefore be integrated in it. This condemns the current cities, especially multiple storey habitat. Everyone must have at least some trees, a garden, and the opportunity to walk in forests or on natural paths. The ideal habitat is therefore houses dispersed in nature.

To this must be added the necessities of traffic: the vehicles must be able to reach these houses, but also the animals must be able to move without having to cross humanized zones or approach too close to houses, factories or roads. Pedestrian and bicycle paths must also cross all this safely. These requirements call for a more of less fractal organization of space, in which the two communities can inter-penetrate and travel freely without interfering. The crossing points then use covered passages or even tunnels (wildlife crossings, 45°42'21"N 2°41'47"E) to allow animals to cross roads and tracks without interfering with them. It must be understood that a TGV or a highway surrounded by fences is a deadly cut through any ecosystem, if there are no wide and close enough passages.

 

Another form of frequent annoyance is noise: a highway breaks any poetry in a several kilometres wide corridor. Especially since they seem to be built purposely in natural areas. (By economy, I shall be told. But what economy is this, to renounce any meaning of life, just to pay a little less. Such decisions are visibly taken by totally de-realized people, without thought or emotion). There are, however, simple solutions:

-Five-stroke engine, of an amazing silence, because it recovers the energy of the noise.

-Best silencers, and hand garden tools.

-Fiber or foam in the tires, to avoid them to resonate like a drum skin.

 

Neighborhood noise is also a considerable discomfort, especially unnecessary cries, televisions, lawn mowers, noisy vehicles and noisy sound systems. This frequently goes as far as torture by sleep deprivation (it happened to me several times). This also prohibits meditation and the reception of poetry. It is clear that laws against such lack of care must be tightened, and effective remedies must be sought to put an end to them, without allowing for retaliation. In the present conditions of severe overpopulation, it is not possible to put a kilometre between each house, and the noise is a... screaming example where the individual «freedom» must fade before the freedom of others. Not to mention that the effort required is very minimal: today we have excellent headphones and portable devices, which allow everyone to listen to the music he wants, where he wants, without hampering others.

There is no need either for borborygmal music or distressing information in waiting rooms or supermarkets.

 

The current severe overcrowding also imposes truly effective contraceptives (Chapter VI-5) and the criminalization of natalist propaganda. Even without overpopulation, contraception is the indispensable guarantee of the sexual freedom of everybody, without having to resort to horrors such as abortion. In a world where food and health care are abundant, there are no other means of regulating the population.

More generally, the very notion of ecological balance requires that the population in each place is limited to what the local ecology can support. The exact limit depends on the level of technology or how we fit into nature, but inevitably there is a moment where having more people increases problems rather than solving them, or it makes life together more difficult, from more occasions to embarrass or to limit each other.

The ecological society

The spiritual foundations of ecology involves quite specific types of political or social organization:

-A society of freedom, where people can express varied styles and activities, without being forced or prevented by arbitrary or centralized powers.

 

-The preceding point harmonizes with the ethical foundations at the beginning of this sixth part, and with the meaning of life seen in chapter V-5: ecological society is non-violent, based on mutual aid, mutual respect, spirituality, the search for beauty and happiness.

 

-Add to this the notions of chapter VI-3: avoiding dependencies, by self-sufficiency.

 

We thus arrive at an organization in communities of various sizes, intertwined in each other, in a fractal structure, as seen in chapter VI-8 on economics. (In this chapter the word «community» must be understood in its general sense, as a group of individuals assembled according to a criterion of place, people, culture, activity... The notion of community of life, like people living under the same roof, as developed in the 19th century and illustrated by the hippies, is also possible, but not indispensable. This chapter does not specifically refers to this kind of community, but it does not exclude it either.)

 

Each person can thus be a part of a local community, but also of several cultural or ethnic communities. These communities can range in size from one household to a whole country. Local communities are linked to a place, and they bring together all the people who live there. Cultural or ethnic communities are not necessarily linked to a place; on the contrary, they can bring together people who are dispersed geographically, or in virtual world. But it remains desirable that each one has a place somewhere, where to express without neighbouring constraints.

 

There also is a wide variety of goals and ways of seeing things, among these overlapping communities: a local community can bring together a great diversity of cultural, racial or spiritual diversity. Or, on the contrary, a community with a very precise definition can be represented globally.

 

Whether it is for the satisfaction of economic needs or for political decisions, each community is independent and self-sufficient for the most local or basic affairs. Then, as the stakes involve more people, and more diverse people, there is a network of fractal structure, which we will see in more detail in chapter VI-8 on economics: each issue affects more people, but it is more specialized, and therefore the dependence diminishes in proportion. Thus, each scale remains the human scale, where the advantages balance the disadvantages in an almost constant rate (a consequence of the principle of scale independence of fractals).

 

Ecological society thus imitates natural ecosystems in its organization. However, it goes further: the stakes of the human mind require more communication and more means than what nature alone offers. We understands that basic life must be relatively frugal with low technology (houses in bricks, wood, adobe...). But on the other hand there is no taboo on high technology and the possibilities that they offer, which complement the simplest means: Internet, travels, virtual worlds, science, space exploration, and so on. In fact, high technology and natural life are only two non-dual means, that each one of us will use in the proportion he desires, to accomplish his goals or to live his life. The only hard limit is that none of the two must come at the expense of the other.

 

Ecological society is also a society of solidarity: no one should be left behind. This implies an adapted organization, so that everybody can find his or her place and participate meaningfully. Of course young children, disabled or old people cannot take part in an useful activity, but then their care is organized in such a way as to allow them an as pleasant and meaningful life as possible. Everyone must have a place at the table, but also a place in the hearts of others! This begins with organized and instituted material care, in order to prevent this burden to fall on somebody precisely.

Example: not everyone can give nursing. But if this care is organized by people who accept this task, then they are no longer a source of problems for others.

Example: today computer programming is often done by engineers for engineers. For an ordinary person, receiving a simple email can be an obstacle course, and a person with poor eyesight will usually be unable to read the tiny characters on the screen. It is clear that a true appropriation of the Internet requires simple software, which does not need to know by telepathy a whole lot of complex things.

 

The causes which produce disputes, laziness, criminality or fascism will not cease to exist simply with a more ecological industry. These things are to be addressed by education and psychoeducation (chapter V-12). This is why an ecological society is also a society of instruction, education (teaching of the bases of spirituality and psychoeducation in schools, chapter V-7), communication (travels, Internet, which imposes high technology at least in these areas) and spirituality (psychoeducation, better understanding of non-Aristotelian human issues).

But even with a good education, laziness and crime may not disappear completely. We then need clear laws and effective means to enforce them: police and courts. And if we want to avoid the usual misappropriations of these functions, then we need precise objectives and a spiritual formation for their agents. I know, traditional ecologists hate spirituality as much as cops. But a worker who refuses to use his tools, we call this a slug or a liar.

 

Today, more and more of the politicians who claim to be ecologists, have narrow spiritual or cultural views (sometimes even dangerous: antiscience, drugs, gender studies, etc.) These views bode ill for a society under their leadership, which is more likely to be a return to feudalism. Spirituality and the search for beauty (chapter VI-9), on the contrary, lead to a free, happy and enthusiastic society, where so many things become possible: everybody can develop the culture, goals and lifestyles he wants, set a propitious place, migrate wherever he wants to meet people in the same mindset, unless the encounter takes place in virtual worlds offering even more freedom.

 

In conclusion, a society which would simply be «green», would often be merely a return in the past. On the contrary, a society which accepts all the values connected to ecology: science, spirituality, non-violence, psychoeducation, beauty, harmony, this society can realize our wildest dreams, idyllic life in a flowery glen, space exploration, or the conquest of the highest spiritual achievements.

 

It will be noted that in this subchapter I never quoted any words such as «Social Security», «administration», «country», etc. It is not that I am against these things, but they are only one way among many others to organize our lives. Today these things exist, imperfect certainly, but useful. To remove them suddenly, in a sort of «Green» Grand Evening, would certainly eliminate their disadvantages. But if people are not sufficiently psychoeducated to ensure by themselves an effective replacement for these things, then suppressing them would lead to a gross return to the Middle Ages. Especially, replacing something like Family Allowances and Social Security implies replacing also the taxes which allow for them to exist, by an equivalent amount of altruistic work, given without return to strangers. It is precisely the inability to tackle these kinds of needs which led to the failure of all the communities, from the 19th century to the hippies. Things are therefore much more likely to happen (and to succeed) in a more progressive way, as people become effectively more altruistic, through psychoeducation, and through a culture which promotes altruism and social responsibility, instead of denigrating them.

To give an idea, my study on an altruistic economy has shown that a relatively low percentage of altruism, 20 to 30% of our available resources given to the most deprived, is enough to eliminate social inequalities. (In fact much less, since we also receive from other altruists). But it also shown another result that I did not noticed at the time: solidarity taxes considerably reduce the necessary altruistic effort, to the point that we are not far from the point of no return where people can directly see the effects of altruism. Removing these taxes would increase the threshold again, and would in fact considerably delay the advent of an altruistic society. I hope this is not the ultimate goal of the sadomasochist austerity policies.

The future ecological Earth

This is probably the area where we move the further away from traditional ecologists. They want to preserve and protect. Which is very good, and indispensable, in front of all the current threats and insanities. However, classical ecosystems, and traditional human societies, are often ugly and cruel: degradation, predation, parasitism, hunting, meat and meat farms, diseases, toxic plants, dangerous animals, etc. The problem which then appears is the dogmatic naturalism of some traditional ecologists, which makes them accept all these things, without any will to change them. In any way, even ecology is not exempted from obeying to logic, and the predictable oscillations in the quadrupole diagram (chapter I-4) may soon give some lessons.

 

Until recently, little could be done to change the organic and natural world, by lack of means to change it, and above all from lack of consensus on the direction of a possible change. However, we saw in Chapter V-5 that life has an objective and a meaning, accessible to our understanding, from which we can deduce an ethic, equally objective and scientific, chapter VI-2. This can lead to understandable goals for directing the evolution of life and of the biosphere.

In addition, new technical means are also appearing: genetic manipulations (GMOs) and methods of eugenics.

These means indeed open the possibility of modifying the biosphere, to make the lives of its inhabitants much more happy and interesting.

 

Traditional ecologists refuse these means, considering the very real risks of accident or irresponsible use (racial selection, sexual slaves, and I omit the best). On the other hand, some political or business circles see this as especially Orwellian means of strengthening their power, while some dehumanized «transhumanists» push in force the craziest and most disturbing fantasies. (This chapter does not describe in details the inconveniences and dangers of eugenism, which yet cannot be ignored. Then they will be presented in details in chapter VI-15)

 

In these circumstances, to remain silent on the goals is more likely to favour abusive use of the means. Thus, even if we do not want to do anything, it is essential to discuss the direction to be given to the control of ecosystems and the evolution of the Human race (eugenics): at any moment a new discovery may open unexpected means, or even to impose eugenics (Nuclear industry is already in this case, as it imposes a filtering of the genetic diseases that it created). It is better then, at this time, to have a ready ethical response, rather than having to «debate» again against irresponsible lobbies. Fortunately, the results of the chapters of the sixth part on consciousness, give guidelines which are finally precise enough, while their scientific character should make them consensual. But they also give very precise information on the methods that we are allowed to use or not. Let's see by theme.

 

-Eliminate diseases. Many efforts have already been made in this direction. Smallpox has thus been eliminated, and several other serious diseases are in the process of being eliminated soon by the suppression of the corresponding microbes. In other cases, biological control is used to eradicate particularly dangerous insects, like the horrible screwworm, or the mosquitoes carrying so many diseases. However, not all diseases can be eliminated in this way, as some bacteria are naturally present in the soil, such as tetanus, where they play a role. In this case, it would be better for genetically modified Humans to adapt to this disease, which would then no longer be a problem.

 

-Eliminate predation and parasitism. To depend for one's survival on the suffering of other beings is probably the dirtiest trick that inert matter played to consciousness. However, evolved predators are conscious beings, and so they cannot be exterminated. But disadvantaging their reproduction would lead them to extinction without pain. This idea of eliminating species is arguably shocking, but the only better solution would be to convert predatory species to vegetarian feeding and non-aggressive behaviours. But this is complicated: they would need special foods to cope with their atrophied carnivorous intestines, or modifications of the species themselves. But what about a panther with a cow belly to digest grass? It would no longer be a panther. Waiting for better solutions, we can still keep their genomes in computer databases, for future resuscitation in better conditions, or for the recovery of particular genes. (Added October 30, 2017: 3D printing of bodies could solve this problem, especially with creating brains which connectome would be liberated from these cruel instincts)

 

-The GMOs as imposed today present three serious dangers (toxicity, risk of ecological imbalance, dependence of the farmers), which justifies their ban without nuances. (The dangers of genetic engineering will be studied in chapter VI-15) However, it is possible to design GMOs without any of these dangers. For example grafting the colour system of birds on cotton would produce intrinsically beautiful (therefore spiritual) fibres, totally non-toxic and safe, eliminating the polluting dyes industry. Thus the only remaining argument to deprive ourself of this marvel would be that it is «not natural» (or eugenic, see a bit further).

 

-Better foods. There is today no ideal plants for feeding. Genetic engineering would create rich, easy-to-grow foods. For example, Jerusalem artichokes could easily feed a family in autarky, with little work. But it is indigestible, as it contains inulin instead of starch. To replace this inulin with starch would be a simple genetic modification, without any danger, and fantastically useful (unless we add an enzyme to the human body, to enable us to digest the inulin. But this is more risky, because the enzyme may have unexpected effects). We can even simply add the enzyme as a spice! So as long as we are there, let us add more proteins and vitamins, and once this done, let us live happy just with growing our garden, like Candide.

 

-A more beautiful world. This work is actually started by some animals, for tens of millions of years. But our technical means can accelerate it by millions of times. Thus we can favour flowered species, and eliminate brambles, toxic or invading plants. But also, genetically modified Humans could eliminate obesity, bad body odours, have firmer breasts, more diversified skin or hair colours, be more resistant to cancer, eliminate genetic diseases, and so on.

 

-Ecological balances without violence. Many people justify the fascist predation by the need to regulate the populations of the different species. But this argument does not hold: some species might proliferate to resist predators. The very idea that natural ecosystems are regulated is misleading: we have this impression, because we have only a very brief overview of it, some decades. At a millennium scale, relations of domination could change in a chaotic way, as for our political parties. Some predators, such as the cats, even caused ecological disasters such as species extinctions.

However, there is no lack of regulation methods which do not pass through death or suffering (dying with being eaten or by starving). A precise example is the regulation of the koalas by the eucalyptus: when these trees are grazed by the koalas, they synthesize a bitter taste, which forces the koalas to graze further, and thus avoids destroying the eucalyptus. In an Australia without large predators, many such regulations must exist.

The basic idea, however, is to play on reproduction. This radically eliminates all suffering, by favouring or preventing the appearance of individuals, instead of killing or starving them. Thus, if the resources are abundant, we reproduce. But if food is lacking, individuals become sterile. Refining: repeated contact with other species indicates competition. Genetically modified species could then react by moving away, passivity (contrary to aggression), and sterility. Thus, as long as the meetings are not too frequent, many species can coexist in a given place, and share resources without bothering. Another idea is that if several species have to share a resource, they have to work together to get it. Thus none is favoured or eliminated.

There is no shortage of such ideas in fiction:

-On the planet Vishdane, imagined by Marc Bati in the saga of Altor, the species collaborate and help each other without killing, and their number is controlled by a central authority. Even Humans have their number controlled by this authority.

-On the Aeoliah as I imagined it, bacteria and organisms of all sizes exchange chemical signals. So a potentially dangerous humus bacterium cannot attack a plant or a body, because it is inactivated by their chemical signals. In such an extend that the simple bodily fragrance of the Eolis makes their sheets impervious to rotting for several months.

-On LikEarth, the genetically modified organisms do not fight each other. For rabbits, useful crops have a terrible taste, and even the odour is sufficient to keep them away from the fields.

-On Typheren, the solution is even more radical: reproduction is entirely assumed by robots able to create bodies with 3D printers.

 

 

Human Eugenics. we cannot evacuate human eugenics under the only pretext that the nazis used this concept in a cruel and racist way. We can very well conceive a peaceful and beneficial eugenics, whether by its methods (select gametes instead of killing people) or by its objectives (making happiness easier, instead of racist delusions). There even is a new possibility appearing: to read the genomes by computer, edit them as with a word processor, and reconvert them into living DNA. This allows for an effective eugenics without any violence or constraint.

From an ethical or spiritual point of view, as we saw in Chapter V-5, there is no «divine message» which would prohibit us from doing these «unnatural» things. On the contrary, we even came to an amazing conclusion: it is up to us to realize the suggestions of the Transcendence! A fantastic program, provided however... that we do not think to be God ourself. (Re-read chapter V-5 carefully).

And above all, we must not mistake the direction. The Transcendence, as non-Aristotelian as it is, nevertheless has very precise requirements: happiness, freedom, peace, spirituality (the control of consciousness over the brain, which results in the elimination of neuroses and of the ego). It will instantly withdraw any support for any project which hurts any other being whatsoever. On the other hand, it leaves us totally free to choose our body forms (our races, therefore, and even our species), our artistic tastes (within well-defined limits, chapter VI-9), or options such as the amount of sex, of technology, etc.

 

We thus deduce the authorized purposes of Human engenics:

-Favour disease resistance

-Favour body beauty, body fragrances, etc.

-Make our bodies more comfortable to wear

-Longer life

-Creating more easily psychoeducable brains: control of violence, of submission, of neuroses, of the ego (These would even be highly recommended objectives), or to bring about the possibility of real choices for things like our level of sexual desire.

-To bring more racial diversity. Indeed, race is a matter of personal preference: there is no «ideal» or imposed race. We can even envision that Humanity would frankly evolve into several different species, as already seen in virtual worlds: Elves, pixies, etc.

 

But recent news have opened even more radical solutions than the selection of gametes: 3D printing of whole human bodies. Already the manufacturing of organs is envisioned, by depositing layers of cells, collagen, etc. And we can soon create an artificial skin to cure the burns. But the most radical benefit of 3D printing of living people would be the direct creation of psychoeducated people:

 

Spiritual eugenics. The main problems in our lives are not with the bodies, but with the brain. As seen in Chapter V-2, the brain, however fantastic and useful it is, is nonetheless a material object, and therefore as such it cannot directly access the good, or the purpose of Life, which are in the domain of consciousness. Only people who do the steps of Chapter V-3 can do it. In addition, this brain is naturally neurotic (Chapter V-12), which often leads to dangerous opinions, inappropriate feelings, and chaotic behaviour: everything we are used to call the evil. Thus this evil does not come from «satan», neither from some crooked theology, but it occurs when consciousness cannot control the material brain to apply its own purposes. It is as if we were drugged, in short.

The remedy for this situation is known for millennia: psychoeducation, traditionally presented by some religions in the form of methods of meditation and training. The modern form is not necessarily religious, but it uses exactly the same methods of training, to modify and cancel the neuroses. All these methods, whether «religious» or «modern», are based on what neurologists call neuronal learning (modification of the neuron connections, to eliminate evil feelings and neuroses, such as for instance racism).

The problem however with these methods is that they depend on a preliminary choice of the person... choice which would need to be already psychoeducated! Thus the process actually depends on fortuitous encounters, or particular experiences of consciousness. Hence its relative rarity.

So the temptation is great to modify the Human genome, in order to give brains which can be more easily psychoeducated (what I describe in my novels «Dumria») or even to directly 3D print brains with a psychoeducated connectome! (What I describe in my novel «Typheren»).

Of course such methods introduce many risks of error or misuse, which will require an absolute vigilance for any attempt. But the stakes are enormous: to definitively free Mankind from evil, hatred, submission, selfishness, racism, violence!

 

November 2016: as I am finishing this chapter, the news are echoing of discussions in China and India, about a possible human eugenics, aimed of course at eradicating diseases, but also at developing intelligence. Such a project would of course lead to better engineers, but it would also lead to a decrease in fascism, delinquency and disputes. This would necessarily lead, at one time or another, towards a better society, as we describe it here. A «rigorous» interpretation of human rights may then deprive some countries of these fantastic results. Already, meat, austerity policies and populism have considerably weakened the countries of White race in front of Asia. So that refusing these improvements would effectively make of the white race a category of backward sub-humans.

Well, the Chinese are slender and beautiful, I admire the jet hair of Indian women, but what I want is a boobylicious white blonde. Nobody wants his race to disappear, I think...

 

These attempts will be made anyway. And if they are no benevolent spiritual ecologists to make them, it will be crazy capitalists or bizarre transhumanists who will make them. So, it is much better to occupy the place before them. This is what I am doing here.

 

If we do not trust these methods, then there is another one: to take part in the ongoing prayer and positive visualization for the present and the future of Humanity. We may get faster results, without any of the risks of eugenics. In more, everybody can do it. And the first results are already there!

 

So that everyone chooses.

 

 

To flee our problems on another planet

A remark for the end: some thinkers, including high-level scientists, say that we cannot solve the ecological problems (which is like saying that we cannot stop hitting our heads with a hammer). They believe that the solution to the destruction of Earth is to flee to other planets.

I state, even against the celebrities which support it, that such an assertion is naively criminal, for several reasons:

1) It is currently strictly impossible to migrate to other planets, and there is no reason to believe that this will be possible one day (if it was possible, we would get visitors for a long time, see Chapter VIII-9). Even Mars is uninhabitable: without air, without water, without organic matter, without nitrogen, radioactive and dark. The few millions it could host would be condemned to live in tunnels and cans. Price of the return ticket in case of incapacity to adapt: several millions of dollars per person. Not counting the stay in migrant camp and the physiological rehabilitation.

2) The problem of the destruction of our ecology is a psychological problem. The only solution is to solve our problem by becoming psycho-educated (chapter V-12). If we landed on another planet without having solved this problem, this other planet would be destroyed in its turn in a few decades. (See the novel «The Seventh Season» by Pierre Pelot). It even is a strong constant in Human history: all those who fled a world they considered bad, have recreated exactly the same problems as soon as they opened their suitcases in their new world: Mayflower, Communists, Hippies... because these problems come from them, not from the world. So the only solution is to solve these problems through psychoeducation. If we do not solve these problems on Earth, then we shall solve the Fermi paradox (chapter VIII-1) from the point of view of the extraterrestrials: none will ever detect us.

3) This would be a cheap estimate of Human intelligence. Mankind will draw the lessons of the today ecological crisis, and also from the climate deniers mind control methods. This is already happening. The ebb is rising, even if a low between waves can still hide this movement.

My contributions to the ecological movement

I am an ecologist of the first hour, thanks to the alerts published since 1971 in science journals like the French «Science & Vie». Yes, in 1972 I was already drawing plans of air purifiers and hydrogen engines... In 1972 I engaged in higher scientific studies, notably thermodynamics, in order to understand the problems of green energy and their solutions (see my contributions above, in green energies). Yes, 1972. This date is the measure of the abysmal delay of those in 2016 who are still denying these things.

However, it was only in 1976 that I could meet for the first time people who were doing something: a small «Association Toulousaine d'Ecologie», which was running group buying of organic food. It is the success of this activity which inspired me the concepts of True Economy, especially the Activity Circles (chapitre VI-8). These groups were eventually abandoned, because of the disputes caused by the lack of psychoeducation (rejection of spirituality). However the networks were not lost, since they were the basis of the organic food distribution companies like the Biocoops.

This period culminated with Ecology 78, a collective of French environmental associations, to present candidates for the 1978 parliamentary elections. At the time, ecology was still new and clean, and we could still boast the support of several high repute scientists. This is how I was a substitute candidate in the 4th circonscription of Toulouse, and I got 4.9%. Which merit belongs to the movement, besides. My contribution was a fantastic landscape to illustrate our professions of faith. My view of the Pyrenees from Toulouse has been plagiarized several times by others...

Outlined in red: names of supporting scientists and also the clear statement that we were NOT to create any political party.

Ecology 78, however successful it was, was the swan song of the independent representation of ecology: from the following year parties formed (often with only one person), gathered together, to finally arrive in 1983-4 to the party «Les Verts» (The Greens), which confiscated the public speech of the movement. The successive position taking of the Greens in the right-left game, for drugs, for homosexual adoption imposed on children, and so on, were as many slaps, betrayals and taking over. I suspected this from the beginning, and tried to warn of the risk. But the true ecologists were quickly sidelined by the media machine, taking refuge in apolitical associations (Greenpeace and many others).

Translation: « in the beginning, ecology was simple...» The owl was kinda our mascote, symbol of wisdom of grassroot ecology. And yes I was drawing like Crumb, lol

This is the front page of our bulletin, dated February 1980, where I tried to warn of the danger of the taking over of our votes by uncontrollable political parties. As a matter of facts, things were starting to stink seriously, with a skullduggery of small groups claiming to represent ecology, as the second page was saying:

Translation: «But it is becoming complicated... Our representatives, coordinators, delegates, etc.»

It is then in full awareness of the problem that things happened in the way they happened.

 

A lie that you will often hear, with the authority of no less than Science Po (French high school of politics), is that the Greens were founded in 1974, with the candidacy of René Dumont. This is a lie: the Greens in France were founded around 1983-84, by different persons, with different views and ideas. René Dumont represented science, not the niqab hunt.

 

Since then, my own trajectory has led me to engage in more spiritual activities, not recognizing myself much in these materialistic movements. But spiritual ecology awaits its hour... In this area without ego, we can work in the long term, and even beyond our own death.

 

 

 

 

 

 

General Epistemology        Chapter VI-7       

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ideas, texts, drawings and realization: Richard Trigaux.

 

 

 

As every independant author I need your support to be able to continue to work on this site and allow for a freedom of expression to exist on the net:

 

 

 

Legal notice and copyright Unless otherwise noted (© sign in the navigation bar) or legal exception (pastiches, examples, quotes...), all the texts, graphics, characters, names, animations, sounds, melodies, programming, cursors, symbols of this site are copyright of their author and right owner, Richard Trigaux. Thanks not to mirror this site, unless it disappears. Thanks not to copy the content of this site beyond private use, quotes, samples, building a link. Benevolent links welcome. No commercial use. If you desire to make a serious commercial use, please contact me. Any use, modification, overtaking of elements of this site or the presented worlds in a way deprecating my work, my philosophy or generaly recognized moral rules, may result into law suit.