126,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Fachliteratur
- Sprache: Englisch
The increasing urgency of environmental issues necessitates the rethinking of our societal model. This book explores this assertion by going back in time and pinpointing the turning points in the evolution of European society that we are currently experiencing. Productive Economy, Contributory Economy presents an analysis of the factors affecting the evolution of our societal model, emerging from sedentarism, which culminated in the industrial age. To further this evolution, we must allow the common good to prosper: family, knowledge, innovation, democracy and spirituality. This book presents a dual contributory and productive economy to be put into place, as well as the synergy that can be established between these two spaces of human contribution. It also studies the instruments of governance that we will need, such as smart money, as well as the conditions of their success.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 455
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Foreword by Marc Luyckx Ghisi: Extending Ideas Already Present in European Thinking
Foreword by Éric Seulliet: Proposals Resulting from an Approach of a Cybernetic Futurologist
Preface
PART 1: The Driving Facts of Change
Introduction to Part 1
1 Adapt or Dare?
1.1. Accepting to evolve
1.2. Change seen from afar to better understand it
1.3. Known risks of our model
1.4. Better than a revolution
2 Our Heritage of Experience Tested by New Knowledge
2.1. The common good as a new source of prosperity
2.2. Liberating values
2.3. Respect for life course
3 The Change of Era Beyond Our Will!
3.1. This new era: symbiotic or chaotic?
3.2. AI, the eye of Cain and democratic benevolence
3.3. Sovereignty in the 21st century
4 The Traces of Our Future Inscribed in Our Past
4.1. Controlling your destiny
4.2. Creative and responsible
4.3. World view and transmission of knowledge
4.4. Europe, a civilization in reconstruction?
4.5. More technology, therefore more humanity
4.6. Digital technology, a weapon but also a tool
4.7. Workaholics forever?
4.8. Sedentarization, spiritual at first
5 “To Make Society” Therefore “To Exchange”
5.1. Exchanges and specializations
5.2. Financial instruments over time
PART 2: Avenues to be Explored
Introduction to Part 2
6 The Inevitable Reworking of the Social Pact
6.1. The world of work in revolution
6.2. Occupation/job and skills/talents/knowledge
6.3. End of the Jules Ferry school of thought
7 New Reward Tools
7.1. The end of liberalist doxa in favor of reciprocity
7.2. Shifting the focus between private property and the commons
8 Smart Currencies
8.1. Institutional money and contributory money
8.2. Monetary biodiversity
8.3. Moving to the sandbox
8.4. Do not deny the history of our currency
9 The New Priorities
9.1. Return of feminine values
9.2. A different relationship to innovation
9.3. Preparing for the “aftermath” of transnational corporations
9.4. Going digital 0.0
9.5. Data as important as money
9.6. A renewed idea of liberalism
10 Transition Without Chaos?
10.1. More complicated than sedentarization
10.2. A global but differentiated shift
10.3. Productive-contributory: Siamese economies
10.4. Tasks dedicated to the common good
11 No Societal Transformation Without Digital Sovereignty
11.1. Protecting land, but also souls and knowledge
11.2. The European opportunity
11.3. Data as important as money
11.4. The European digital age of the 21st century
Conclusion
References
Index
End User License Agreement
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright
Foreword by Marc Luyckx Ghisi: Extending Ideas Already Present in European Thinking
Foreword by Éric Seulliet: Proposals Resulting from an Approach of a Cybernetic Futurologist
Begin Reading
Conclusion
References
Index
End User License Agreement
Pages
v
iii
iv
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
xvii
xviii
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
151
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
Innovation and Technology Set
coordinated by
Chantal Ammi
Volume 15
Productive Economy, Contributory Economy
Governance Tools for the Third Millennium
Geneviève Bouché
First published 2022 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd27-37 St George’s RoadLondon SW19 4EUUK
www.iste.co.uk
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.111 River StreetHoboken, NJ 07030USA
www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2022
The rights of Geneviève Bouché to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted by her in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s), contributor(s) or editor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of ISTE Group.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2022931285
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-78630-751-4
Foreword by Marc Luyckx Ghisi: Extending Ideas Already Present in European Thinking
This book by Geneviève Bouché is visionary because the proposals presented in it are truly innovative and inspiring.
The basic assumption is new. It is about fully accepting the new immaterial economy built on data. But this economy is currently focused, by the GAFAs, on short-term profit and the utilitarian paradigm. And for us, in Europe, it is useless to “chase” the current Silicon Valley players. It would be a rearguard action.
On the contrary, it is a matter of innovating while understanding that one of the major challenges of our 21st century will be the reorientation of the world's immaterial economy towards the common good of all the citizens of the world and of Gaia.
This book shows us possible ways to prepare ourselves individually and collectively to build this world of tomorrow, which will be fully social and solidary, and which will also be totally respectful of and regenerative of the environment.
And there are new avenues that are opening up, because the immaterial economy offers us new tools to value the contributory economy in addition to the productive economy, which has been studied by “economic science” for centuries.
What is this contributory economy? The contributory economy is the Yin side, that is, the more feminine side of the world economy, which is concerned above all with the common good of citizens and the future of humanity and the planet. It also includes the symbiotic1 economy, which values all the work that humans do to educate children and take care of the elderly in the family, the handicapped, the weak, immigrants, the environment, etc.
Hazel Henderson, a British-American futurist friend, had already denounced in 1990 the silence of the official economy with regard to the Love Economy2, which constitutes more than 50% of human activities.
Geneviève Bouché is gradually inviting us to a changeover to a new civilization3 that will have much more meaning, and will promote a higher ethical dimension. She also opens the door to a more interior and spiritual vision4. In my categories, I would say that she is inviting us to leave modernity and to enter transmodernity5, which is characterized by a return to meaning, ethics and the inner dimension.
In this new civilization, the large multinational and pyramid companies, which currently dominate the world and therefore also our European construction, are called upon to gradually disappear in favor of new “companies with a mission” which will be smaller, more ethical and more rooted in the local common good.
The author follows the intuition of the founders of the World Business Academy, created by Willis Harman (who died in 1997) and Rinaldo Brutoco, in 1985. Their intuition was to understand that companies had become too important in the world economy not to be concerned with the common good, and this in an exemplary way. These founders launched the idea that the purpose of business was no longer profit, but the service of the common good. Profit became a consequence and a criterion indicating that everything was going in the right direction.
And the second major vector of transformation that she proposes to make the most of is the monetary tool. According to the author, the tool of digitalized money will make it possible to bring the contributory and symbiotic economies into GNP accounting, which will also be completely redesigned on new bases, being more focused on the common good.
We could therefore think of an innovative type of living wage that would be linked in a new way to all new initiatives to promote the local and global common good.
I relate this vision to that of the report of the Club of Rome to the European Parliament on monetary problems6. Alongside the major currencies, which are still useful, especially in terms of world trade, it promoted synergy with new complementary currencies, which were better able to promote the common good and strengthen a new type of social link within our communities.
But for the new societal paradigm in which the living wage fits to flourish, it will also be necessary to enter into a process of redefining the citizen in this new society. The citizen will no longer be defined by their “industrial” salary and job, so that if they lose their job, they lose their status as a fully-fledged citizen in society. On the contrary, the citizen will be redefined in all their dignity as a citizen, outside of any relation to employment, but rather as a Being who comes out of Plato's cave and seeks to see the light of the Beautiful, the Good and the True. And if this citizen receives a living wage that valorizes them in their being a citizen, they will do everything possible to give back to the society that has recognized them in their essence, the best of their economic, cultural or social creativity. And they will contribute to the progress of the common good and the quality of being of each individual and of the entire local community.
Geneviève Bouché finally gives us a picture of the 21st-century Europe. In order to be able to reorient the immaterial economy to serve the common good, Europe must absolutely distance itself from GAFAM and develop its own digital space. For, as she clearly notes, “data is as important as money.” And this digital space has already been in operation for 10 years in Estonia. The project is called X-Road and this national data circulation infrastructure for the common good could be the embryo of the European data circulation infrastructure. It was funded by the European Commission.
So, another visionary proposal from this book.
I would add that my personal impression over the years has been that if there is ethical and visionary thinking coming from Europe, it will be listened to and analyzed carefully. But if it comes from Russia, China or the United States, it will have much less credibility. It seems to me that there is a real curiosity about European initiatives, even at the world level.
In this perspective of the European common good, we could also see the disappearance of all lobbying activities in the European institutions. For lobbying only promotes the particular interests of the most powerful players. The only thing that would be allowed is “advocacy”, which proposes changes to legislative proposals, solely with a view to the common European good. This is a new vision of Europe. And in Jacques Delors' time, this was the implicit rule. We could come back to this.
My conclusion is that this work by Geneviève Bouché places her rightfully in the court of the great architectural thinkers of our 21st century.
Well done and thank you.
Dr. Marc LUYCKX GHISI
Former member of the European Commission’s Prospective Studies Unit
Former member of the Auroville International Advisory Council
Former Dean of Cotrugli Business School in Zagreb and Belgrade
1
The term “symbiotic” first appeared around 1600, in the writings of Althusius (von Althaus) who also invented
the principle of subsidiarity.
See my book
Surgissement d’un nouveau monde
(Ghisi 2012, p. 263).
2
Here is a video on this theme of the Love Economy:
https://vimeo.com/27949858
. See also Hazel Henderson’s books and her famous website Ethical Markets.
3
In speaking of a new civilization, the author is following in the footsteps of Edgar Morin,
Le temps est venu de changer de civilisation
, éditions de l’Aube, 2017.
4
The spiritual dimension must be absolutely distinguished from religions. We can be spiritual and religiously atheist.
5
The term “transmodernity” means retaining the positive dimensions of modernity but in a new, more ethical, social and spiritual context. This concept was created by Willis Harman, one of the great thinkers of Silicon Valley, in the 1990s. Together with Peter Drucker, Harlan Cleveland and Jim Garrison, they initiated high-quality global thinking on paradigm shift. Unfortunately, this high-level thinking has not been accepted or taken up by the current generation of GAFA managers.
6
The French version of this report was published in 2012 by Odile Jacob, Paris, under the title “Halte à la toute-puissance des banques: rapport du club de Rome au Parlement européen sur les enjeux monétaires.”
Foreword by Éric Seulliet: Proposals Resulting from an Approach of a Cybernetic Futurologist
I have known Geneviève Bouché for a long time and I have always appreciated her perspective. Over the past few years, the Fabrique du futur has participated in the initiatives of the digital think tank collective, which she leads with determination.
One day, when she had joined the Fabrique du futur, I discovered that we had a “cybernetic futurologist” among us. I was surprised and amused by this name, which led to long debates between us on the difference between that and a futurist. Geneviève Bouché’s book is a perfect illustration of her approach as a cybernetic futurologist. It is a very accomplished work by which an “honest woman” of her time, passionate and committed, transmits to us a systemic vision of the situation of the world and gives us tracks of solution to face the future. Geneviève Bouché has an encyclopedic eye. She dives deep into the past to explain the present, and at the same time has a transdisciplinary approach to current problems that she deciphers with talent: history, geopolitics, science, technology, ecology, sociology, culture, etc. Her book sweeps through all the fields, putting them into perspective and crossing them to better bring out the connection and meaning. It also focuses on various issues that allow for a better understanding of the basic and emerging trends.
But beyond the explanations of the world’s issues, and more particularly those of our old Europe, Productive Economy, Contributory Economy recommends ways to follow in order to return to a peaceful and tranquil progress, and to move towards a better tomorrow. Geneviève Bouché suggests balanced and, all in all, reasonable solutions.
However, this does not exclude original, even iconoclastic, proposals, such as those concerning the principle of commencement, those related to monetary biodiversity and smart currencies, to a new conception of digital technology based on the reappropriation by citizens of their personal data, or to the renewed concept of circular economy. But always, Geneviève Bouché takes care to elaborate holistic, boldly realistic and balanced approaches. Thus, her invitation to take a cue from the way nature behaves and evolves in a symbiotic and organic way is inspiring and rich in potential.
Geneviève Bouché reminds us that we are all children of Gaia and that a posture of benevolence and a sense of “care” towards our planet is indispensable. Geneviève Bouché’s words exude a spirit, an almost spiritual quest to help her contemporaries escape from a world governed solely by the productive economy and move towards a contributory economy that focuses on the search for the common good. In this respect, Geneviève Bouché’s work is marked by a great deal of humanism, generosity and wisdom. For all these reasons, I consider Productive Economy, Contributory Economy to be a major work that should become an essential reference for all those who seek to build better futures.
Éric SEULLIET
President of La Fabrique du Futur
Preface
Streamlining the way we produce and consume is becoming a matter of course. This is becoming possible thanks to digital technology. But, as a result, the social pact, developed in Europe over time, must change radically. This requires us to take up three challenges:
– the first concerns the restructuring of the “productive” economy, which is dedicated to the satisfaction of the primary needs of individuals;
– the second is the recognition of the “contributory” economy, which is dedicated to the common good. We must reorient our value creation capacities towards contributory tasks such as the family, knowledge, the environment, democracy and spirituality. We must take up this challenge because developing the common good becomes a factor of competitiveness;
– the third concerns the development of the new model of society that is taking shape and that recognizes several forms of value creation
1
. But its implementation will require a great deal of determination because the current model is marked by our “deep past” inherited from sedentarization. A huge effort of understanding and audacity is needed to develop our tools of governance, including the social pact and currencies. Imagine, model and experiment with a more complex, but more mature economy: let’s go for it!
Read as you wish: start with the first or second part. The cross-references allow for a tour of the many facets of this change that everyone is talking about. To understand it, you have to go into the details, sometimes invisible or forgotten. Without this understanding, the cuttings to make our model evolve will not be effective.
About the contributory economy
The concept was proposed by the author in the 2010s in a circle gathered around Michel Giran (Les Nains de Jardin), then reproposed in the CSOEC Sustainable Development Commission gathered around Muttiah Yogananthan, but finally deepened through other more informal circles and in reaction to Bernard Stiegler’s remarks who used the term by backing it up with a less precise concept: free contribution, presented by him as a social phenomenon.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to all those who exchanged with me, and provided reading recommendations and audiovisual documents, during the gestation of this publication starting in 2018 in Cameroon and finishing in 2021 in France.
Special thanks to Claude Périgaud and our network of friends, to the members of Forum Atena, La Fabrique du Futur, MFRB (Mouvement français du revenu de base, French Basic Income Movement), FAIR, etc. and many other think tanks that opened their doors to me, as well as to those who listened to my lectures and read my work.
February 2022
1
Productive, contributing and empathetic.
PART 1The Driving Facts of Change
Introduction to Part 1
Global warming, the spread of poverty, the appropriation of our data, etc. These signs that worry us mobilize the most militant and anger the most conservative. The power of their fear stimulates reflection and encourages innovation. A long journey of struggles and victories, which will last at least three generations, is beginning. For, as we shall see, even if more and more of the world’s citizens understand that we have reached the end of the civilization model, we do not have the tools, nor the institutions, to govern the world to come and prepare the generations to come.
In a world that wants to be connected, we do not have any more effective means of cohesion than those of our elders when they felt the need to change their model of society. And yet, it is by bringing together ideas and the will to change that we will be able to move forward.
Indeed, in order to equip ourselves with the institutions we will need, it is necessary to understand the causes of the change that is imposed on us. This change requires us to accept a more complex organization for people who are more mature, more demanding as well as more responsible and accountable.
The 20th century began with the unraveling of European monarchies and the rise of a new form of governance, certainly inspired by ancient Rome, but which had yet to be discovered. The 21st century began with the realization that another form of governance must take over from the current one. It is not the one in place that will do the job, but the one that the rising generations will design with the help of the outgoing generations. Ideally, they will have to do this without exploding the current system and before it launches into multiform fratricidal wars (economic, cybernetic, military, etc.).
In particular, the most important measures are not spectacular, but they affect our way of seeing the world in depth. They concern our living together, locally and in synergy with our neighbors… the opposite of globalization, so to speak!
As Valerie Bugault points out, globalization is a Dutch and English idea, promoted by an insular or quasi-insular culture. Europe is continental and so are most other countries. This has never stopped us from trading with the rest of the world, but not obsessively.
Here and there, initiatives are taking shape, ideas are circulating, values are being established and, at the same time, the dangers of centralization and its daughter, dictatorship, are threatening. It is this duality that interests us in the following pages.
1Adapt or Dare?
1.1. Accepting to evolve
1.1.1. For a shared Europe
Everyone feels the changes that are shaking up our institutions: our usual ways of thinking are increasingly challenged. Europe is perceived as an area of renewal, yet hampered by a governance that is still seeking its effectiveness. It must find a way to preserve what has made its strength: quarrelsome kingdoms, in constant emulation.
It is the cradle of key words of the previous change, such as “capitalism”, “socialism”, “communism”, “liberalism”1, “ecology”, etc. But in the four corners of the continent, these words do not have the same resonance, which makes dialogue sometimes complicated.
With the development of mobility tools, it is becoming the socially and economically sound area that has the right scale to dare a new model of society. It can achieve this by seizing the technological shift in digital technology and energy production.
When it comes to innovation, it is futile to chase the one who has become the leader. It is better to watch for the next innovation and seize it. That’s what’s happening right now in energy, but especially in digital technology.
Digital is not just a technology. It is an amplifier for the model of society. The new digital, which we will discuss here, is the main springboard for 21st century Europe.
It can do so because its people want it to. It does not have to adapt to the changes that the leaders of the 20th century were trying to impose on it.
The 19th and 20th centuries were marked by technological innovations that excited those who could benefit from them. But they were abused. Now comes the time for rationalization, that is, the time to put things into perspective and to rebuild a more mature model of society with a more complex governance, despite the defenders of Cartesian thinking who are used to treating our problems in silos, even if this has been our strength until now. To do this, we have to broaden the range of talent that is needed to steer the ship that is Europe.
A learning process understood by the greatest number is required. A necessary and desired metamorphosis, but not too fast if we want to do it in depth for a lasting result.
There is nothing to prevent this. Europeans are very good at thinking by themselves and for themselves. They have a particularly continuous societal heritage. It is deep and solid, but difficult to maneuver … unless a surge of enthusiasm is triggered. Understanding this continuity is already laying the foundations for our renewal because ideas are more easily forged in cultural continuity, which facilitates gradual evolutions rather than revolutions.
1.1.2. For a real respect of Gaia’s internal rules
Gaia is the “mother goddess” of the ancient Greeks. In the 1970s, the English ecologist James Lovelock used her name to convey the idea that the Earth is not a mere rock, but the active support of life, and this life includes human beings: we walk on the Earth and live in Gaia.
Gaia is alive: she never stops changing. The real effect of human actions on her evolution remains unknown, but the active presence of humans in the life of Gaia is undeniable.
Gaia’s life is not a succession of coincidences, but a chain of reactions articulated around a few principles:
– life is stronger than death: humans can disappear without life disappearing. Humans, currently outnumbered on this planet, represent less than 5% of living matter and our bodies are in fact a complex of living matter capable of surviving itself;
– life evolves along a trajectory that goes from the material to the spiritual: this trajectory travels around obstacles. Nevertheless, the search for efficiency in terms of energy consumption remains one of the predictable points of choice;
– life cannot live without diversity: it maintains its dynamics by combining cooperation and competition between all living elements, all of which are in constant evolution. Too much competition leads to regression, and too much cooperation leads to stagnation and then regression. These excesses end up in “crises”. These crises promote progress.
The last strictly manmade event that shook almost all of humanity was the last world war. The fifth generation after this event is about to take action. It no longer feels concerned by the ideologies that created this crisis, nor by the arrangements that were imposed on the majority of men, as a way of resolving this tragedy. However, in the long run, these arrangements are no longer acceptable and they prove to be dangerous for Gaia.
Humans have the desire to reconfigure our “living together”. It is in these periods of profound change that opportunities arise for the most determined to act on their desire for renewal. And there are three major opportunities: the evolution of energy, data and money.
Human life has gradually been organized into geopolitical zones. These zones are rivals and this rivalry is a source of progress for humanity. All of them can take up the challenge of the renaissance that is offered to us. Everything depends on their will.
So, down with the defenders of collapse, the discouraged, the stooges and the opportunists specializing in the defense of their personal interests. The turn that humanity is taking will not be taken with them.
Collectives are springing up everywhere to reflect and try to take action, but they have to reckon with those who hold the current situation in their hands and wish to prolong it. They are practitioners of soft power, which consists of frustrating the agreements that could bring about the renewal we feel we need.
They hide the denials that hinder evolution. They have invented the novlanguage2 for this purpose.
When they are not using novlanguage, they are using fear and guilt.
Faced with this, rigorous thinking is therefore necessary in order to draw up proposals based on correctly argued logic.
The last world war archives are being opened, and our elders, before leaving, are giving us their testimonies. This leads us to note that there are no geopolitical zones that are more intelligent and others that are more backward. But some of these zones are preventing others to flourish and are appropriating their wealth, all kinds of wealth: extractive, human and now immaterial. Opening the archives and letting the elders speak is a way of allowing human life to resume its evolutionary course, to reset priorities and to recreate creative diversity.
We know what to base this renewal on: a new architecture for the production and distribution of energy, another for the collection, processing and distribution of data and a third for the creation, distribution and destruction of money. Because life is energy and information, and therefore also “vehicles” to promote exchanges.
It is this triple system that we must revisit in light of our new worldview to ensure that we are no longer dangers to Gaia, but facilitators to make her healthier than ever.
Science has already told us too much for us to be satisfied with simplistic thinking. We are forced to move to complex thinking, but we have the means to do so, at least more than our elders.
1.1.3. Saving the planet, jobs or our civilization?
Honestly, we do not think about Gaia, we think about our planet because we have the feeling that it is at our service. But she worries us. She changes and forces us to change. But our institutions, made ever more complex by our rulers, encourage us not to change.
In our daily lives, it seems that we need to “save jobs”: everyone seems to agree. And yet, redundancy plans clutter up the news. Even if journalists and ministers try to make each drama specific, everyone understands how the wave of unemployment is unfolding, against which allegations have no effect. Low-cost countries are becoming our own competitors, and now robotization never seems to stop distressing us, the ex-flamboyant Europeans!
Another way should be possible: our communities have unmet needs and our citizens are willing to roll up their sleeves to meet them. The question is how to encourage and reward this form of value creation.
One idea naturally emerges: to redirect the capacities for initiative, freed up by digitization, towards the development of the common good, which will become our new source of competitiveness. This obvious idea seems unattainable and yet quite logical. The solution exists, and we are going to talk about it.
A natural law says that we never give up on progress, we adapt to it, because progress has always ended up improving the living conditions of man, thus allowing him to rise in his human condition.
At the moment, we are witnessing the loss of efficiency of our institutions, which is one of the symptoms of a civilization that is breaking down.
We cannot say with certainty that Western civilization is dying. We can imagine, for example, that it splits into a European and an Anglo-Saxon version.
In June 2019, Sciences & Vie published a dossier devoted to “Collapse”. Several teams of researchers attempt to identify the invariants that have characterized the collapse of prestigious civilizations, which have now fallen into disuse, are still in agony or have disappeared altogether. They point out that the poor distribution of wealth and the depletion of resources are the two most dangerous signals.
They note that resilience depends on the ability of citizens to stay connected. Of course: to adapt, you need to be able to innovate, and to innovate, you need to be able to cooperate.
It is therefore on these points that Europe must concentrate in order to bring out a reinvigorated version of its fundamentals: organized and stimulating solidarity, protection of its resources and, if possible, sufficiency for a maximum of vital elements. This requires digital and monetary sovereignty.
But in order to achieve this, we have a number of denials to overcome, while taking care to respect the richness of our European culture.
Initiatives to think collectively are multiplying, which gives hope for the vitality of our fellow citizens. Fragments of ideas are emerging from these movements. Everyone is beginning to understand the complexity of the task and is thus preparing for a change that will require some renunciations while opening up entirely new and promising possibilities.
Among them are the ideologists who boast about getting to the point by proposing short-term solutions and actions. They are not useless. But time should also be spent on deeper thinking.
Europe is the “Old Continent” that dominated the world for 500 years and ended up curled up in its beautiful palaces, with a supposedly eternal elite that is sure to be respected. The transformation we are experiencing is global, and we must provide responses that suit us, but that are compatible with the responses of other geopolitical zones… And vice versa!
So we need to look at our roots, not just the top of our lawn and our neighbors’, then adapt by making trade-offs with our beliefs and values. These trade-offs are going to be locally specific, even though we will draw on the initiatives of others.
The world to come is not based on the same values as the one we are leaving: we have loved wealth, the younger generations prefer prosperity. Wealth is something to be captured, and prosperity is something to be shared.
Changes are going to be made at all levels of our social model: from small details to major upheavals! We are going to have to deal with them if possible without “turning the table” because we do not have the means to do so. This will therefore take a few centuries. We are going to go about it by trial and error, so we must go about it with foresight and determination.
The purpose of this book is to make an inventory of the components of change – perhaps not all of them, there are so many! The aim is to enable everyone to take stock and identify priorities. Indeed, what is most to be feared would be to let ourselves go towards chaos, as has been the case in comparable circumstances in the past and in many places on the planet. Our children would not forgive us this because, unlike our elders, we have the means to know what the risk of a change of era is.
1.1.4. Going through “a good war”?
That is what my grandmother, who has been through the war, used to say whenever she thought her children and grandchildren were irresponsible consumerists.
That is also what she said when industrial relocations multiplied on the grounds that low-cost countries were willing to sacrifice themselves for our benefit.
At the moment, we do not have a world war, but we do have climatic and geological changes, as well as pandemics. Everyone starts to think, and this brings out certain realities:
– what makes us strong: cohesion, which allows us to be more reactive and combative than egoism;
– our weaknesses: our organizations. Too focused on financial efficiency, our organizations have become very fragile. Too legally protected, they have become blocking.
And then the social and environmental reality shows us that:
– we produce poorly;
– we consume poorly.
We already know all this. The question is how to make sure that we take it into account in the way we develop our life together.
Thousands of researchers, from various disciplines, are working on these subjects, especially economists. They work in laboratories, others in trade unions, Masonic lodges, churches or in informal circles.
As far as the findings are concerned, they are quite convergent, but regarding solutions, there is little that is concrete. This is reflected in the 17 SDGs (see section 4.6.2)!
As is often the case in periods of profound change, it is not within institutions that creative proposals are drawn up, but outside of them, in places designed to unleash serendipity. These are in particular in think tanks.
The path that is developed here is the result of the compilation of work by a number of them, including the “sustainable development” working group of the Conseil de l’Ordre des experts-comptables. The work carried out in this forum indirectly contributed to the creation of the Institute for the Circular Economy. Other important sources include the Atena Forum, which focuses on digital sovereignty; Orée, which brings together the concerns of sustainable development professionals; FAIR (Forum des autres indicateurs de richesse, Forum for Alternative Wealth Indicators) and the Fabrique du Futur, which, as its name suggests, imagines the opportunities of the future.
1.1.5. Expanding our field of certainty
We are in a situation comparable to that of physicists in the last century: in order to move forward, they had to decide to listen to the inventors of quantum physics, which turned their way of thinking upside down and opened up new horizons.
Physicists had to make a great effort to get out of their certainties. But the rewards have been immense if you look at all the progress that has followed this acceptance.
Economists, sociologists and all the specialists called upon to think about the “next world” must now agree to thoroughly overhaul their ways of thinking and the theories on which we have based our respective sciences.
At least those who can, because the exercise requires a specific intellectual capacity: there are discoverers, testers and developers. They are all useful, but the ones who will play an important role will be the disclosers, those who understand and put the concepts into simple words with convincing examples. This last step alone will take time! About two generations (60 years).
But do we have that time? The damage to the planet is more worrying every day, and the fragility of our social and economic system is not reassuring. Hence, there will never be enough of us to cross our points of view and approaches to solutions.
In Europe, we have got where we are because of our Cartesian mindset, which has taught us to segment problems and deal with them piece by piece. To move forward, we need to take the opposite approach: to consider that not only is our environment a whole but also that it is in constant motion. Every parameter that moves has an impact on the whole. This is the systemic or, more precisely, cybernetic effect. This leads us to adopt new methodological approaches.
This book proposes a particular approach to interpreting the coming world. It is based on two principles, typical of cybernetic futurology:
– the dynamics of facts: the evolution of life on earth is a continuous process and more coherent than it seems. The orientation of this evolution goes from matter to spirituality. It advances in a trial and error mode. Humans are not above the rest of the living world, but included in the whole of living matter, which itself is backed by the mineral and dynamics of the cosmos. The dynamics that drive the whole thing forward are strewn with events that we tend to call unforeseen. But resituated in the long term, there is nothing unforeseeable about them for those who reason in the “meaning of life” mode;
– the mechanism of homeostasis: when the environment changes significantly, and although it seems dangerous to adapt, it nevertheless becomes preferable to try to evolve. In such circumstances, living beings deviate from their path to continue evolving.
Currently, the question is not so much the survival of our species3 as the opportunity to move towards a better world for us within Gaia.
We will take a look at the social, economic and environmental components that are currently undergoing the most torsion, focusing on the dynamics of these torsions and their interrelationships.
The aim is to open up the field of possibilities for a new socio-economic approach, developed independently of the dogmas of the great economic thinkers of the 19th and 20th centuries.
1.2. Change seen from afar to better understand it
1.2.1. Being an actor in our own novel
The purpose of this book is to outline the dynamics of the change we are experiencing.
The aim is to detect the levers of progress and the opportunities that present themselves to us.
The causes of the breakdown of the current model are multiple. They combine to impose new situations on us which, in turn, require social and economic innovations in addition to the technological responses that we are working hard on.
To clarify our current vision and to understand the “mechanical” choices4 that will be made by the people, at least if we are not careful, we will go back a long way in time. For, in order to understand what we are going to decide, we need to get an idea of the thought process that led our elders in their decision-making processes and brought us to where we are today.
Understanding the decision-making processes of our elders and neighbors gives us an advantage, because it is in times of movement that opportunities are to be seized. We need to move while the existing system is distorting, bordering on fracture. We must even accompany this dynamic so that it goes in the right direction. We must move quickly and fairly, because once the n + 1 system is in place, it becomes very difficult to get it to move again.
Europe dominated the world for 500 years and then fell into a state of weakness in the last century. Nevertheless, it remains a corner of the planet that has many advantages and a long history on a land that has accumulated a great deal of knowledge. In Europe, Neanderthals, followed by Sapiens, have been trying to create a society for over 300,000 years5!
European maturity is neither the Asian maturity, which is part of the Homo erectus continuum, nor the American maturity, nor that of any country in the southern hemisphere. All these geographical areas are living their history in parallel.
This confirms that the single governance model entrusted to, or monopolized by, a supposed “master of the world” is an absurdity, even if, a priori, all people have more or less the same needs. It is preferable to preserve the diversity of societal models in order to promote progress, by combining cooperation and competitiveness.
In this book, we are only interested in the model that could be suitable for France and more globally for Europe.
1.2.2. The cybernetic futurology approach
The period we are ending has been one of short-termism and the search for solutions to problems described in a static way.
To look at the future, we have been content with forecast-based statistics. Statistics tell us about the past. They are rearview mirrors.
We have also used foresight, which is based on scenarios, which we know are the fruit of our imaginations and therefore marked by our fears, our fancies.
Life is often told to us as a succession of coincidences. Those who want to secure an audience tell us of a world that is increasingly VUCA6. To arouse fear is a way to dominate.
The world is not VUCA, because its evolution is systemic. It results from a succession of trials and errors, combining different mechanisms, the most central of which is homeostasis, itself combined with the process of reproduction.
Antonio Damasio describes it very well in The Strange Order of Things: the smallest living cell has a capacity for homeostasis, that is, in its constantly changing environment, it is constantly able to arbitrate between accommodating changes without evolving or trying to adapt. Evolving represents a risk, but if “not evolving” represents a greater risk, it is better to try to evolve.
It then engages in attempts to evolve according to a process described by Alain Berthoz7 under the dual term of “vicariance” (Berthoz 2013) and “simplexity” (Berthoz 2009): everything begins with “vicariances”, i.e. attempts to adapt to change. The one that proves to be the most acceptable allows the simplexity process to be set in motion. This process generalizes this “good vicariance” and simplifies the traces of previous solutions to similar problems, much as we do in the automobile industry or in computer program chains!
Thus, living beings, however small, evolve and evolve their relationships with their environment. At the time of mating for the reproduction of the species, the beings that carry the most adapted evolution are favored, and thus the evolution and the preservation mechanisms of the species are propagated.
Cybernetic futurology works on the future by looking at the dynamics of the facts and human decision-making processes that shape its progress.
People make decisions all day long, and to do so, they use two frames of reference: the immediate past, in which they have free will, and the deep past, which they have inherited from their lineage. The deep past has more weight than the immediate past, which explains the resistance to change and the dangers of sudden breakthroughs. Hence, in order to understand the future, we must be interested in what has happened and how we arrived at these facts.
Cybernetic futurology is interested in the long term: 30 years, 60 years or 90 years. That is, what the world becomes over the course of successive generations.
It does this by unraveling the significant components of the deep past that influence evolutionary processes and that lead to progress or, on the contrary, to traumas that have blocked evolutionary paths.
It does not construct scenarios, but describes evolutionary processes that are systematically based on the fact that life is stronger than death and that evolution seems to go from matter to spirituality. Evolution is the result of a relational mechanism between the components of life within Gaia that constantly oscillates between cooperation and competition. It is these oscillations that generate the need to “get out of the crisis”. The decisions that are taken are marked by recent excesses.
This form of futurology is called cybernetic because it looks at the world in motion and not in a static way. What gives us the sensation of chance are the components that we have not perceived.
Cybernetic futurology works in transdisciplinary mode. Working only on the long term, it eliminates the jolts of history.
For example, no matter how Henri IV changed his religion, history records that the stability of “Church/State” was a long journey that continues to this day, for we cannot progress without spirituality.
Scientists are combining their expertise to try to go further back in our history. This is important to understand us, since the future has its roots in our history. Everything, or almost everything, is a matter of system; in this case, we are in a clock whose hands are constantly moving forward, without ever returning to the starting point.
The short video that shows a huge piece of iceberg collapsing into the sea actually shows us the completion of a crack that started many years ago.
This is what is currently happening with global finance, whose foundations go back more than 10,000 years. It is cracking, making strange noises, and then repeated crises… It is functioning more and more poorly, but does not itself propose an alternative model because it only does what it knows how to do. It is not designed to meet any other expectations than the facilitation of primary exchanges between men. Other organs of our life together will have to take over from it or supplement its shortcomings.
1.2.3. The temporality of civilizations
We are beginning to know how civilizations are born and die. Of course, each story is different and contains its share of revolt and sadness. But there is a recurring theme.
In the beginning, there is a tribe that discovers a source of prosperity: water, a plant, a source of energy, an ore, a crossing point, etc. Often several elements at the same time. The tribe organizes itself to optimize the way of exploiting this source of prosperity which it trades with its neighbors.
To protect this source of prosperity, the tribe creates institutions to make the most of the source and to protect those who exploit it. This is how our current system protects property. These institutions also ensure that the greatest number of people benefit from the wealth created through small benefits.
But in the cosmos, and therefore on this earth, everything is in constant motion. The source of prosperity runs out or depreciates. Wealth dissipates. And the population demands its petty benefits. Institutions are called to witness, in vain. Rulers are unable to govern. Then, a pervert takes power by promising what he is unable to give, since the source of prosperity has dried up without hope of return. If he cannot keep his promises, he becomes a dictator and the system collapses, leaving the place to barbarians or an interminable lethargy.
These collapses are often characterized by a kind of destructive “swan song”: the elite abuses its power by overexploiting all remaining resources, giving itself the illusion of preserving its standing, a way of covering its refusal to face reality.
In the words of Arnold Toybee, a specialist in the fall of civilizations, “Civilizations die by suicide, not by murder”.
A similar process can be seen in the “great families”, those who have made their mark on their time and have accumulated wealth. There is the generation that creates, the one that believes and the one that crunches. The latter finds the wealth it has rather cumbersome and complicated to manage, so it lets it decay on the good advice of predators in ambush!
This sounds like a natural phenomenon, and indeed it is: to bring out a source of wealth, particular mental and behavioral dispositions are needed. It is possible to transmit our flame to a few generations, but rarely beyond that.
Life in nature is an eternal process of trial and error. Our DNA contains the traces of this process. A family is a living body just as a tribe and now a nation is. The “beings” who succeed one another over time have a memory that stores feedback so that each subsequent generation does not “reinvent the wheel”.
Our institutions are not designed to deviate from their role in the context that created them. Thus, they are a strength in the ascending phase of civilization, and then they become a liability. This is what makes changes in civilization dangerous, because a civilization cannot function without institutions.
Revolutions have the effect of breaking institutions, but they do damage and do not always lead to the right result. Even if the “next model” is clearly spelled out, it is difficult to avoid the chaos phase.
But the “next model” is rarely known. It is generally brought by the barbarians who impose their own by subjugating the fallen civilization. At first sight, this is not reassuring for the West. But what is the situation more specifically for Europe?
Europe, like the Middle East in its time, dominated the world for over 300 years. But now it is no longer the case. It is a collection of states that have been at war with each other. The countries of the South are weak links with their still active monarchical culture. The countries of the North have more cooperative governance structures. Germany, in its current form, is a recent structure and has already freed itself from the hierarchical model. It is better equipped to deal with the complex world that is coming at us.
Europe is not in a suicidal phase, but in a phase of renewal. Its challenge will be to make Europe without affecting the pride of each of its member countries. This process is stimulated by external threats.
Each country must do its part to make progress. For example, for France, it is a question of looking back at 800 years of centralization and the way in which its elite was formed, which inherited the flamboyant governing practices of the time of Louis XIV, Napoleon and de Gaulle. These monarchs had a vision and knew how to be demanding. But a sustainable organization cannot be built around the idea that extraordinary personalities are permanently available on our soil. We need a more realistic and less elitist model.
In order to “make a renaissance”, there must be opportunities for innovation that mobilize hope and desire. We must favor both the visionaries and the doers. In order not to wait a few centuries for our next monarch, we must do as our European neighbors have done: adopt a governance that goes from the bottom to the top, while being positive and demanding.
This is currently happening with renewable energy and the necessary digital redesign.
