Can You Buy Ky Jelly In Abu Dhabi

INTERNET IN EDUCATION ... RADIO AND OTHER RADIO

Monday from 11 am to 12 pm at the issue of Jean Carette at Radio City -Mari e. We talk, I am told, of philosphy, but also social and political issues.

Hp Replacement Dongles

I will be issuing You'll read as , Radio-Canada, Sunday, May 2, between 14 and 16 hours to talk about philosophy.

Popup Camper Canoe Rack

EXTRACT OF A LETTER OF ROCKER

now I translate a book by Rudolf Rocker. During my work to prepare, introduction of this book, I came across a letter dated May 15, 1952 (in Boris Yelensky). Rocker wrote, speaking of anarchism:

"I think our whole movement has become a major focus of personal feuds - not only here in the U.S., but in all countries. There is so much bitterness, so many and such a presumption strong tendency to underestimate or to speak ill of the good work of others, it is not surprising that our movement has entered the phase of its history the more critical since the time of the First International. The basic ideas of anarchism will never die and they remain a source of inspiration, but I doubt that a renewal the libertarian spirit will emanate from the ranks of the movement today. "

It deserves consideration, it seems to me anyway ... I wanted to keep track here.

Scars Of Pityriasis Rosea

INTRODUCTION TO ETHICS - 3 SCIENCE AND ETHICS - Part 3

[For Skeptical Quebec. The numbers are obtained mainly by subscription . This is an abridged version without the notes and footnotes.]


Parentèle and reciprocity are the two pillars of altruism in a Darwinian world, but he builds many secondary structures on these two pillars.

Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion , 2006)

In this section on science and ethics in this series, I remember how contemporary biology has solved the riddle of altruism and, by exposing a few, show how this solution has opened the door to numerous and potentially illuminating hypotheses the origins and nature of ethics and hence on his naturalization.

These tests are obviously encouraged scattered attempts at synthesis, which would place them into a coherent whole to understand phenomena related to morality. Such synthesis efforts have not failed in recent years. I will draw the next Once the outline of one of them, given by the well known Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptic magazine. Then I ask also the question of the significance of this work for ethics and meta-ethics, especially in relation to Hume's guillotine that I outlined in a previous text (for the record: is it valid to pass descriptive, factual judgments about the origin of morality for the prescriptive judgments of morality? what value and meaning given to works that seem to allow himself this leap?)

issues discussed here are vast and uncultivated land: what follows is inevitably partial and fragmentary. For this reason, I will indicate at the end of this series a few books that will help who wishes to go further.

The problem of altruism in biology

Altruism problematic in biology must be distinguished from the ordinary sense of altruism, which may be called psychological altruism. The psychological altruism is common sense, that of psychology and philosophy usual and it describes an act as if posed for altruistic reasons directed towards the good of others "and without consideration of a any advantage personal future, "as well says Christine Claven. Conversely, an act of altruism is evolutionary if it has the effect of "increasing the value of survival and reproduction of others at the expense of its own value of survival and reproduction."

altruistic behaviors heard in that abound in nature. Among the cases of altruism intrigued as Darwin presented included, we have seen, those of the insect order Hymenoptera, including bees, ants and wasps. It found there sterile females which do not occur and instead spend their lives caring girls being born to their mother and also individuals (like bees), which defend the colony by behaviors that cause their death (for example, by biting the intruder).

But the existence of both of these selfless acts of these sterile individuals that pose a great mystery, already recognized by Darwin's theory of evolution. And no one understands why evil when he presented sociobiology, EO Wilson will write that the question of altruism is the fundamental theoretical problem. Wilson will make as follows: "[...] how altruism, which by definition diminishes the value of selective the individual can evolve by natural selection? . We can not agree more.

Some authors drew the conclusion of the difficulties that other forces than those postulated by the theory of evolution should be at work in evolution, others suggested leaving the framework of classical Darwinism and thinking developments from the group rather than the individual - and this approach still retains a few defenders. A century passed unsatisfactory effort and it was not until the new synthesis, that of neo-Darwinism incorporating the genetic revolution, so that a solution appears.

Under this new synthesis is based on genes rather than individuals that evolution must be understood: Classical Darwinism sought to understand the characteristics of organisms as conferring a benefit or not in competition with others to leave offspring, the new synthesis wondered how these features help (or not) the genes that constitute this organization to ensure their sustainability.

Hamilton and kin selection

Only 1964, William D. Hamilton (1936-2000) will give the answer now generally admitted to some issues we have raised above.

The basic idea is that altruism may develop between organizations that have ties of kinship (referred to for this reason kin altruism) and thus share common genes. This altruism occurs when the benefits drawn by the recipient are higher than they cost the donor. Hamilton makes a rule that now bears his name: rB> C, where B is the benefit to the behavior that benefits altruistic, C is the cost to the agency altruistic and r the coefficient of genetic similarity. It is thus understood that a gene that Dawkins called "selfish" when he popularized the ideas of Hamilton in 1976, its wearer can program to assist individuals who wears one of his lines and that altruism increases its ability to proliferate. This idea is not only intuitively compelling when you think about animals like humans, where children have half the genes of each parent, a quarter with their grandchildren, and so on, but it also brilliantly solved the enigma insects Hymenoptera, the genetic individual. [The following box provides an initial explanation of this complex issue].

************************************************ **************************************




"Among the Bees and in most species of this order, the females are from a diploid zygote. For males cons [...] develop from an unfertilized egg haploid. In this system haplodiploid values of kinship relations are modified and the transmission of genes becomes different between maternal and paternal lines. [... The sociality of bees is based on these observations. A female share more genes with her sisters (three quarters) with its own offspring (half). Therefore, we understand that evolutionary level a genetic system leading to increased production of sisters at the expense of direct progeny can be selected. "
Source: Social Insects: [http://insectesociaux.skyrock.com/2 . html]


******************************************** ******************************************
kin altruism is a first breakthrough, the first pillar as said Dawkins, an evolutionary approach to ethics: it helps to understand that our ancestors had in place something that will allow the development of morality. The reciprocal altruism will provide the second breakthrough.


Reciprocal Altruism Altruism

for our close kin, however, morality appears to imply more than that, puisqu'existent in our societies (and even in some animals) multiple forms of altruism practiced towards beings with whom we disagree or not clearly that very few genes.

But genes that predispose us to practice altruism toward beings that we are not genetically related contribute to the spread of selfish genes and should disappear with time. The solution of this enigma new in 1971 and is largely the work of Robert Trivers, which assumes that altruism emerges as a strategy of reciprocity. The basic idea is this.

reciprocal altruism is a strategy by which an organization is altruistic towards another organization to be able later to turn the beneficiary of their altruism. "Scratch my back and I scratch yours later," after all.


*********************************************** **************************************

reciprocal altruism among vampire bats





Reciprocal Altruism is practiced among the vampire bat (Desmodus rotundus), which were studied by G. Wilkinson. This case is notable because its appearance implies in particular, as discussed, cognitive capabilities for detecting cheaters.
It is common for these animals fail to eat during a given night: now, they would die if they did not eat for several days running.
Here, a hungry bat in seeking another, first by scratching her belly (c) and then licking her face (d) the donor, willing, then regurgitate blood to the requester (e).
[Wilkinson, Gerald S., "Reciprocal Food Sharing in the Vampire Bat," Nature, 1984, 308: 181-184]
********************* ************************************************** **************

But our problem remains. Indeed, where reciprocal altruism is practiced, it is advantageous to give and receive without ever becoming a free rider (commonly called "free-rider"), a cheater who has never had to pay her the benefits of cooperation: in this case, the change should ultimately produce such as cheaters and ban reciprocal altruism: if the random shows such genes, the changes will eliminate. How the cooperation and reciprocal altruism postulle which is clearly there could be deploy?

Game theory, which arises generally and the question of formal cooperation and advantageous conditions for its practice, will help raise and resolve this issue.

game theory to the rescue

Game theory, described in 1944 by John von Neumann (1903-1957) [see sidebar] and Oskar Morgenstern (1902 -1977) became a powerful and indispensable tool in the social sciences. To her the mathematician John F. Nash (1928), made famous by the film A Beautiful Mind, has made his most important scientific contributions. She proved extremely useful to identify some problems concerning the evolution and to study the myriad real dilemmas that arise when one must choose whether to cooperate in the pursuit of our interests that we rationally seek to maximize. To get an idea, consider the following.

************************************************ *************************************




John von Neumann (1903 -1957) was One of the greatest scientists of the twentieth century. In addition to game theory, he contributed significantly to developments in quantum mechanics, functional analysis, computer science, set theory, artificial intelligence, and in many other areas of mathematics.
legends that circulate about his intelligence and memory, which were extraordinary, abound. Here is one.
It is amusing to ask mathematicians early next clue. Two cyclists start 20 km apart at the same time toward each other, both traveling at 10 km / h. Always at the same time, a fly leaves the handlebars of a bicycle and flies to 15 km / h towards the handle of the other, when she reached, she instantly turned around and returned to the first bicycle, and so on, until that both bikes come together. It asks how far the fly has so traveled.
People trained in mathematics typically want to resolve this conundrum by summing the series of distances: this is long and complicated. But if we notice that the bikes will meet one hour after their departure and that the fly will have flown for an hour, so you know as soon as it traveled 15 miles. They say you
one day put this puzzle to von Neumann. He immediately replied: "15 km". "You knew," said his questioner. "No," replied von Neumann. I just ordered the series. "

************************************************ *************************************

Suppose two people, John and Thierry were arrested by police who suspect them of a serious crime, but could not prove it. The police, however, can prove their guilt for a lesser offense. They were questioned separately, each in a different room. Each prisoner may admit or not admit the crime more serious, but he does not know what else will.

If both confess, each will make a prison sentence of 5 years if neither confesses, they will be incarcerated for one year - the penalty for the crime less serious than the police can prove, but they also promises that if one of them confesses, he will be free, will bail while his partner of ten years in prison.
Game theory examines such conflicts (scenarios can be infinitely more complex) and seeks by preparing a "payoff matrix" to determine the optimal rational strategy.


Note that in the dilemma presented here, the pursuit by each of its sole interest maximized (do not go to jail) leads both players to prison for five years, whereas if they cooperate and give up their personal interest maximized, they get the best collective outcome (each scooping one year in prison) and people are better off if they cooperate than if they are selfish.

back to our reciprocal altruism. He will find out how some animals placed in certain circumstances and playing repeatedly for such a prisoner's dilemma will eventually generate a reciprocal altruism would be the best strategy. Robert Axelrod has identified the conditions that must be met. Organizations must first meet many of the same agencies, they must recognize these organizations already crossed and distinguish them from foreign agencies, they must finally remember how they were treated by the bodies they have crossed, because detection cheaters is crucial. But if these conditions are met, long term cooperation and reciprocal altruism will be fixed in the populations concerned and they are therefore compatible with natural selection and could have emerged from it.

One of the most interesting work in this context has just been completed by Robert Axelrod. Many people see it as a promising avenue towards a neo-Darwinian left - as a kind of update of the reflection of Kropotkin.

In a word, he organized tournaments in which various strategies of behavior in situations of possible competition or cooperation clashed - Strategies that can still go to work, do not cooperate and covering a vast spectrum of other options in between. Many people were invited to write a computer program to creatures prescribing behavior in reaction to the behavior of other creatures with whom they interact. Axelrod then had them compete each against each other to see which would be more successful. This is the simplest and shortest of all programs that competed in this competition that prevailed. Called Tit-for-tat, that is to say, give and take, he recommends starting by cooperating with each other creature that we just met and continue to cooperate if the other cooperates, but not to cooperate if the other does not cooperate and continue to react that way in subsequent meetings, by responding in cooperation with cooperation and a refusal to cooperate by refusing to cooperate.

These two pillars in place, we guess they probably call for building a very large number of these "secondary structures" referred to Dawkins and which concern not only morality, but many other subjects.


A plethora work and avenues of research


The research in question are now realized in sociobiology, psychology (evolutionary), anthropology, biology, philosophy and game theory. They cover the evolution of social behavior and altruistic, and the conditions necessary for their appearance.

Claven draws up the inventory summary: "In reality, they give interpretations of the function and necessary conditions for the emergence of phenomena associated with morality: social feelings, thinking skills, cultural transmission, propensity to punish certain conduct, standards of conduct, etc.. This area of investigation, though still largely unexplored, is both lush and bright. Here are some results that seem particularly interesting. Firstly a number of research shows that effective social norms must be reinforced by the sanction or by emotions strong enough to motivate action. On the other hand, it seems that the stability of social groups depends on the presence among their members, some social trends, including the tendency to conform to the majority or to imitate prestigious individuals. Finally, more generally, the emergence and stabilization of behavior and moral thinking are various explanations: the morality would have for example been selected because it encourages coordination and cooperation between individuals in a society as other authors, she was selected because it allows for a certain equality among members of a society. "

Given these facts, what follows for understanding what we are and ethics in particular ? Dawkins has made an outstanding issue in the opening classic book in which he popularized the ideas I have outlined. He asks us to imagine a man who is not that long survived, and even lived in was very prosperous in the world of Chicago gangsters. It would, he said, reasonable to conclude that this man has certain characteristics - say it is hard, ruthless, he has the easy relaxation, etc..

Dawkins continues: "As the triumphant Chicago gangsters, our genes have survived in some cases for millions of years, in a highly competitive world. This leaves us to expect certain qualities in our genes. I will indicate that the predominant quality expected in a triumphant gene is ruthless selfishness. This gene selfishness will lead usually to selfishness in individual behavior. However, as we shall see, there are special circumstances in which a gene can better achieve its own selfish goals by promoting a limited form of altruism at the level of individual animals.. "

Next time, I will summarize this work attempted by Michael Shermer and suggest a critical distance on these efforts naturalization of ethics on their scope and meaning.

Guidline Value For 2010 Chenni

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON SOME TRENDS OF CHOMSKY the present anarchy

[For The World Libertarian]


must carefully preserve the memory of anarchist ideas and more, inspiring the struggles of peoples who sought to free themselves from oppression and domination: not as ways to fix the mind in new molds, but as a base from which to understand both the social reality and the work he will do for the exchange st
N. Chomsky

I would return here on a very recent interview Noam Chomsky in which answers questions put to him on anarchism [1]. Three reasons lead me to do.

The first is that what Chomsky says is never uninteresting.

The second is that it is relatively rare in recent years at least, he decides on anarchism and especially on the health status of contemporary anarchism, as is the case in this interview.

The third is what he suggests is likely to stimulate discussion that we should have between us on important issues point to which Chomsky.

But before we get to these topics, I feel a word report Chomsky's anarchism. I insist, however: it is only a word and the question of the relationship of anarchism to Chomsky, considered globally and in the length of his theoretical activity and activist, is more complex than what I will tell in the following lines, which offer only a modest overview of an unknown territory - and ask to be carefully explored.


reports constant and singular

It is often mistaken, it seemed to me, Chomsky on Anarchism, sometimes to deny him (sic) he claims that name yet. But

Chomsky has continued to claim that it is commonly known, without denying the appellation anarchist, libertarian socialism. His interest in these ideas is old and the first text he published nine years in the school newspaper when he attended, was on the English Civil War, which was then raging, and which Later, he devoted even other writings, including a major text on objectivity in the work academic. Chomsky, in fact, never cease altogether to write about anarchism, to talk about it or demand it.
I will begin two comments on this anarchism Chomsky.

The first is its anti-authoritarianism, which stems from the belief that human beings grow optimally in conditions of freedom. The result is of course the rejection of capitalism and market economy, corporations are described as total institutions, but also of the planned economy and state socialism. It also follows from this emphasis on freedom, conceptions of education, politics, government, culture and many other topics where the stresses at each time are a priori perceived as suspicious and to be justified - the slaughter became the watchword when they can not pass the test of their justification. (Note no power to insist that the demand for freedom has always been, in anarchism, in tension with an egalitarian ideal and the term libertarian socialism commonly used by Chomsky has the merit of the recall.)

My second remark is to recall that Chomsky's anarchism firmly inscribed in the tradition of the Enlightenment and the rationalism that characterizes them. The reference to the rationalism of course means a strong commitment to reason, science, the rigor and argumentative debate, but it also means defending a particular conception of human beings in which freedom mentioned above is Central, in which he admitted some cons and cons culturalism some empiricism which increases indefinitely malleable, that human beings have natural characteristics that define them. As we suspected, his work in linguistics and cognitive science give credence to these ideas, even if Chomsky has always been very careful about the relationship between contributions to the linguist and his libertarian political views, refusing to see anything but weak links and set at a fairly high level of abstraction. Anyway, this rationalism thus defined also singled Chomsky among anarchists, at first, but also within the left.

In total, Chomsky is an idea of anarchism large enough, if not to reflect, at least bring that authors would be required by some as, if not outside the movement, or at least being at its fringes - for example Anton Pannekoek theorist workers' councils. He also expressed deep sympathy for anarchists relatively less known authors, like Diego Abad de Santillan or Rudolph Rocker.

Chomsky calls in total to a non-dogmatic view of anarchism, which recognizes both the importance and singularity in the history of ideas and political movements and news: he has to repeatedly reminded about the value that anarchism, as he conceives it, is advancing, its hopes, its political and economic project and affirmed their relevance in solving the challenges we face today. What this link to these hopes and projects is well described in the following statement: "I want to believe, says Chomsky, that human beings have an instinct for freedom and they want to actually control their own affairs, they do not want to be rushed, neither ordered nor so downtrodden., and they want the opportunity to do things that make sense, like constructive work and they control - they control or with others. "

So, you may have guessed, with a priori very open and friendly that Chomsky talks about anarchism present at about which he nevertheless some criticisms and comments that deserve to be heard.

few observations and assumptions of Chomsky on Anarchism contemporary

I present these observations and hypotheses into three parts. They relate respectively atomism and bigotry of at least a share of the current anarchist movement, and his hostility towards science and technology and finally, the question of reformism.

Chomsky began by noting that if there are (relatively) many people who say they are tied to anarchism and who claim that they be considered anarchism, however there are few exceptions, such as Spain, the anarchist movement. Anarchism tends to be, at least in the U.S. (and presumably elsewhere) rather fragmented, not only individuals more or less isolated, but also sometimes very sectarian groups and spend considerable time in s attacking each other.

Chomsky sees this as something special (and I would add: from REM), that, at least in his country, except at very short historical periods, there has never been so many anarchists that today but neither has so little anarchy, at least if by that word means a unified movement that would be rather common in combat and that could therefore criticize, reject, or otherwise wish to improve kill and so on.

A task he seems to be the order: the overcoming bigotry and intolerance, and in recognition of our ignorance of what will be a libertarian society, the admission that there is room for disagreement healthy and constructive, but you need to know to express, as he says, discussions held "in a civilized manner and fraternal and with a sense of solidarity in sustained pursuit of a common goal. "

The second set of remarks of Chomsky extends precisely from consideration of this issue to pursue common goals. Which to choose? And how to pursue them effectively? He pointed out two which seem particularly vital: nuclear proliferation and the environmental crisis. However, as regards the latter, he adds, there are also among some anarchists, an attitude of opposition to science that immediately disqualifies Avenue anarchism as credible and serious. "At less, he said, to consent to [reduce humanity] to 100,000 hunter-gatherers, if we take seriously the survival of billions of human beings, their children and grandchildren, it will require scientific breakthroughs and technology. "

Note here that Chomsky does not endorse in any way an idolatry of science or technology, as it should be noted also that he knows nothing either (remember what he said about nuclear proliferation) of uses potentially lethal to the species as a whole we can do: it is not difficult to identify individuals or groups, among anarchists but not only there, that indeed this attitude he describes an attitude that may well have indeed, in the end, he dreads the terrible effects.

The third set of comments concerns, if I understand his thinking, the type of action we should take to confront this vast and powerful system for both corporate and state in which we live and which has established Suddenly decades of social engineering conducted a large scale. This

what it wants to attract attention, this time it's the fact that this struggle, both on the terms of thinking that concrete action and practice, demands and will require much more than great and righteous declarations of adherence to distant targets (say: 'I want to live in a just society, free and equal') : this requires the advocacy, goals closer and modest, and through "recognition of the social and economic reality as it is" the creation of patient and progressive institutions of the future within the company today - as already said Bakunin.

stay in the purity of the proposals, thinks Chomsky hinders effective militant action that should be causes to defend human rights of workers, environmental issues, the fight against poverty and so on. Otherwise, we run, "he said, the risk of falling into" the sectarianism, this narrowness, this lack of solidarity and shared goals that has always been a condition of marginal groups, particularly on the left. "

This sectarianism can also be harmful to those that would specifically help its promoters, since it leads to adopt strategies that activists, under the guise of radicalism, ultimately strengthen the position of the dominant institutions while we are away from battles that must be conducted and those with whom we should fight.

Chomsky is here as an example, American anarchism who take refuge behind an anti-statism of principle not to support the health reform that is taking place, imperfect as it is, and that millions of people will benefit . Such a course of conduct also forbids all purposes to help educate and mobilize the required economic crisis, with the same people who earlier suffered the first.

Fortunately, says Chomsky, newspapers and anarchist organizations do not fall into these gaps and to care about these short-term goals. It also, thankfully, is accurate.

ago, I think, enough supply ample discussions.

How To Cheat An Atm Machine

YOU SEE IT ?

Here.

Cablage Stator Generateur

you interested MAYBE YOU TOO ... CHEZ CHRISTIANE

The free will is probably no, say scientists, but do not repeat it and do not despair the 'Billancourt freedom'. A

campaign to arrest the Pope for crimes against humanity during his next trip to the UK? R. Dawkins is in agreement. (In French here) What will the some 68% of Americans who believe in the devil (sic)? That is a detail, I suppose ... It is true that the devil has been identified is C. Hitchens.

The Simpsons are with me!

The role of radical intellectual by some Chomsky. A video here.

Sat Harris on science, facts and morality. Answer Massimo Pigliucci critical. replica of Sam Harris. Lise Bissonnette

on journalism, web, blogs and all this-that.

Ned Block and Philip Kitcher identify very critical of the recent book by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattellli-Palmarni on Darwin, which is much gossip. It's here .

Club Nitendo Point Increase

CART ... TWO REVIEWS IN

... Tomorrow, Monday, April 12, to talk about steroids to understand the philosophy and I think, therefore I laugh. humor and philosophy.

They await me at 9: 30: I have to spend around 10 hours. Here

coverage I think, therefore I laugh:

Tritton, Physical Fluid Dynamics

(Ticket appeared in The Bookseller )

THE FUTURE GLOBALIZATION OF WORLD

Economics is a social science, singular.

There is to begin and sophisticated mathematical models of enormous complexity that give his analysis and predictions unprecedented accuracy among the social sciences.

Boredom, and that's a little secret badly ranking since everyone can quickly find out, the trouble is that these models are often based on assumptions and idealizations that are as analyzes and forecasts that sometimes n'entretiennent a tenuous link with reality.

Moreover, in space public, sometimes the speech given on behalf of the economy is deeply ideological and serve as nothing more than a weapon in the service of certain interests, it would be superfluous to mention here.

front which is advanced in the name of economics, sound caution should be exercised.

What mean the end of oil

This reminded, I come to the book by Jeff Rubin.

This is an economist who worked at the highest level (namely at CIBC), which became famous for a few predictions that were made (including the fall Toronto real estate market). He is now writer and speaker on the issue of oil and the impact the outbreak announced its price - Rubin predicted in 2000 to $ 100 a barrel, he predicted it will soon be $ 200, or more.

His thesis is simple. Demand for oil continues to grow, driven as everyone knows by countries like China and India, but also by the OPEC countries, Mexico, Russia. The oil that remains, as it remains, will cost more and more expensive to extract (think of the oil sands of Alberta).

But it is oil that served as fuel to globalization and enabled by the low cost of transportation, travel to places where resources and labor cheap. These opportunities are closing, the world will soon change radically.

Mr. Rubin is an author pleasant to read and who knows to tell a story, which is quite rare among the authors of tests: we have no difficulty understanding why there is a much requested speaker on the circuit where he is a strong demand for remarks like his. With him, economic issues and concepts are clarified and embodied.

should read these pages, for example where he describes the economic system that makes salmon fishing in Norway, transported to China to be filleted and then sent to your local supermarket before arriving on your plate at a restaurant (pp. 12 - 14): it makes miles and liters of oil and Rubin argues that while perfectly understandable.

The best part of the book seems to be in the final chapters, the author argues that our world will shrink as we live and consume more locally. I confess that I liked it lingers longer in this aspect. In any case, it would be the finish of strawberries from the end of the world in January, finished live far from work, and air travel would be drastically reduced. In this sense, our world, dwarfing, would again become too great. "It's back to a new world [...] much larger, in which we are much smaller," he writes. (P. 368)


Possible limitations of a thesis


however, and further that this view of the end of oil is definitely not new, the main defects of the book, in my opinion are those of the profession of the author I mentioned at the beginning. The globalization of the world is indeed a political phenomenon, historical, ideological and social absolutely can not be reduced to economics, much less on oil and its price.

Its fuel was also and remains a deadly ideology implementation services institutions with incredible power, sometimes hidden and democratic legitimacy questionable or nonexistent. In the case of oil, for example, these multinationals were unlawfully appropriating resources, that as part of an international order maintained by force.

If what Mr. Rubin is too massive to ignore all this, is that it readily accepts the ideological frameworks that unfolds and our economy can not imagine that could change.

The author's second book which I mean do not share the assumptions of the economist.


Bet Chomsky

People who read elsewhere in these pages know, but I made clear, honest: I am a great admirer of Noam Chomsky.

eminent scientist, the man was at the heart of the establishment of the cognitive sciences, a major scientific event of the last century. He reiterated linguistics and philosophy provided the essential contributions, including reviving the traditions of rationalism and nativist. Who reads or talks to him, I had the chance to do recently, no doubt to be a mind of extraordinary power. And that everyone agrees, at least when it comes to cognitive science, linguistics and philosophy.

But there is a second Chomsky openly anarchist and he also authored a major work, but this time often received with hostility, and in which he has repeatedly denounced U.S. foreign policy and globalization world led by the dominant institutions and for their benefit.

If you are not familiar with one or other of these Chomsky, the talks between him and Jean Bricmont (it is indeed that of the famous Sokal affair) are an ideal opportunity to get acquainted.

Bricmont therefore questions Chomsky deftly and without fear sometimes push its limits. In two interviews, the territory covered is vast: philosophy, science, social change, human nature, imperialism, recent political history, anarchism, and others.

Chomsky is perfectly lucid on what globalization meant the world the last twenty years and what has fueled. What he has to say about it converges to what he calls a "Pascal's wager", that he has done throughout his life: "If we abandon hope and resign ourselves to passivity, we ensure that the worst will happen and if we keep working hard and hope that these promises are fulfilled, the situation can improve. " (Pp. 29-30)

soon we will put in the perspective opened up by Chomsky, one begins to imagine other avenues for Globalization and say, among many examples, that the abolition or decrease military spending (and a thousand other destructive economic activities) are also simple ways to change the entire economy ...

Structures identified

RUBIN, Jeff Tomorrow, a tiny world. How oil will cause the end of globalization Éditions Hurtubise, Montreal, 2010.

Chomsky, Noam and Bricmont, Jean, Reason cons power, Pascal's wager , hernia, Travel Collection, Paris, 2009.

Plaid Patricia Nimmocks Msds

JOEL THE BIGOT

I'll be home Joel Le Bigot tomorrow (Sunday, April 11) morning to talk about steroids for understand the philosophy and I think, therefore I laugh. humor and philosophy, the collective that I co-directed with Christian Boissinot.

How Long Does It Take For Tamazepam To Work

NEWS; STUDENTS MAKE ME AND MY HONOR TEN

I'm buried under a ton of paper, with lots of text to make and the feeling that all this paper may well be sufficient to dry the Richelieu River which flows in front of me. Just in time to write here and even less to intervene.

I still take the time to make a jump to the launch of the collection to include steroids , of Amérik Media, whose first three titles are published simultaneously. They are: Steroids to understand global warming, François Watier; steroids to understand the GMO, Valerie Closure, and steroids to understand the philosophy that I sign. The launch was held in Montreal at the head of Port bookstore, Monday, April 12, 17 and 19h. information here.

the same place, but on April 16 this time, launching the group led by Marc Chevrier, Beyond the school -machine, where I sign a chapter.

Richard Brouillette continues to present his film, The encirclement , who just released in France. On 9 April he is in Caen, at Cinema Lux. Other dates available on the site film.

Finally, something that touched me enormously. For ten years I taught in large groups and at the request of my university courses undergraduate foundations of education. Students have done me the honor to speak well and to evaluate very positively. As expected, we therefore decided to abolish this form, to my great sadness. But my students are protesting and have launched a petition. I am humbled and honored, really touched and honored. If I

have taught and want to sign it here. We'll see what happens. But thank you to all. You did I say? I'm touched.

Meanwhile, I promise myself that one day, not too far away, I tell my great adventures in the wonderful world of science education.