"Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen a eu le mérite de montrer, peut-être le premier, qu'il n'y avait aucun lien entre croissance et développement. Tout dépend du contenu de la croissance. Non seulement les adversaires de la croissance ne sont pas des ennemis du développement, mais ils sont sans doute les meilleurs défenseurs de la civilisation, l'autre nom du développement. La croissance économique, en revanche, relève de l'illimité, de l'avancée sans fin, de l'impossible. Elle est un rêve infantile: l'enfant cesse d'en être un lorsqu'il apprend à renoncer au giron maternel et qu'il entre dans le monde fini du possible. Le capitalisme est bien une régression infantile."
Bernard Maris, Antimanuel d'économie. 2. Les cigales, chapitre "Économie et écologie ou comment «j'ai tué Maman»".
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
La coopération a besoin de la compétition
Et vice versa. Un point de vue qui réconcilie les deux concepts:
"Il est aujourd'hui courant, voire «politiquement correct», de déplorer la propension humaine à la violence et à l'agressivité, pour dénoncer la joie meurtrière qui conduisait jadis - ou naguère encore? - aux conquêtes, aux duels et autres activités semblables. Mais il y a de bonnes raisons évolutionnistes pour que ces propensions existent. Comprendre le bon et le mauvais dans la nature humaine est beaucoup plus complexe qu'on ne le penserait, à cause de leur entrelacement. Dans l'histoire de l'évolution, selon l'expression du biologiste Richard Alexander, les êtres humains ont appris à coopérer afin de rivaliser. C'est-à-dire que la vaste panoplie des caractéristiques cognitives et émotionnelles qui permettent à l'homme un tel degré de sophistication dans l'organisation sociale n'a pas été engendrée par sa lutte avec l'environnement, mais plutôt parce que des groupes humains ont dû lutter les uns contre les autres. Cela a effectivement conduit, à travers le temps, à une situation de course aux armements dans laquelle la coopération sociale croissante à l'intérieur d'un groupe a forcé d'autres groupes à travailler de la même façon, dans une rivalité jamais finie. Compétition et coopération maintiennent l'équilibre dans une relation de symbiose* qui ne couvre pas seulement les temps historiques de l'évolution, mais aussi les sociétés actuelles et les individus. Nous espérons certainement que les êtres humains apprendront à vivre pacifiquement dans bien des circonstances où ils ne le font pas actuellement, mais si le pendule s'éloigne trop du comportement agressif et violent, les pressions sélectives en faveur de la coopération faibliront également. Les sociétés qui ne connaissent ni agression ni compétition stagnent et ne peuvent innover; les individus qui sont trop confiants et trop coopératifs se rendent eux-mêmes vulnérables à d'autres qui sont plus hargneux."
Francis Fukuyama, La Fin de l'homme. Les conséquences de la révolution biotechnique, cité par Bernard Maris, dans l'Antimanuel d'économie. 2. Les cigales, chapitre "La pulsion de mort au coeur du capitalisme".
* passage mis en gras par moi.
"Il est aujourd'hui courant, voire «politiquement correct», de déplorer la propension humaine à la violence et à l'agressivité, pour dénoncer la joie meurtrière qui conduisait jadis - ou naguère encore? - aux conquêtes, aux duels et autres activités semblables. Mais il y a de bonnes raisons évolutionnistes pour que ces propensions existent. Comprendre le bon et le mauvais dans la nature humaine est beaucoup plus complexe qu'on ne le penserait, à cause de leur entrelacement. Dans l'histoire de l'évolution, selon l'expression du biologiste Richard Alexander, les êtres humains ont appris à coopérer afin de rivaliser. C'est-à-dire que la vaste panoplie des caractéristiques cognitives et émotionnelles qui permettent à l'homme un tel degré de sophistication dans l'organisation sociale n'a pas été engendrée par sa lutte avec l'environnement, mais plutôt parce que des groupes humains ont dû lutter les uns contre les autres. Cela a effectivement conduit, à travers le temps, à une situation de course aux armements dans laquelle la coopération sociale croissante à l'intérieur d'un groupe a forcé d'autres groupes à travailler de la même façon, dans une rivalité jamais finie. Compétition et coopération maintiennent l'équilibre dans une relation de symbiose* qui ne couvre pas seulement les temps historiques de l'évolution, mais aussi les sociétés actuelles et les individus. Nous espérons certainement que les êtres humains apprendront à vivre pacifiquement dans bien des circonstances où ils ne le font pas actuellement, mais si le pendule s'éloigne trop du comportement agressif et violent, les pressions sélectives en faveur de la coopération faibliront également. Les sociétés qui ne connaissent ni agression ni compétition stagnent et ne peuvent innover; les individus qui sont trop confiants et trop coopératifs se rendent eux-mêmes vulnérables à d'autres qui sont plus hargneux."
Francis Fukuyama, La Fin de l'homme. Les conséquences de la révolution biotechnique, cité par Bernard Maris, dans l'Antimanuel d'économie. 2. Les cigales, chapitre "La pulsion de mort au coeur du capitalisme".
* passage mis en gras par moi.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Stoked
I couldn't resist this afternoon dropping my daughter at the babysitter and getting out in the water, to catch some of this unseasoned South swell hitting the Hawaiian islands. I went to Toes, away from the crowd, there were only about 10 people out there. It was smaller than elsewhere, but the waves were so beautiful, almost glassy (with just a light offshore wind).
And the best of all was the encounter with my favorite animal: a (monk) seal !
I was waiting for a wave, when I heard a noise like somebody was expelling water from his nose. I turned and was face to face with a monk seal, only 2 meters from me ! He swam close to me for a minute or so, and finally dove and disappeared.
I could not believe it ! Toes is wonderful, a few years ago I had windsurfed with whales...
I'm stoked. Hallelujah !
And the best of all was the encounter with my favorite animal: a (monk) seal !
I was waiting for a wave, when I heard a noise like somebody was expelling water from his nose. I turned and was face to face with a monk seal, only 2 meters from me ! He swam close to me for a minute or so, and finally dove and disappeared.
I could not believe it ! Toes is wonderful, a few years ago I had windsurfed with whales...
I'm stoked. Hallelujah !
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Critique psychanalytique du capitalisme
"Voici où le bât blesse: l'économie capitaliste propose aux individus une jouissance narcissique extraordinairement élevée. La pulsion de mort a intégré le lieu où elle ne devait pas entrer. La publicité, l'appel à la consommation exacerbée, au gaspillage, relèvent de cette pulsion. La conscience morale, qui fait qu'une partie du moi s'oppose au reste du moi comme surmoi, cette conscience morale, qui crée la culpabilité, est maintenant habitée par un parasite qui ne dit plus «Tu ne dois pas jouir» mais «Tu dois posséder et jouir». Ce parasite ronge notre conscience, l'affaiblit comme un virus affaiblirait nos défenses immunitaires. Une phrase comme «Le niveau de vie des Américains n'est pas négociable»* est tout simplement insensée. Elle dit: «Tu dois jouir et malheur à qui s'oppose à toi.» On mesure le déchirement des humains à qui l'on tient le double discours: 1) du sentiment de culpabilité et 2) de la culpabilisation de la culpabilité (ne te sens pas coupable, jouis sans entraves, jouis de la destruction du monde, demeure un enfant.)
Demeure un enfant: voilà en trois mots le langage économique. Soyez égoïstes, dit l'économie. Et elle déchire la culture, alors que celle-ci est altruiste, communautaire. La survie de la communauté et de l'espèce suppose le triomphe d'Éros sur Thanatos. Or, c'est le second qui est constamment poussé, mis en avant, sollicité et attisé par le capitalisme."
Bernard Maris, dans l'Antimanuel d'économie. 2. Les cigales, chapitre "La pulsion de mort au coeur du capitalisme".
*"The American way of life is not negotiable", George W. Bush (senior) in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
(note added by me).
Demeure un enfant: voilà en trois mots le langage économique. Soyez égoïstes, dit l'économie. Et elle déchire la culture, alors que celle-ci est altruiste, communautaire. La survie de la communauté et de l'espèce suppose le triomphe d'Éros sur Thanatos. Or, c'est le second qui est constamment poussé, mis en avant, sollicité et attisé par le capitalisme."
Bernard Maris, dans l'Antimanuel d'économie. 2. Les cigales, chapitre "La pulsion de mort au coeur du capitalisme".
*"The American way of life is not negotiable", George W. Bush (senior) in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
(note added by me).
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Homo economicus Evolves
This is the title of an article in this week's Science, by Steven D. Levitt and John A. List, on economics (for once), which resonates in the beginning with the books by Bernard Maris I am reading, and shows that economists are indeed working toward improving the very crude model on which capitalism is based, but shows in the end that they may not be that wrong...
I like particularly the introduction:
"The discipline of economics is built on the shoulders of the mythical species Homo economicus. Unlike his uncle, Homo sapiens, H. economicus is unswervingly rational, completely selfish, and can effortlessly solve even the most difficult optimization problems. This rational paradigm has served economics well, providing a coherent framework for modeling human behavior. However, a small but vocal movement in economics has sought to dethrone H. economicus, replacing him with someone who acts "more human." This insurgent branch, commonly referred to as behavioral economics, argues that actual human behavior deviates from the rational model in predictable ways. Incorporating these features into economic models, proponents argue, should improve our ability to explain observed behavior."
All of this is well known since the beginning of economical science (but most people seem to have forgotten it and view the ensuing theorems as universal truth). The point of the article is to warn behavioral economists to draw too general conclusions as well simply from lab experiments, since the latter prove to give often different results than in real life situations:
"Perhaps the greatest challenge facing behavioral economics is demonstrating its applicability in the real world. In nearly every instance, the strongest empirical evidence in favor of behavioral anomalies emerges from the lab. Yet, there are many reasons to suspect that these laboratory findings might fail to generalize to real markets.[...]
Recognizing the limits of laboratory experiments, researchers have turned to "field experiments" to test behavioral models. Field experiments maintain true randomization, but are carried out in natural environments, typically without any knowledge on the part of the participant that their behavior is being scrutinized.[...]
Some evidence thus far suggests that behavioral anomalies are less pronounced than was previously observed in the lab [...]. For example, sports card dealers in a laboratory setting are driven strongly by positive reciprocity, i.e., the seller provides a higher quality of good than is necessary, especially when the buyer offers to pay a generous price. This is true even though the buyer has no recourse when the seller delivers low quality in the lab experiment. Yet, this same set of sports card traders in a natural field experiment behaves far more selfishly. They provide far lower quality on average when faced with the same buyer offers and increase quality little in response to a generous offer from the buyer."
Interesting ! Is Homo economicus not so far from Homo sapiens after all ?
I cannot resort to believe that...
I like particularly the introduction:
"The discipline of economics is built on the shoulders of the mythical species Homo economicus. Unlike his uncle, Homo sapiens, H. economicus is unswervingly rational, completely selfish, and can effortlessly solve even the most difficult optimization problems. This rational paradigm has served economics well, providing a coherent framework for modeling human behavior. However, a small but vocal movement in economics has sought to dethrone H. economicus, replacing him with someone who acts "more human." This insurgent branch, commonly referred to as behavioral economics, argues that actual human behavior deviates from the rational model in predictable ways. Incorporating these features into economic models, proponents argue, should improve our ability to explain observed behavior."
All of this is well known since the beginning of economical science (but most people seem to have forgotten it and view the ensuing theorems as universal truth). The point of the article is to warn behavioral economists to draw too general conclusions as well simply from lab experiments, since the latter prove to give often different results than in real life situations:
"Perhaps the greatest challenge facing behavioral economics is demonstrating its applicability in the real world. In nearly every instance, the strongest empirical evidence in favor of behavioral anomalies emerges from the lab. Yet, there are many reasons to suspect that these laboratory findings might fail to generalize to real markets.[...]
Recognizing the limits of laboratory experiments, researchers have turned to "field experiments" to test behavioral models. Field experiments maintain true randomization, but are carried out in natural environments, typically without any knowledge on the part of the participant that their behavior is being scrutinized.[...]
Some evidence thus far suggests that behavioral anomalies are less pronounced than was previously observed in the lab [...]. For example, sports card dealers in a laboratory setting are driven strongly by positive reciprocity, i.e., the seller provides a higher quality of good than is necessary, especially when the buyer offers to pay a generous price. This is true even though the buyer has no recourse when the seller delivers low quality in the lab experiment. Yet, this same set of sports card traders in a natural field experiment behaves far more selfishly. They provide far lower quality on average when faced with the same buyer offers and increase quality little in response to a generous offer from the buyer."
Interesting ! Is Homo economicus not so far from Homo sapiens after all ?
I cannot resort to believe that...
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Morale et évolution
"L'altruisme et la coopération posent la question fondamentale de la réversion: pourquoi la loi de la jungle n'existe-t-elle pas chez les humains ? Pourquoi ne favorisent-ils pas l'élimination des plus faibles ? Seuls les barbares ou les nazis cherchent à supprimer les handicapés.
La réponse se trouve chez Darwin.[...]
La morale devient un effet de l'évolution qui conduit paradoxalement à résister à l'élimination des moins aptes. Dans La Filiation de l'homme (1871), Darwin souligne que le haut niveau de nos capacités intellectuelles et les instincts sociaux sont, avec d'autres sentiments, comme la compassion apportée aux faibles, le regret, le remords, bref, la culture, un héritage animal que l'évolution a développé. La morale a apporté à l'homme un avantage adaptatif décisif. «Le secours aux démunis, l'aide aux handicapés en compensant leurs handicaps, multiplient les liens avec autrui dans un horizon sans cesse grandissant.»* Autrement dit, pour reprendre un mot de Patrick Tort, «la sélection naturelle sélectionne la civilisation qui s'oppose à la sélection naturelle. Pour cette raison, l'homme est un aboutissement - et une impasse». Ainsi, au fur et à mesure de l'évolution, apparaissent des comportements anti-éliminatoires et antisélectifs qui éloignent l'homme de son origine animale et assurent son triomphe. La morale est ainsi «une antinature issue de la nature elle-même».*
* Yvon Quiniou, «L'effet réversif de l'évolution», in Sciences et Avenir, hors-série, mai 2003.
Bernard Maris, dans l'Antimanuel d'économie. 2. Les cigales, chapitre "Les infortunes d'homo oeconomicus: la servitude volontaire".
La réponse se trouve chez Darwin.[...]
La morale devient un effet de l'évolution qui conduit paradoxalement à résister à l'élimination des moins aptes. Dans La Filiation de l'homme (1871), Darwin souligne que le haut niveau de nos capacités intellectuelles et les instincts sociaux sont, avec d'autres sentiments, comme la compassion apportée aux faibles, le regret, le remords, bref, la culture, un héritage animal que l'évolution a développé. La morale a apporté à l'homme un avantage adaptatif décisif. «Le secours aux démunis, l'aide aux handicapés en compensant leurs handicaps, multiplient les liens avec autrui dans un horizon sans cesse grandissant.»* Autrement dit, pour reprendre un mot de Patrick Tort, «la sélection naturelle sélectionne la civilisation qui s'oppose à la sélection naturelle. Pour cette raison, l'homme est un aboutissement - et une impasse». Ainsi, au fur et à mesure de l'évolution, apparaissent des comportements anti-éliminatoires et antisélectifs qui éloignent l'homme de son origine animale et assurent son triomphe. La morale est ainsi «une antinature issue de la nature elle-même».*
* Yvon Quiniou, «L'effet réversif de l'évolution», in Sciences et Avenir, hors-série, mai 2003.
Bernard Maris, dans l'Antimanuel d'économie. 2. Les cigales, chapitre "Les infortunes d'homo oeconomicus: la servitude volontaire".
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Earth Atmospheric Trust
In this week's issue of Science, I read an article entitled "Creating an Earth Atmospheric Trust", by Peter Barnes, Robert Costanza, Paul Hawken, David Orr, Elinor Ostrom, Alvaro Umaña and Oran Young.
I think this is a really simple and therefore great idea, which would enable us to solve both global warming and global poverty issues altogether.
Here are the essential mechanisms, from the Science article:
"The core of this system is the idea of a common asset trust. Trusts are widely used and well-developed legal mechanisms designed to protect and manage assets on behalf of specific beneficiaries. Extending this idea to the management and protection of a global commons, such as the atmosphere, is a new but straightforward extension of this idea."
The mechanism is to "create a global cap-and-trade system for all greenhouse gas emissions", to "auction off all emission permits, and allow trading among permit holders", to "reduce the cap over time to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level equivalent to 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide (or lower)", to "deposit all the revenues into an Earth Atmospheric Trust", to "return a fraction of the revenues derived from auctioning permits to all people on Earth in the form of an annual per capita payment" (which would be insignificant to the rich compared to the increase in prices for products and services that required emitting lots of green-house gases, but would be significant for the poor to get access to basic living needs and build infrastructure to get out of the infernal circle of poverty), and to "use the remainder of the revenues to enhance and restore the atmospheric asset, to encourage both social and technological innovations, and to administer the Trust. These funds could be used to fund renewable energy projects, research and development on new energy sources, or payments for ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration."
I higly recommend you to learn more here, and to add your name to the list of people endorsing the creation of the Earth Atmospheric Trust. I also encourage you to read the first article they link on their web site, which is slightly more detailed than the Science article, and propose some possible solutions to practical questions such a simple idea can raise.
I think this is a really simple and therefore great idea, which would enable us to solve both global warming and global poverty issues altogether.
Here are the essential mechanisms, from the Science article:
"The core of this system is the idea of a common asset trust. Trusts are widely used and well-developed legal mechanisms designed to protect and manage assets on behalf of specific beneficiaries. Extending this idea to the management and protection of a global commons, such as the atmosphere, is a new but straightforward extension of this idea."
The mechanism is to "create a global cap-and-trade system for all greenhouse gas emissions", to "auction off all emission permits, and allow trading among permit holders", to "reduce the cap over time to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level equivalent to 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide (or lower)", to "deposit all the revenues into an Earth Atmospheric Trust", to "return a fraction of the revenues derived from auctioning permits to all people on Earth in the form of an annual per capita payment" (which would be insignificant to the rich compared to the increase in prices for products and services that required emitting lots of green-house gases, but would be significant for the poor to get access to basic living needs and build infrastructure to get out of the infernal circle of poverty), and to "use the remainder of the revenues to enhance and restore the atmospheric asset, to encourage both social and technological innovations, and to administer the Trust. These funds could be used to fund renewable energy projects, research and development on new energy sources, or payments for ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration."
I higly recommend you to learn more here, and to add your name to the list of people endorsing the creation of the Earth Atmospheric Trust. I also encourage you to read the first article they link on their web site, which is slightly more detailed than the Science article, and propose some possible solutions to practical questions such a simple idea can raise.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Economics and Buddhism
For my 100th post, I chose one of my favorite quotations, from E.F. Schumacher:
"Economics without Buddhism, i.e., without spiritual, human and ecological values, is like sex without love."
Quoted by Satish Kumar in a commentary note in Small is beautiful.
Some explanation is necessary, because some people may wonder what Buddhism has to do with Economics. Here is a good summary, taken from this web page:
"Early in Schumacher’s tenure at the Coal Board, the British government sent him to Burma to teach its citizens how to achieve progress based on the Western economic model. But he quickly determined the Burmese were better served drawing from their own tradition. He coined the term “Buddhist economics” to describe the opposite of the Western economic model, one that didn’t allow for unlimited growth and consumption and emphasized renewable resources."
"Economics without Buddhism, i.e., without spiritual, human and ecological values, is like sex without love."
Quoted by Satish Kumar in a commentary note in Small is beautiful.
Some explanation is necessary, because some people may wonder what Buddhism has to do with Economics. Here is a good summary, taken from this web page:
"Early in Schumacher’s tenure at the Coal Board, the British government sent him to Burma to teach its citizens how to achieve progress based on the Western economic model. But he quickly determined the Burmese were better served drawing from their own tradition. He coined the term “Buddhist economics” to describe the opposite of the Western economic model, one that didn’t allow for unlimited growth and consumption and emphasized renewable resources."
Monday, February 11, 2008
Insatisfaction chronique
Cette citation de Sigmund Freud explique sûrement pourquoi j'ai l'impression de perdre ma passion (cf post précédent):
"La persistance d'une situation désirée par le principe de plaisir ne donne qu'un sentiment d'aise assez tiède; nos dispositifs sont tels que nous ne pouvons jouir intensément que de ce qui est contraste, et très peu de ce qui est état."
Sigmund Freud, dans Le Malaise dans la culture, cité par Bernard Maris, dans l'Antimanuel d'économie. 2. Les cigales, chapitre "La pulsion de mort au coeur du capitalisme".
Au contraste du "je windsurfe 3 fois par an quand je me retrouve près de la mer" du temps où je vivais en France, je suis passé à l'état du "je surfe et windsurfe quand je veux" depuis que je suis à Hawaii. Peut-être le fait de partir ravivera ma passion en me renvoyant dans le contraste ! Ce n'est donc pas à cause des mauvaises sessions, qui sont aussi nécessaires au maintien d'une telle passion que les bonnes sessions, puisque si les dernières étaient monnaie courante, on s'en lasserait vite...
Ceci est valable bien évidemment pour toute passion, notamment amoureuse !...
"La persistance d'une situation désirée par le principe de plaisir ne donne qu'un sentiment d'aise assez tiède; nos dispositifs sont tels que nous ne pouvons jouir intensément que de ce qui est contraste, et très peu de ce qui est état."
Sigmund Freud, dans Le Malaise dans la culture, cité par Bernard Maris, dans l'Antimanuel d'économie. 2. Les cigales, chapitre "La pulsion de mort au coeur du capitalisme".
Au contraste du "je windsurfe 3 fois par an quand je me retrouve près de la mer" du temps où je vivais en France, je suis passé à l'état du "je surfe et windsurfe quand je veux" depuis que je suis à Hawaii. Peut-être le fait de partir ravivera ma passion en me renvoyant dans le contraste ! Ce n'est donc pas à cause des mauvaises sessions, qui sont aussi nécessaires au maintien d'une telle passion que les bonnes sessions, puisque si les dernières étaient monnaie courante, on s'en lasserait vite...
Ceci est valable bien évidemment pour toute passion, notamment amoureuse !...
Losing passion
Sorry for this post, which is not a quotation, but merely some thoughts on a personal experience that I would like to share, because keeping it for myself is highly frustrating.
This is about passion, or the loss of it.
Passion about some sports, but it could apply to passion about anything.
I had a passion for windsurf and surf, for the particular relationship with the sea they provide, for the bliss of riding a good wave or jumping high in the air. My passion lead me to Hawaii, where I could enjoy it and keep it alive for more than 7 years. But little by little, something changed. I still get the urge to go in the water when I see a surf or a windsurf movie, or when we make our own surf movie with my friend François, with footage of us surfing, that we took several years ago already, and carefully select the best rides, the best moments, like in real surf movies. It always gives you a false impression that you just need to go in the water to get a thrilling session. It makes you forget the countless bad sessions, the injuries, the broken equipment... in short: real life ! But it is passion that makes you endure all of that for the reward of this rare wave that is worth all the sacrifices. And it is what I am losing.
I get more and more frustrated by the time spent in vain driving two hours for just getting in the water and not taking even one wave, like the day before yesterday, because it was bigger than forecasted and over my capabilities, or rigging my windsurf equipment and taking barely one small wave before the wind dies or my equipment breaks, like yesterday or last Sunday. I get so frustrated that I think to myself: "This is it, I am going to sell my equipment and stop losing my time doing these damn sports !"
But, like a drug addict, I know that I will eventually go back, give it another chance, get frustrated again. But I am not sure how much longer the bliss of the rare good wave will keep me going. Perhaps this is all the better like that, because I am leaving Hawaii soon... Even though, losing one's passion makes you feel awckward.
This is about passion, or the loss of it.
Passion about some sports, but it could apply to passion about anything.
I had a passion for windsurf and surf, for the particular relationship with the sea they provide, for the bliss of riding a good wave or jumping high in the air. My passion lead me to Hawaii, where I could enjoy it and keep it alive for more than 7 years. But little by little, something changed. I still get the urge to go in the water when I see a surf or a windsurf movie, or when we make our own surf movie with my friend François, with footage of us surfing, that we took several years ago already, and carefully select the best rides, the best moments, like in real surf movies. It always gives you a false impression that you just need to go in the water to get a thrilling session. It makes you forget the countless bad sessions, the injuries, the broken equipment... in short: real life ! But it is passion that makes you endure all of that for the reward of this rare wave that is worth all the sacrifices. And it is what I am losing.
I get more and more frustrated by the time spent in vain driving two hours for just getting in the water and not taking even one wave, like the day before yesterday, because it was bigger than forecasted and over my capabilities, or rigging my windsurf equipment and taking barely one small wave before the wind dies or my equipment breaks, like yesterday or last Sunday. I get so frustrated that I think to myself: "This is it, I am going to sell my equipment and stop losing my time doing these damn sports !"
But, like a drug addict, I know that I will eventually go back, give it another chance, get frustrated again. But I am not sure how much longer the bliss of the rare good wave will keep me going. Perhaps this is all the better like that, because I am leaving Hawaii soon... Even though, losing one's passion makes you feel awckward.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
The world is ruled from towns
"[The Western man] tends to count nothing as an expenditure, other than human effort; he does not seem to mind how much mineral matter he wastes and, far worse, how much living matter he destroys. He does not seem to realize at all that human life is a dependent part of an ecosystem of many different forms of life. As the world is ruled from towns where men are cut off from any form of life other than human, the feeling of belonging to an ecosystem is not revived. This results in a harsh and improvident treatment of things upon which we ultimately depend, such as water and trees."
Bertrand de Jouvenel, cited by E. F. Schumacher, in Small is beautiful.
Bertrand de Jouvenel, cited by E. F. Schumacher, in Small is beautiful.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
The joy of work and the bliss of leisure
"To strive for leisure as an alternative to work would be considered a complete misunderstanding of one of the basic truths of human existence, namely that work and leisure are complementary parts of the same living process and cannot be separated without destroying the joy of work and the bliss of leisure."
E. F. Schumacher, in Small is beautiful.
E. F. Schumacher, in Small is beautiful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
