Are present economy is based on the right to own capital. We earn capital (money) by putting are knowledge to work in infrastructures like business and governments. We afterwards spent this capital on materialistic things that are produce by those very same businesses we work for. Those business pay wages to other workers that also spend their money. This creates a cycle that is the very bases of are present economic system. The question I was asked is: “Why should we (and how could we) transit from a growing economy system to something else?”. I think that artificial intelligence (AI) and robot technologies are the main component that will trigger the transition to what I think will be a system of universal income.

 

 

         Technological unemployment is a consequence of are constant need to improve and reinvent new technologies. Technologies will soon become so effective people will lose there job to a robot. The White House, in a report to Congress, “has put the probability at 83% that a worker making less than $20 an hour in 2010 will eventually lose their job to a machine. Even workers making as much as $40 an hour face odds of 31 percent.”  So this is where the universal incomes arrives and saves the day.

 

         The universal income is a way to make sure that all citizens can afford to meet their basic needs. The government provides the people a set amount of money this money would be given to every citizen NO MATTER WHAT. You would be free to use this money, as you se fit no strings attached. 

 

Why should we? 

         Fist of all, I think we should because we have the resources and the money to make the universal income a reality. Mr.Rutger Bregman said in his ted talk that “if the USA wanted to give universal income they only needed 174 billion $ a year. They would only have to cut a quarter of there army funding”. Secondly, it would provide very good social security and would probably annihilate poverty. In 2015 43.1 million people (13.5 percent) were considered in poverty only in the United-States.*1 Universal income would give children the possibility to a beater education and consequently a beater job.  In third part we need to build a new system that will distribute money and make less inequalities of wealth. 

-The 1 percent has 35.6 percent of all private wealth, more than the bottom 95 percent combined.

 

-The 400 wealthiest individuals on the Forbes 400 list have more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans.

 

-In 2010, 25 of the 100 largest U.S. companies paid their CEO more than they paid in U.S. taxes. This is largely because corporations in the global 1 percent use off shore tax havens to dodge their U.S. taxes.

 

How could we?

The advancement of technologies will pouch changes in are present capitalistic system. The robotic technology evolves fast and there will be no choice but to evolve to a more socialist system where people will work in intellectual jobs. The world will become centered on leaser and free time. The AI will take are jobs 

-“Driverless cars are improving rapidly, and it is easy to understand that they will begin to eliminate all the jobs held by truck drivers, taxi drivers, etc. That is a million or more jobs that will be lost.

 

-Tablets and kiosks in restaurants will be eliminating many of the jobs currently held by waiters and waitresses.

 

-There are currently 3.7 million full-time K-12 teachers in the United States. Yet there is a host of new tools, including MOOCs, apps, computer-aided instruction, etc. that will start eliminating teaching positions in the near future. The pressure to reduce the cost of public education is relentless, and so is the advancement in the technology.

 

-Combine those trends with similar trends in factories, the construction industry, retail, etc.”*2

 

To conclude, I think that we need to make a very big change in are system because it promotes inequality and encourages the 1% to destroy the environment. And I think that the universal income is the solution to this inequality and to the fast growth of the AI technologie.

 

 

 

 

 

1)http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/impact-of-hunger/hunger-and-poverty/hunger-and-poverty-fact-sheet.html?referrer=https://www.google.ca/
2) https://io9.gizmodo.com/how-universal-basic-income-will-save-us-from-the-robot-1653303459 

 

Media has assumed a prominent role in the socialization of American Youth. Mainstream media transmits values within their messages, towards multiple subjects, such as love, sexuality, gender expression, gender identity, beauty ideals and so forth. Because of their frequent and involved exposure, these mediums of entertainment such as television, radio, movies, are critical educators and have an immense power within their hands. Nevertheless, this is not a process that happens overnight, it’s a multidimensional process, happening over the years, with inputs from several sources. What this mainstream entertainment is doing is enforcing popular culture, American domination; a commercial and superficial mass culture, in which way individuals aren’t considered as a separate identity but rather as a collective. We could even come to call it silent propaganda. It’s causing an absorption of information, at a young age, which implements values upon numerous people, without the reflex to fight back or question the message that is being shared. This gradually causing an implementation of these ideals, or values, discretely, shadowing one’s self-culture to conform to a rather public culture and therefor undermining their personal consciousness. People in general have a tendency to go for what is accessible, easy. They absorb and believe what is more prominent in the media, even if these messages aren’t putting forth the ‘‘right’’ values. By adhering to this mass-culture, people tend to give in to a part of their personal tastes, interests, thoughts, values and give-in to what is popular. Giving away a part of their consciousness in order to fit-in, moulding themselves to society’s form. 

 

For the self to be actualized, autonomy is needed from cultural instructions that appear as norms and rules. Many found this state of consciousness through creating art, because through their creation they were able to spend a huge amount of attention, awareness and energy on a singular project. This disconnection from the ‘‘rules and norms’’ of world and connection to ones self, allowed the individual to reach a higher state of presence. 

 

We normally do what we do based on external motives, coming from external sources, but this detachment for reflection is necessary to figure out what is driving us from the inside- what we prioritize and why we prioritize it. 

 

States of ‘‘flow’’ where one is in total harmony with oneself, causes a state of consciousness. We can further call these ‘‘aha moments’’ or ‘‘moments of enlightenment’’. 

 

To conclude, I would not say that entertainment is ‘‘killing’’ consciousness, just enabling it from rising. It gives people a reason to disconnect and it’s easy to get absorbed by mainstream media entertainment and all that comes with it. Entertainment was not created to be profound, it is superficial and to be taken with a grain of salt. It is for this reason that free time should be prioritized elsewhere, in ways that would put forth ones actualization and consciousness. 

 

 

Le fondement même de la démocratie est de permettre à la population de faire leurs propres choix et de réussir à construire la société selon les intérêts de la majorité. C’est donc un principe de base d’assurer que la population soit informée car c’est seulement selon cette condition qu’ils peuvent réellement exercer leur rôle de citoyen. Suivant cette logique, dire qu’il faut obliger les populations de s’informer et de s’impliquer politiquement semble être un truisme. Ce n’est pourtant pas si simple à réaliser. L’importance d’être informé vient avec l’importance d’accès à l’information qui en théorie serait assuré de manière objective et factuelle par les médias. Ces derniers qu’on proclame chien de garde de la démocratie ont pour mission de transmettre toutes informations nécessaires objectivement à la population pour que chacun puisse ensuite lui-même se fonder des opinions sur les enjeux sociétales et participer activement au système politique.  

 

En regardant ce qui se produit en ce moment, on voit rapidement qu’il y a accrochage à ce niveau. L’apparition des médias privés est venue rendre la vie très difficile aux médias qui tente de remplir leur rôle social.  Le contenu des médias privés n’est plus axé vers leur rôle d’informer mais bien plus vers leur rentabilité économique du au système capitaliste dans lequel ils se retrouvent. L’existence de tels plateformes offre maintenant de l’information qui sert les intérêts du public en tant que tel et non l’intérêt publique pour leur participation démocratique. Les côtes d’écoutes, de lecture et l’attention générale de tous sont donc tournées vers ce contenu qui est fait pour happer l’attention avant tout. Les médias traditionnels se trouvent donc à devoir divulguer de l’information factuelle face au secteur privé qui offre du sensationnalisme et du divertissement. Le transfert d’attention vers les TVA nouvelles et les Journal de Montréal de ce monde qui divulgue des informations populistes remplis de potins et d’émotions pour rentabiliser leur temps d’antenne laisse donc les médias publics traditionnels sans fonds monétaires pour continuer leurs activités. Ces derniers se retrouvent donc dans l’obligation de partiellement participer à ce sensationnalisme médiatique pour assurer leur survie. Tranquillement, l’information accessible perd de son objectivité et son importance factuelle pour laisser place à sa valeur marchande. On comprend assez vite que se model va complètement à l’encontre du fonctionnement même de la démocratie car ce sont rarement ces mêmes informations que le peuple nécessite pour exercer son rôle de citoyen. 

 

L’avènement des médias sociaux empire gravement la situation, car en premier lieu, les foules se détachent des médias traditionnels et ne se servent quasiment que des ces plateformes comme source d’information. Ceci oblige donc tous les médias de divulguer encore plus de contenu marchand pour assurer leur survie. On coupe donc encore une fois sur l’information importante. Les médias sociaux entraient également un phénomène qu’on appelle la chambre à écho. Ces plateformes sont basé sur des algorithmes qui tentent de s’adapter à chaque utilisateur pour prioriser l’information désirée par ceux-ci. Non seulement la population fait donc face à de l’information de plus en plus sensationnaliste, elle va maintenant rarement à l’encontre de leurs idéologies. 

 

Tous ces éléments participent donc au manque de plus en plus flagrant à de l’information de qualité. C’est ce qui permet entre autre à des politiciens comme Donald Trump de prendre le pouvoir. L’intérêt accru pour des nouvelles servant la presse à sensation et le manque de confrontation aux idéologies qui viennent à l’encontre des croyances personnelles de chacun permettent à ces politiciens (pour ne pas dire personnalités publiques)  de se creuser un chemin au pouvoir par la rhétorique et les artifices entourant leurs politiques. C’est d’ailleurs pour ces raisons que plusieurs spécialistes politiques vont accuser les médias pour la tournure des élections américaines. On explique que si ceux-ci c’était concentré sur les informations cruciales et concrètes pour permettre aux américains de voter et non au spectacle, très vendeur certes, que nous offrait les discours démagogiques et théâtrales de monsieur Trump, les élections aurait prit une tournure différente. 

 

Donc, pour revenir à la question initiale, même si on obligeait les personnes à s’informer, il y a un manque d’information facilement accessible pour bien le faire. De plus, il me semble irréaliste de vouloir imposer à chaque individu l’obligation de s’informer. Je pense donc que la solution passe plutôt par l’éducation. Il faut obliger les systèmes éducatifs d’enseigner rapidement l’importance de bien s’instruire politiquement et apprendre à tous de développer un sens critique face à l’information qu’on nous transmet. Comme ça, la population sera elle même capable de détecter ce qui est de l’information marchande ou de l’information factuel et importante pour leur participation démocratique. En étant sensibles aux dangers du manque d’information ou de la désinformation, les populations se rédigeraient donc vers des sources fiables. Un changement d’attention porté à nouveau sur des médias qui respectent leur rôle politique diminuera donc l’importance de ceux qui ne cherche qu’à faire de l’argent et les encourageras eux aussi à participer correctement à la démocratie comme ils se doivent. La solution n’est pas d’obliger les populations à s’informer dans le contexte actuel mais plutôt de les éduquer à l’importance de bien s’instruire pour qu’il change justement ce contexte. Par le pouvoir du nombre, si la majorité des populations exerce un jugement critique face aux informations et rejette le sensationnalisme, on redonnera place à de l’information de qualité pour bien faire fonctionner la démocratie. Il faut s’assurer de faire comprendre à tous où s’informer et dans quel but pour empêcher d’être happé par de l’information marchande qui fait régresser notre système politique. Ce n’est donc pas dans l’obligation de s’informer mais dans l’éducation à l’importance de bien le faire que je pense que nous réussiront à sauver notre démocratie.  

 

 

 

Going towards sustainability requires huge change in our attitude and behaviour. In the simplest ways, to convince the richest man to adopt a sustainable lifestyle, we need to make him realize that it is very easy and extremely important.  To do that, we need to show him ways he can do so, give him facts and options. Obviously, since he is the richest man on earth, this wouldn’t hurt his bank account at all. 

 

 

When it comes to his transportation, I’m a 100% sure he will not want to take the public transport. Why? He is rich… So why not convince him to buy an electric car? We need to propose the nice once like Tesla’s and the BMW i8. They are not the cheapest cars, so for sure he would be interested. And for the business side of it, we can propose to invest in a company like Tesla. Since he is probably a business man, there is no doubt he will be interested.  

 

 

For his living, one of the biggest factors of sustainable living involves what no human can live without, water. This touches all Indoor home appliances like toilets, showers and dishwashers. Also, electricity. This touches everything that is lights, heating, TV and most times, cooking. When it comes to the toilet situation, there are a number of options to obtain the most water efficient toilet model. A simple method to reduce the amount of water used in the shower is to switch to low-flow, high-performance showerheads. Or take showers instead of baths. For the electrical part of the situation, you have the option to produce your own renewable energy or choose to purchase it through a power company that harnesses sustainable sources. Either or, the guy is rich… 

 

 

When comes the time to sensitize the richest man on earth to adopt a sustainable lifestyle, there are a couple of ways to do it.  One of them is to make him think about the future generation. This generation includes his kids (which I’m assuming he has, cause he’s rich). Hopefully, that will come ‘’touch’’ him. Another way would be to convince him to pay for everyone’s sustainable energy. He’s rich, so who cares. We would tell him this would create a lot of recognition. He will be known for the one that saved the earth.

 

Should there be a maximum amount of money a unique person can earn? This question as been for a long time a never ending battle between the rich and poor.  Therefore, in this text I will analyse if the world would be better off with a maximum amount of money a unique person can earn. 

 

Currently, all over the world the economy is helping the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Indeed, wealthy people have much more power, resources and influence on the economy, creating a disproportionate inequality of wealth.  Of course this problem should be fixed, but should a maximum salary really be adopted to solve wealth inequality? First of all, taking example of the United States of America, the minimum wage is 7,25 dollars per hour, which is a 20 percent decrease of purchasing power than the 1967 minimum wage of 1,40 dollars per hour.  Indeed, although the economic productivity is producing more value today, people aren’t receiving any gains. This economic system is what causes the rich to earn large amounts of money, benefiting from poor people’s work such as this report from the Oxfam explains “the richest one percent od the population has increased its income by 60 percent in the last 20 years”. 

 

There are many reasons for the application of a maximum wage, targeting how a large amount of wealth can have negative impact on a person. Through, psychological studies it has been proven that too much wealth can have the tendency of causing someone to be more selfish and less compassionate. This factor not only affects its entourage but also the quality of life of poor people. Having a maximum wage would help ensures a better living standard and avoid consequences generally related to low incomes such as higher crimes and poorer public health. As well, minimising wealthy people’s fortunes would help tackle over consumption which the planet cannot sustain. Since todays generation will always be unsatisfied with what they have, people are taking higher levels of debt. 

 

Furthermore, on the other side of the story a maximum wage can have negative consequences.  Such as some high earners will have a well earned profit removed. This can cause a scandal because many believe there is no reason, practically or ethically, why a man ought not appreciate any measure of wealth. Fortune is not restricted, therefore, wealth shouldn’t be shared out. On the off chance that you need more cash, you can profit by working harder, going out on a limb or utilize data more proficiently and viably than others. As well the increase of wealth in the poor can also be a cause in the lack of productivity, risk taking and creativity. Because people well have less motivation to succeed and push themselves for the better.

 

Some reasonable solutions against this terrible inequality, would be to apply a “maximum wage” law that would limit an employer's income to being no more than 100 times the salary of his or her lowest-paid employee (for example: if the lowest earning employee earns 30 thousand, then the highest earner would make 3 million dollars). This method will not only increase the minimum wage, but it will also motivate the highest earner to give more money to his employees so that he can benefit from a higher income.  Another solution that I personally thing would work the best, would be to use taxes or simply take away a percentage of what a wealthy person earns and give it towards the poor. This will help improve the poor’s living standards, and will help build stronger communities towards a brighter future (example: building schools to give a better education). 

A great country with which to draw parallels when wondering if we work too much is Italy. Not only does the country have a legal minimum of 32 days a year of paid vacation, but its work conditions sound simply sublime. [iii]Indeed, Lardini, a typical Italian company offers 2 hours of paid lunch break where the employees are free to go back home to eat with their family. Furthermore, the company executives told in an interview that it was their pleasure to give back to their employees in order to thank them for their hard work. Moreover, they said if they get to take several weeks of vacation, why shouldn’t their employees enjoy the same privilege. Finally, they said that their employees rarely get sick, because they aren’t stressed and get many vacation days. The facts back up the executives’ sayings: the life expectancy in Italy is 4 years over the United States’.[iv] All in all, Italy may be a very different country from Canada and the United States, however this doesn’t keep us from looking at some of their successes and inspiring ourselves from them. After all, Italy, the United-States and Canada are all in the top 20 most productive countries in the world.[v]

Another incredible country from which North American countries can look up to when wondering if we practice a remunerated activity too much, is Finland. Although the small country isn’t often talked about in our daily lives, it is a global leader when it comes to education, they produce the best students of all the G20 countries. Indeed, the topic of education is extremely pertinent to the question of time spent on a remunerated activity, because it is the first experience children have with fixed schedules, performance and obligation. I believe the purpose of schools in North America is to educate, but also to normalize children to the work schedule they will later, for most of them, encounter during their professional life. Isn’t it odd that school schedules are eerily similar to desk jobs’ schedules: the 8am to 4am day with the lunch hour and the homework. Paradoxically, this model has proven to be obsolete by the low class hours and the absence of homework in Finnish schools, as they are have the best elementary and high schools in the world. I was surprised when I learned that Finnish principals believe it to be detrimental to the students’ growth to do homework. Instead, they offer a myriad of extracurricular activities, namely music, dance, poetry, cooking, civics and many more. The more I learn about North America’s education system, the more I feel like it’s some sort of conspiracy where the government, funded by the wealthiest individuals in the country, profit from the citizens’ ignorance of their own laws and from their lack of knowledge of great writers’ work criticizing their government. Finally, I saw in an interview of a Finnish teacher saying that standardized testing was the bane of good education and that with such exams, students become standard. Now that it has been established that North American schools need to be rethought, solutions need to be introduced. In class, I proposed the idea of including wealthy individuals’ children to be in the public school system. Thus, said wealthy individuals would be motivated to better the public system and would use their huge influence to do so. 

The two past examples from the Italy and Finland indicate that from childhood until adulthood we’re not given enough free time to enjoy life, and that we’re forced to practice a remunerated activity incessantly, because it’s the only thing we’ve ever known. However, this may change soon as BCG prophesizes automation will take up 25% of jobs by 2025[vi].At this point, a concept similar to the Universal Basic Income mentioned by Philippe Beaudet may take over our precious remunerated activity and offer more time on our hands to explore arts, to question ourselves on the meaning of life, in other words to live a never-seen before artistic and intellectual boom. Then, maybe financial concerns wouldn’t be a focus when selecting a career and we’d do something we’re truly passionate about, and that would bring unprecedented economical success, everyone would give their maximum to their profession which would transform into a means to make money and provide for your family, into a lifelong occupation that will benefit personal growth as well as society. After all, it always said that we live in a time where we have access to more education, art, culture than ever before, but what’s the point it we don’t have the time to enjoy it.

[i]http://cepr.net/documents/publications/no-vacation-update-2013-05.pdf [ii]http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/06/08/countries-most-vacation-days/2400193/ [iii]http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/papers/No_Holidays.pdf [iv]http://www.livescience.com/images/i/000/029/523/original/life-expectancy120730.jpeg?interpolation=lanczos-none&downsize=600:* [v]http://time.com/4621185/worker-productivity-countries/ [vi]http://fortune.com/2016/11/08/china-automation-jobs/ 

Many questions about our political systems have recently surfaced. The question that I am asking myself today is: are we living in a pure democracy?  The answer to this question is no. However, the possible solutions it inquires can bring on strong debates with a variety of different opinions and recommendations. In the following reflection, I will justify my opinion by clarifying the distinction between a pure democracy and a representative democracy, explain the pros and cons of each side and attempt to suggest improvements for a better political system by comparing ours to others’.

·      Difference between between a representative democracy and a pure democracy

To begin, it is important to understand the differences between a representative democracy and a pure democracy. A pure democracy is also called a direct democracy. This when the laws and policies are directly voted by the citizens in order for them to pass. This type of democracy differs from the representative democracy in which people vote for representatives, based on their values and beliefs, who then legislate policies and laws on the citizen’s behalf. Most modern western governments, including Canada and the United States, use representatives as a political system, therefore we are not living in pure democracy.

 

·      Pros and cons for both democracies

The two democracies to which I referred are very different, however they have both positive and negative characteristics and outcomes.

 

Þ    Negatives aspects

Our current political system allows representatives to enact legislation for it’s citizens however, this system is going through a crisis.  Firstly, the number of participants (voters) in elections are getting smaller, conventional institutions are crumbling and political parties are loosing some of their members all because people are loosing faith in politics and in their representatives.  Voters are slowly realizing that they are not actually being well represented by whom they have elected. In my opinion, governments surrender to the pressure of big banks, financial establishments as well as multinational corporations and their influences. When this occurs, the ballot is no longer significant because there truly is not much of a choice to be made. Citizens can only vote to change the representatives that decide the rules, but once the party is in power, the representatives have the ability to decide whatever they please. We no longer have the power to determine or influence the development of our own society. Secondly, another flaw of this system is how a party, can receive less than 50% of votes, and can be brought to power even though they’re political platform represents the opinion of a minority of the population. 

 

Þ    Positive aspects

Though I might be pointing out the issues in the representative system, there are also some positive features about it. 

 

To begin with, if we did live a purely democratic system allowing citizens to vote directly on every matter, decisions wouldn’t be made and nothing would move forward. Not to mention, the costs associated with organizing the referendum, promoting it, making it accessible to citizens’, counting the ballots every time a decision needed to be made would be counterproductive and frankly, unrealistic.

 

 Furthermore, I also deeply agree with James Huffman’s statement in his article for Stanford university when he says “The case for democracy is not that majorities should define the public good—that over half of voters should have the authority to dictate to their fellow citizens. Rather, the case for democracy is that, better than any other form of government, it allows individuals a say—an expression of their private liberty—in decisions of the community.” Agreeing with him, Thomas Jefferson once said that democracy is “nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the forty-nine other”.

 I believed the current system was put in place because it was preferred to have limited democracy as opposed to having a pure democracy with an abuse of liberty. A pure democracy would simply not be a sustainable one to run in a country. 

 

Although I am going over general subjects of this matter, many more factors come into play. Democracy as a whole has its imperfections. Even when we think there is a democracy, there probably isn’t. Candidates resort to populism and simply say what people want to hear to get the most votes and increase their chances of winning. Some people go on voting for “their team” or the person they have made alliances with and not for their beliefs or according to the issue. The lack of ‘’politically informed people’’ also plays an immense role in democracy, because the same value is accorded to the politically educated and the non-politically educated. This is tricky because not everyone is able to make informed and rational decisions and not everyone is correctly informed and thoughtfully goes through their political options. This issue is not helped with the increasing presence of media and television which exposes people to less reliable sources of information.

 

·      Final word

Though our political system is not purely democratic nor perfect, we have still have a decent system when we think about all the dictators the world has seen. I have not been able to come up with a realistic, sustainable and reliable solution for this issue. Most people agree there is a problem, even our prime minister, but no one is able to come up with solutions to make it better. There are different political democracies around the world, such as the United States, France, England, and yet they don’t seem to be working either! For that reason, I believe that making improvements is beyond the scope of this personal reflection.

 

o   http://thecollegeconservative.com/2016/04/18/why-a-pure-popular-vote-doesnt-work/

o   http://new-compass.net/articles/what-would-real-democracy-look

o   http://www.hoover.org/research/america-not-pure-democracy

o   http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1014452/justin-trudeau-parti-liberal-reforme-electorale-promesse-brisee-ideal-sacrifie-analyse-emmanuelle-latraverse

o   http://listverse.com/2013/06/16/10-reasons-why-democracy-doesnt-work/

o   http://www.openmontenegro.eu/2012/03/26/ways-to-improve-representative-democracy/

 

 

The question of reality is something that has been around for a long time. As far as we can go back in history, science, mathematic, philosophy and religion have been trying to understand the world surrounding us. Religion tried to create a meaning out of it, reassuring the population and giving them a goal. With advance in technology our reality as changed and evolved drastically. The reality that we once had is far from where we are now. We’ve created economic and political system to structure our life, but are those really defining our reality? Is the physical world the only things that really exist? Would there be something if humans didn’t have a consciousness? Number of question arises from this interrogation but there isn’t much answer to give. Therefore, I will look at two possible definition of reality and debate on whether or not life in a virtual world is worth the same than life in a physical world.

            Reality is only defined by what is physically real.

 

Numbers of people will argue that the only thing that define reality is the physical world, the things that would exist if we didn’t exist. If we deconstruct what is consider as “physically real”, we would realize that the matter surrounding us isn’t real at all. Physical atoms are made of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating. “Atoms are made from invisible energy, not tangible matter.” [1] Plus, the reality that we are living right now, is far from being as simple as physical matter. 

 

            Reality is only defined by our consciousness.

 

If we think about physical matter as invisible energy, then everything that we see is created by our consciousness, the statement that our consciousness creates reality come with number of different questions. In fact, could we think that as an individual we could shape our own reality for ourselves? For instance, when we come to life, our reality is unclear. With time, we learn about every different particularity of our reality, thru our parents, school, curiosity and much more. This reality has been explained to us, we’ve put together all the pieces of puzzle to shape the reality we’ve been told to understand.  Therefore, we might be living in a illusion.

            

            There is individual reality and collective reality

For my part, I define reality, in two distinct ways. 

First, there is individual reality. This reality is proper to you, your family, your experience and chemical balance in your brain. You will indeed perceive things differently than someone else, for instance something that you will find beautiful, someone might find it ugly. This is the result of numbers of factors and creates your own reality. What made you believe that you don’t like fish while someone else loves it? This is the result of a numbers of factors that you’ve lived in your life.

 

Secondly, theirs a collective reality which has evolved constantly through history. This reality is mostly fictive and has been created by other humans over time. In our collective reality, we count our economic system, our political system, our history, our communication, etc. If we think that profoundly our only reality is “physical matters”, then language, money and information’s aren’t real. They are created by humans and are now part of our daily reality. Collective reality is the structure in which we live and where it evolves with technology. Workers have been spending their lives to works for a piece of paper; money. They’ve dedicated their life to it, because they learned that money was important and would make them happier.  When we wake up every morning, our bed is still the same, our thoughts are the same, the history is the same. That is our reality. The question that comes to mind is that if our reality in the 21^st century has been created by other humans.  That we’ve created a system in which we live, trust, create and fulfilled ourselves, could we recreate a reality in a virtual world and would it be worth as much as a reality in the physical world?

Couple of people on this planet thinks that we live in a Matrix, the theory of simulation. This theory explains that we are the technological evolution of another civilization or another form of life. For instance, Elon Musk, CEO of Space X and Tesla thinks that there’s only one in billions chance that we’re not living in a computer simulation.[2] He argues that 40 years ago, we had “Pong”, now 40 years later we are playing photorealistic 3D games. If we measure any rate of improvement at all, in the future we will be playing in an immersive world that will be indistinguishable from our reality. Nick Bostrom, an Oxford philosopher argues that if such a simulation was created at any point in the universe history, then we are almost certainly in one now.[3]
As mentioned earlier, our collective reality has been modified and created by ourselves, the system in which we live is a series of game mechanism’s that are created to make our lives fulfilled every day and have a motivation of living.  For us human, a virtual world will almost certainly never be worth the same than our physical world. Unless we’re can reproduce our 5 senses and biologically be able to sustain ourselves in a virtual world. On the other hand, with the rise of A.I, it will become possible for us to create a virtual world in where they will discover, create, live and evolve. A game name No Man’s Sky, have already simulated a virtual world created by algorithms where the world evolves every second just like the “Big bang”.[4]

Finally, our reality is strongly influenced by ourselves and our surroundings, what we think is real right now can strongly be proven as wrong in the future. Reality can be defined by a mix of a fictive reality that was created by others and mind reality which is created by ourselves. As technology evolve it will become possible to immerse ourselves in virtual worlds, if we are able to stimulate our five senses in the virtual world, then we might be able to think that the virtual world is worth the same our physical world. Before we can fully live in a virtual world we would need to be able to eat, drink and spend energy in their, which is mostly impossible. As mentioned earlier, we are creating right now a world of simulation with A.I., which makes us think twice, rather or not we could possibly be another civilization virtual world.

 

[1]Walia, A. (2014, August 27). The Illusion of Matter: Our Physical Material World Isn’t Really Physical At All. Retrieved March 10, 2017, from http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/12/05/the-illusion-of-matter-our-physical-material-world-isnt-really-physical-at-all/ [2]McCormick, R. (2016, June 02). Elon Musk: The chance we are not living in a computer simulation is 'one in billions' Retrieved March 11, 2017, from http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/elon-musk-ai-artificial-intelligence-computer-simulation-gaming-virtual-reality-a7060941.html
[3]Baggini, J. (2016, June 03). We are simulations living in a virtual realm, says Elon Musk. But why do we like the idea? | Julian Baggini. Retrieved March 13, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/03/uploads-universe-simulations-virtual-world
[4]Parkin, S. (2016, May 13). A Science Fictional Universe Created by Algorithms. Retrieved March 11, 2017, from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/529136/no-mans-sky-a-vast-game-crafted-by-algorithms/ 

 

Selon des études, l’homme a toujours ressentit le besoin de dominer. S’il souhaite autant avancer technologiquement, c’est tout simplement afin de percer les secrets de la nature. 

 

Pour certains, le bonheur ne se traduit pas seulement à satisfaire nos besoins, mais il s’agit aussi de satisfaire nos désirs. D’ailleurs c’est pourquoi l’homme est autant intrigué face à toute ses évolutions technologiques. Cependant, qu’est-ce que le bonheur ? Le bonheur est en chacun de nous. Selon moi, nous sommes tous en quêtent de celui-ci, mais à différent degré. 

 

Prenons quelques situations ou l’avancé technologique pourrait jouer une source de bonheur. Dernièrement, j’ai vu un documentaire sur l’évolution que prendra place la médecine d’ici quelques années. Cette évolution, à proprement dit, changera bien des choses chez le corps humain. Mettez-vous à la place d’une famille ou l’un des membres reçois le diagnostic d’un cancer. Sans cette évolution technique, les chances de survie seront beaucoup moindre qu’avant. Bref, d’ici quelques années, et expliquer en détail dans le documentaire, des cancers autant que des membres amputés pourront être enlevés ainsi que régénéré. Autant chez le patient que chez son entourage, la source des bonheurs est inévitable. 

 

D’un autre côté, des personnes comme mes parents préfèrent vivre de façon simple. Non ils n’ont pas le dernier iPhone, ni la voiture dernier cri, ni les lumières ainsi que le thermostat qui s’allume dès que tu rentres à la maison. Ce n’est pas une question monétaire, je pense simplement qu’ils ne voient pas la nécessité d’avoir tous ses engins électroniques, car cela ne répond pas à leur besoin et ce n’est pas non plus un désir. La question reste cependant, devrions-nous réduire notre façon de vivre ? Le problème n’est pas de réduire comment on vit, mais plutôt réduire comment nous consommons. Toujours vouloir avoir la nouvelle chose qui sort c’est justement ça, selon moi, le problème. Veux veux pas, cette avancé technologique nous fais surconsommé, ce qui soulève un autre problème de notre société qui est de toujours vouloir plus. 

 

Récemment, j’ai fait un voyage à Punta Cana ou j’ai eu la chance de visiter les milieux un peu plus reculé d’où nous étions. Malgré ce que l’on croit, les républicains sont un peuple heureux malgré leur pauvreté. Expliqué par le guide, ils sont pauvres, mais ne vivent pas dans la misère et c’est tout ce qui compte. Le point que je souhaite soulever ici, c’est qu’ils n’ont pas la chance d’avoir toutes ses technologies pour vivre et malgré tout ils sont heureux. Personnellement, je pense que le problème se trouve ici, dans les pays qui surconsomme comme jamais. On nous apprend déjà tout jeune qu’avoir les choses derniers cri c’est la mode et c’est ce qui nous rendra heureux. Au lieu de vivre simplement avec les choses qu’on possède, on préfère dépenser et jeter par la suite. 

 

Pour terminer, l’évolution de nos technologies est inévitable. Je pense qu’il est en notre devoir d’en juger s’il en est nécessaire ou non de les utiliser. De plus, le bonheur ne peut être dicter, car il est propre à chacun. Certaines personnes se sentiront plus à l’aise de vivre de façon simple en réduisant les choses qu’ils consomment, tandis que d’autres trouveront un certain bonheur à toujours avoir les choses derniers cris. 

 

Sources :

 

 

Before we pretended to know truth. Religion was the only acceptable reality. Society revolves around spirituality for answers. At this point, God is the only truth. 

Science and technology helped our evolution, but the wrath of Religion was only growing. We now found ourselves at the beginning of mainstream media (newspaper, radio, televison). That’s when truth became lies - for a couple decades maybe - everything is faked, if you  don't watch the news you're uninformed, but if you do, you're misinformed. 

Then we got the truth. Coming with the internet, information was flowing faster than ever and could spread to the globe in a matter of seconds. Thanks to the Julien Assange and Edward Snowdens of the world, we are constantly bombarded by the terrible news that is the truth of our world. What’s happening is that millions of people are becoming aware of what’s been true the whole time.

Now, we over overexposed to truth, and don't give a fuck about it. We've seen it all, the bad, the worse. Starvation, destruction, manipulation and deceit. We now enter the post-truth era. And at this point, is finding the truth even worth it?

The line between truth and lie is completely blurred now.  The problem is that lying has become benign. It’s not a big deal, its a game, and it has now become a habit. Not only that, but we have also become numb to being lied to. We don’t trust anyone or anything anyway. Casual dishonesty is the norm. We spin the truth, distort is so it sounds better, or worse. Whether its old people lying about fighting in the war, or lying to your best friend about having hooked up with that girl, it’s everywhere. There’s no point in denying it anymore. The media isn’t much better. They’re constantly throwing gazillions of stories at us. Most of them are altered and edited for us to see and hear only what we are meant to. This form of manipulation is hurting the world deeply.

The first step is to asses the problem, recognize it’s there. We’ve done that. So is it still important to search for the truth?

Yes. For the simple reason that one of the founding materials of a healthy civilisation is trust. If you can trust another person’s words, or their actions, you can’t build anything and our world is doomed. 

Without the truth, we base ourself on our misinformation, and we create stereotypes. We develop prejudice, which are mostly caused by distortion of reality rather than informed beliefs.

Truth is still valuable because it guides us, it shows us right from wrong, without decoration or artifice. It’s important to look for it if we want to keep evolving as individuals, as a society and as a specie. 

http://www.ralphkeyes.com/the-post-truth-era/