Aurélien Barrau's reactionary fight against 5G

Posted on May 14, 2019-A+

By Johan Honnet.

5G kills.This is the strong, but not very surprising position of the astrophysicist Aurélien Barrau (who thus goes from the study of the stars to the invocation of the disaster).It is not a new occurrence of the anti-wave movement, but a position that is intended to be ecological.You have to stop the biocide at work, with strong measures: the end of the world is at stake, and there is no choice.

This little music allows others to advance their pawns: the end of the world involves restricting freedoms.Prohibition of interior flights, heavier taxes, quotas on long-haul, with the usual little nagging complaint: people are really too attached to their little comfort, their freedoms.The irresponsible!"Breakage, there will be anyway": to massacre whole sections of the economy to save the world, that is justified, isn't it?What is a little unemployment, some workers and prisoners sacrificed, faced with the climate emergency?

A firm response is essential

The severity of the question and its implications for everyone impose the firmness of the answer.

No, Mr. Barrau, the 5G that you take as an example is not a symptom of a delusional hubris leading us straight into the wall.

No, Mr. Barrau, contrary to what you mentioned last August, it is not necessary to claim "firm, hard and immediate political decisions that will save us", that "drastic and restrictive political decisions, therefore unpopular, betaken ".

Slipped with the salt?Read this.RT @Food52 Here's How To Fix An Over-Seasoned Dish.https://t.co/j631ta0pwc https://t.co/pmksfgj7xd

— PrahranMarket Thu Sep 12 02:17:32 +0000 2019

No, Mr. Barrau, confidence in technology is not an act of faith and does not fall under the order of the religious, nor of prayer.It emerges from the study of the past.Always, everywhere, all the time, central planning based on the constraint and the suffocation of individual freedoms has resulted in at best undesirable effects, at worst catastrophic.

Improving the working conditions of workers was and still remains an important question: it was not in 1917, by the establishment of "strong, drastic, restrictive" measures, that the situation has improved, but by constant effortsFrom a multitude of engineers, researchers, workers, entrepreneurs who have succeeded, without central coordination, in proposing a set of means, in particular technological, making it possible to greatly reduce the arduous work.

Improving life expectancy, reducing as much as possible infant mortality was not done by planning, constraint, fines, quotas.Whatever the profile of the social protection system implemented, very centralized or not, life expectancy has increased: doctors, researchers, prosthetists and all of the professionals dedicated to repelling the disease and death are to be greetedFor this achievement.

"Regulate" demography to fight against "overcrowding" (the quotes are there for purpose) has never worked by liberticide and authoritarian, odious measures when we take the trouble to think about what these measures mean concretely for those to whomThey are applied.The demographic transition is naturally done, without central authority, without intervention by political staff.Economic prosperity and technological progress, once again, are to be greeted: fertility is now a choice (or even calculation: it is expensive to raise, a child), either of fatality.

The same goes with new information technologies.Being able to communicate further, faster, has drawbacks very often highlighted (stress, privacy, sharing of false information, frenzied sharing of fears, anxieties and anger ...);But also undeniable advantages, far from being futile.At random, on the question of the environment: development of telework, upcoming development (thanks to 5G?) Virtual tourism to slightly reduce physical tourism, optimization of agricultural production (less pesticides, less area ...), etc.

Protecting the environment is a commendable goal.But protecting it by favoring coercive methods which have in the past demonstrated their ineffectiveness, even their monstrosity, rather than proven methods - free organization of people, academic freedom, freedom of entrepreneurship - surprises me.

My conclusion: either ecologism prefers anti -capitalism to protecting the environment, or there is a fairly substantial blindness that I do not explain.No doubt false postulates, a kind of baseless pessimism: because, no, it was not better before.

This article was published for the first time in April 2019.