Jean-Paul Oury has a doctorate in the history of science and technology, he published
Greta a killed Einstein
(VA éditions).
Still unknown to the general public a few months ago, the ecofeminist candidate Sandrine Rousseau is now talked about in each of her media releases. During her last visit to Europe 1 she said she preferred "
women who cast spells rather than men who build EPRs
". In fourteen words, she ticked all the boxes of hatred in Western society: bigotry and the defense of pseudosciences (spells); the denigration of Promethean science (EPR); adherence to wokism (witches vs engineers).
Undoubtedly there is an element of provocation and perhaps we can give him credit for a joke, but it is also a question of becoming radicalized in order to stand out in the context of the primary of the Greens.
A good knowledge of these subjects allows us to understand that there is an implacable logic in this statement and that Sandrine Rousseau only expresses the outcome of ecologism, defined as political ideology.
The rise of political ecology as such has manifested itself more in a rejection of Promethean science than in explicit support for pseudosciences.
Jean-Paul Oury
By endorsing "
women who cast spells
" Sandrine Rousseau directly provokes rationalism without any complex. This unvarnished adherence to pseudosciences by a political figure is something new. Until now the latter essentially survived mainly in the form of beliefs spread in a diffuse way in all social strata: from the divinatory art of the clairvoyant Elizabeth Teissier to the theses on the memory of water of the doctor Jacques Benneveniste through all. palmists and other marabouts…. Pseudoscience has never had a proper political spokesperson.
For the rise of political ecology as such has manifested itself more in a rejection of Promethean science than in explicit support for pseudosciences. Indeed, as we show in
Greta killed Einstein
through the example of GMOs, nuclear power, relay antennas (5G today) and glyphosate, NGO ideologists and politicians have seized on these four totems to bring Promethean science off its pedestal. Today, it is taboo to modify living things, to split atoms, to propagate waves or even to use molecules. Science and technology that were seen to be beneficial to mankind are totally demonized.
To read also "It is time to build an ecology of
France from below
"
In parallel with this undermining work, ecologism has promoted the “
made in Nature
” of solutions presented as good because they are allegedly closer to nature and for which we have totally turned a blind eye to negative externalities (for example , wind turbines that require coal-fired power stations, or rare earth electric vehicles).
To this day, the contenders of political ecology promote these solutions, some knowing full well that they are only the Trojan horse of degrowth.
However, let us return for a moment to the system of values of our civilization and pass through our axiological prism the “
ecofeminist
”
cause
that Sandrine Rousseau defends: that of “
women witches
”. The choice of this icon which embodies the antithesis of the West perceived as patriarchal and rationalist by certain extreme currents of feminism is undoubtedly not trivial. How can we dare to promote this "
vocation
”When we know that one of the main problems of France is that with its 28% of women researchers, it is located below the European average of 33%, an average which, itself, unfortunately, is not very high.
What would Marie Curie, born Maria Sklodowska in Poland in 1867 have thought, to whom we owe the discovery of the properties of polonium and radium - which earned her two Nobel Prizes - as well as many applications made possible ... Discoveries that to term made possible the famous "
EPR built by men
".
And what about its Petites Curies, vehicles equipped with radiology units which made it possible to visit patients at the front and to carry out more than 1,000,000 radiological examinations between 1917 and 1918 to treat hairy patients?
Read also What if ecology was ... right?
Without a doubt, Maria Sklodowska Curie would have thought that Sandrine Rousseau was a misogynist with no scientific culture. Then she would undoubtedly have changed her mind, feeling sorry for the condition of women in her time, telling herself that like so many others in her time, she did not have the chance to go to school and therefore, believes more "
to spells
" than to a relentless observation work in the laboratory to identify properties of the elements of the Mendeleïev table and to draw all the possible applications for the good of humanity.
We will be objected that Marie Curie is no longer there to tell us and that there are few women of this level in the scientific world and that it is a pity. But this is false because we could just as easily ask Jennifer Dudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, these two magicians, both Nobel Prize winners in chemistry for the discovery of Crispr-Cas 9, who revolutionized the world of biotechnology, what they think of "
women reduced to their (sad) fates
"….