Search

L’arithmétique de la répartition est dure mais intuitive. Admettons une quarantaine d’années de cotisations — ce qui suppose d’avoir commencé à travailler à 18 ans — et un taux de cotisation moyen de 25 % (correspondant à peu près à celui de la cohorte de 1960). On arrive à 25 % × 40 = 10 années de salaire versées en cotisations. L’espérance de vie des femmes à 60 ans est de 28 ans. Un départ à 58 ans implique donc une espérance de vie de 30,6 années à la retraite. Avec une pension moyenne représentant environ 55 % du salaire moyen des actifs actuels, on arrive à 17 années de salaire prélevées sur la génération suivante. Attention : ici, on ne parle pas du fameux taux de récupération de 2×. Mon calcul est déjà net des gains de productivité, puisqu’on raisonne en années de salaire de personnes appartenant à des générations séparées d’une trentaine d’années. Seule la croissance démographique peut financer cet écart sans augmentation des taux de cotisation d'une génération à l'autre. Comment le système peut-il accorder à un retraité le quasi double de l’effort qu’il a lui-même consenti, mesuré en années de salaire, sans devenir un énorme fardeau ? C’est simple : il faut que la population croisse de 70% d’une génération à l’autre. Ainsi, Sylvie et son mari peuvent demander dix années de salaires à chacun de leurs 3,4 enfants, soit 34 années au total, et donc 17 années par parent retraité. Il faut 3,4 enfants par femme : la démographie du Gabon. Un tout petit peu moins si on ajuste de l'espérance de vie un peu plus faible de son mari. #Retraite #Démographie #Économie

In her new novel Out Loud, Polina Panassenko explores the legacy of Soviet repression by telling the familial investigation of a young woman searching for the history of her ancestor deported to the gulag, while highlighting the silences and painful memories that continue to affect generations. (translated)

🔵 La Formule 2 vient de dévoiler sa nouvelle monoplace pour les 3 prochaines saisons ! 🙌 Plusieurs évolutions importantes sont à noter, notamment pour renforcer son rôle d'antichambre de la Formule 1. - Le moteur V6 Mecachrome et le châssis Dallara sont conservés, tandis que les ailerons avant et arrière sont entièrement redessinés. - L'arrivée d'un démarreur embarqué pour permettre aux pilotes de redémarrer leur voiture après un tête-à-queue ou un calage en piste. - Côté design, la nouvelle monoplace se rapproche davantage des dernières générations de F1. #F2 #ItalianGP #Formule2 #F1 #SportsAuto

Today I welcomed young peacebuilders from around the world to Mäntyniemi. To bring about change, we need new generations to promote peace, foster dialogue, and strengthen mutual understanding. https://t.co/ryiHk3dYAE #Peacebuilding #YouthLeadership #Dialogue #Nospecificcountrycodescanbeidentifiedfromthetweet.

“Socialism Was Good in Theory” That sentence assumes the theory was never seriously challenged. It was. Long before the Soviet Union existed, before Lenin seized power, and before socialism had been tested on a national scale, major thinkers were already attacking its foundations—from very different directions. Five of them stand out. Tocqueville: Equality Can Become Servitude In 1848, Alexis de Tocqueville drew a sharp distinction between democracy and socialism. Both spoke about equality. But Tocqueville believed they pursued it in fundamentally different ways. Democracy, in his view, sought equality while preserving individual freedom. Socialism risked achieving equality by expanding the power of the state over the individual. His warning was essentially this: equality is not automatically liberty. A society can pursue equality so aggressively that it begins sacrificing the independence that makes political freedom meaningful. Bastiat: Follow Where Redistribution Leads Two years later, Frédéric Bastiat attacked socialism from a different direction. His question was deceptively simple: What happens when the state acquires the authority to take from some people and give to others in the name of justice? Bastiat called this “legal plunder.” His concern was not merely that redistribution might be expensive. It was that once government becomes the instrument through which competing groups obtain benefits from one another, politics can turn into a permanent struggle over who controls the machinery of redistribution. The problem, therefore, wasn’t simply how much the state redistributed. It was the principle that made redistribution legitimate in the first place. (bastiat.org⁠) Nietzsche: Equality Can Become Resentment Nietzsche approached socialism neither as an economist nor as a constitutional theorist. He attacked its psychology. He saw modern egalitarian movements as part of a much older moral impulse: resentment toward exceptional individuals and suspicion of strength, ambition and hierarchy. For Nietzsche, the danger was not simply that everyone might become economically equal. It was that a culture could begin treating excellence itself as something morally suspect. The goal would cease to be lifting people upward. It would become bringing the exceptional downward. Böhm-Bawerk: Challenge the Economics Then came Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk. In 1896, he turned his attention specifically toward Marx’s economic system. His criticism was not primarily moral or political. It was technical. Böhm-Bawerk argued that Marx’s theory of value did not adequately explain how the labor values developed in Capital could be reconciled with the actual prices Marx subsequently needed to explain. In other words, he attacked socialism where it claimed to possess a scientific economic foundation. The argument became one of the central criticisms of Marxian economics and helped launch a debate that would continue for generations. Mises: The Calculation Problem Then, in 1920, Ludwig von Mises attacked an even more fundamental question: Even if socialism is morally desirable, how would a socialist economy actually know what to produce? A functioning economy has millions of competing uses for scarce resources. Build a bridge or a hospital? Use steel here or there? Produce more machinery or more consumer goods? Under private ownership and markets, prices for capital goods provide information about relative scarcity and opportunity costs. Mises argued that abolishing private ownership of the means of production also removes the genuine market prices necessary for rational economic calculation. The problem wasn’t simply that socialist planners might make bad decisions. It was that the system deprived them of the very economic signals required to systematically compare those decisions. (Mises Institute⁠) And that was the sequence. Tocqueville challenged the political premise. Bastiat challenged the moral and legal mechanism of redistribution. Nietzsche challenged the psychology behind egalitarianism. Böhm-Bawerk challenged Marx’s economic theory. Mises challenged the possibility of rational central economic calculation. Five different thinkers. Five different objections. And all of them came before the Soviet Union had demonstrated what large-scale socialist government would actually look like. So “socialism was good in theory, but bad in practice” is not an argument. It is a historical claim that requires you to explain why these theoretical objections were wrong. The interesting question isn’t whether socialism had critics. It did. The interesting question is whether socialism ever adequately answered them” - ChatGPT

I refuse to turn the young against our elders. I refuse to turn our elders against the young. This debate would only further fracture our country. It is our entire system that is out of breath and that we must urgently reform. (translated)

Vous vous souvenez de Manuel @mbompard qui disait qu'il ne fallait pas geler les retraites de plus de 3000€ ? Sachez que LFI ne voit aucun problème à prendre l'argent des travailleurs à 2000€ net, justement pour maintenir ces 3000€. Ici en capture d'écran, leur argumentaire sur la réforme des retraites de 2019. LFI y proposait que pour une augmentation de salaire de 50€, 34,4€ aille au financement des retraites, et seulement 15,6€ au salarié augmenté. Vous avez bien lu. LFI veut diriger 70% d'une éventuelle richesse supplémentaire vers les seules pensions. "Tout le monde y gagne !" 🙃 Trois clarifications : 1. déjà à l'époque ils ne proposaient pas qu'un point de cotisation en plus, mais 1,25. Ils n'ont pas osé dire le calcul avec 1,25. 2. l'Etat n'administre pas ces salaires. Dans ce livret, LFI a évidemment inventé une augmentation pour éponger ce que coûterait leur augmentation de cotisation. Ils n'ont pas osé écrire 5% d'augmentation (qui aurait noyé un peu le coût de la cotisation) parce que ça aurait été une promesse qu'ils ne pourraient tout simplement pas tenir. 3. Ils estimaient alors le net à 2056 pour 2500 de brut, mais c'était faux, c'était environ 1975. Même là ils surestiment ce qui revient aux plus jeunes. ... et ça vous dirait que je vous explique ce qu'ils comptaient faire aussi des réserves prévues pour aider les générations futures, ou je garde ça pour le bouquin que j'écris... ? Ce n'est pas "taxer les riches". Ca n'a jamais été taxer les riches. C'est endetter les enfants et étouffer les travailleurs. #Retraites #LFI #Économie

The Downward Spiral of Gender Polarization The growing divide between men and women resembles less a debate than a divorce involving millions. Both sides escalate, talk past each other, and blame the other gender amid a mental-health crisis. Depression among Americans under thirty has doubled in eight years, while anxiety continues to rise. Each gender has failure modes and one successful path. Carl Jung called it individuation; a simpler term is integration. The integrated are not leading the conversation. The disordered are. Every man carries an inner feminine—the part that feels, intuits, and creates meaning. Jung called it the anima. Cut off from it, he becomes cold and contemptuous; overwhelmed by it, passive and moody. Every woman carries an inner masculine—the part that decides, asserts, and holds the line. Jung called it the animus. Cut off from it, she defers to stronger people; possessed by it, argumentative and rigid. I believe the four failure modes pair off. The cold, contemptuous man finds a timid woman who cannot challenge him; the red-pill industry calls this manhood. The passive man finds a domineering woman who can run his life; the feminist industry calls this liberation. A 2025 Nature Human Behaviour study of 14.8 million people in Taiwan, Denmark, and Sweden found that disordered individuals consistently marry one another across cultures and generations dating back to the 1930s. My theory is that integrated people increasingly date within a pool dominated by the disordered. They try, fail, and get hurt, then drift toward the same patterns. The pool corrupts those who might have healed it, creating a feedback loop. We are in a downward spiral: integrated people encounter disordered partners and become disordered themselves, while the already disordered grow worse. Reversal requires enough people to reject cynicism. When every encounter feels like proof that the other gender is broken, our own drift toward disorder begins to feel justified.

The Belyaev Fox Experiment: Selective Breeding, Tameness, and Domestication In 1959, Soviet geneticist Dmitry Belyaev began a long-term experiment at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics in Novosibirsk to investigate how wild animals might undergo domestication. Working with silver foxes (*Vulpes vulpes*) from fur farms, he selected approximately the tamest 10% in each generation as breeding parents. Selection focused mainly on behaviour—reduced fear and aggression and greater willingness to interact with humans—rather than on physical traits. The results were rapid and striking. Within about six generations, some foxes licked researchers’ hands, accepted physical contact, wagged their tails, and actively sought human attention (Dugatkin, 2018). Over time, selection for tameness was accompanied by changes in coat pigmentation, ear and tail shape, reproductive patterns, physiology, and behaviour (Trut et al., 2009). These traits resembled features found in domestic dogs and other domesticated mammals and became associated with the “domestication syndrome,” which includes reduced aggression, increased social tolerance, juvenile behaviours, pigmentation changes, and altered craniofacial development. Belyaev proposed that selection for reduced fear and aggression could affect wider developmental and physiological systems. Later research suggested that changes involving neural crest cells might help explain how behavioural selection could produce multiple physical traits (Wilkins et al., 2014). The experiment also offered a model for dog domestication. Early wolves that were less fearful and aggressive may have remained near human settlements, where they experienced a new selective environment. Over generations, increasing tolerance of humans could have led to further behavioural, physiological, and morphological changes. Belyaev’s experiment remains important because it shows how behavioural selection can rapidly influence development, genetics, and evolution, while also highlighting the need for caution when applying the concept of a universal domestication syndrome. **References:** Belyaev (1979); Dugatkin (2018); Lord et al. (2020); Trut et al. (2009); Wilkins et al. (2014).

Contraception and Western Culture In the 1960s, the birth-control pill became widely available. Sexual liberation is usually presented as a story of freedom and progress, but its biological consequence is rarely discussed: sex could now be separated from reproduction. Every Western nation has experienced below-replacement fertility for decades. Oxford anthropologist J. D. Unwin anticipated this pattern in *Sex and Culture*, a study of 86 societies. He expected to disprove any link between sexual restraint and civilizational achievement. Instead, he concluded that cultures practicing strict monogamy generated energy expressed through art, science, conquest, and commerce. Relaxing sexual restraint, he argued, consistently weakened that energy within three generations. Unwin also predicted that such societies would abandon rationalism, deism, and monogamy. Three generations after 1960 brings us near the present, and some of his predictions appear increasingly visible. Religious affiliation has collapsed, marriage is declining, the median age at first marriage is at a record high, and a record share of people will never marry. Rationalism also appears to be giving way to egoism, identity, and emotion. Contraception helps explain this transformation. Evolutionary theory distinguishes between a behavior’s immediate purpose—such as pleasure—and its ultimate function, such as reproduction. Sex traditionally served both purposes. Contraception severed that connection, preserving the behavior while disconnecting it from reproduction. Female education, urbanization, workforce participation, economic growth, and the rising cost of living also correlate with declining fertility. Yet many of these changes depend on technological control over reproduction. Career-first lifestyles, extended education, and mass female workforce participation would be far more difficult without it. Women may have gained freedom from child-rearing, but they may have fewer daughters to inherit that freedom. Institutions that promoted this transformation now import replacement populations that may not share its values and could eventually reverse them.

The Gender War and the Downward Social Spiral The growing polarization between men and women resembles less a public debate than a divorce involving millions. Both sides talk past each other, escalate tensions, and blame the other gender—all amid a severe mental health crisis. The gender war is a cultural debate among a psychologically struggling population. The people lashing out most intensely may fit recognizable psychological patterns. Each gender has two major failure modes and one healthy alternative: integration. Carl Jung called this individuation. Every man carries an inner feminine—the part that feels, intuits, and finds meaning. Jung called it the anima. Cut off from it, he becomes cold and contemptuous; overwhelmed by it, he becomes passive and moody. Every woman carries an inner masculine—the part that decides, asserts, and holds the line. Jung called it the animus. Cut off from it, she defers to stronger people; possessed by it, she becomes argumentative and rigid. These failures often pair off. The cold, contemptuous man finds a timid woman who cannot challenge him, while the passive man finds a domineering woman who can run his life. Each ideology may then rebrand these unhealthy dynamics as either manhood or liberation. A 2025 *Nature Human Behaviour* study of 14.8 million people across Taiwan, Denmark, and Sweden found that disordered people consistently marry other disordered people across cultures and generations. Balanced people, by contrast, do not need to dominate or be dominated. Yet they are trying to date within a pool increasingly shaped by dysfunction. They get hurt, become cynical, and begin drifting toward the very patterns they once rejected. The disordered worsen, while the healthy become corrupted—a positive feedback loop. Well-integrated people meet a growing pool of disordered partners and drift toward disorder themselves. Reversal may require a critical mass of people to reject cynicism.

@K1000Journalist Important de préciser que papa avait lui aussi hérité de son père qui avait lui même hérité de son père qui avait lui même herité de son père. Colombe est la 5e génération à hériter de la fortune familiale depuis 1886 https://t.co/RSYkHsSj4D #Héritage #Famille #Générations

Every language carries a unique way of seeing the world. Māori “kaitiakitanga” expresses our responsibility to care for nature for generations to come.🌱 The @UNESCO-led @ILDecade reminds us: when a language is lost, knowledge can be lost too. 🔗 https://t.co/uMejgNareN https://t.co/Le1XXPqXI0 #LanguageMatters #Kaitiakitanga #CulturalHeritage #NZ #UN

Générations futures. Une ONG toute puissante, qui influence nos lois et est reprise partout, notamment grâce à la voix de @CamilleEtienne_. Une ONG ? Un lobby, plutôt. Ce n'est même pas un secret : sa présidente, Maria Pelletier, est administratrice du syndicat des industriels et distributeurs bio, Synabio. Son budget ? En partie financé par les ténors du secteur : - Biocoop, - Ecotone, - Lea Nature, - Ekibio, - Naturalia. Et évidemment, l’Office français de la Biodiversité. Oui, l'OFB finance le biobusiness avec vos impôts. Vous pensez défendre les petits producteurs face à l'agro-industrie ? Combattre un modèle productiviste ? Chez @genefutures, ils doivent bien rigoler. #ONG #Lobbying #Biodiversité