L’heure est grave pour toutes celles et ceux qui souhaitent pouvoir cultiver ou s’alimenter sans OGM. En effet, en ce moment même, la Commission européenne s’engage dans un processus accéléré pour modifier la loi sur les OGM. Leur objectif, avec la complicité de l’agro-industrie : déréglementer les OGM. Ils veulent en finir avec l\’évaluation et l\’étiquetage des OGM, avec la volonté d\’imposer leurs plantes pesticides brevetées et génétiquement manipulées. Il y a donc urgence à se mobiliser et renforcer la résistance ! Pour cela, nous vous donnons rendez-vous à Poitiers les 23 et 24 septembre 2023.

Vous pouvez vous inscrire au prochain rendez-vous de mobilisation contre les OGM :

\ »OGM, plantes pesticides, brevets sur le vivant :
face à l’offensive de l’agro-industrie, renforçons la résistance !\ »
23 & 24 septembre 2023
Salons de Blossac, Poitiers

[button link=\ »https://bit.ly/3JHTwCL\ » color=\ »silver\ »] Inscription[/button]

Historique de la lutte contre les OGM, déréglementation des nouvelles techniques génomiques en cours de négociation au niveau européen, privatisation du vivant et accaparement des ressources en eau, solution pour une agriculture paysanne et une alimentation saine… Ces deux journées de conférence, débat et tables rondes seront l\’occasion de rappeler l\’importance de notre mobilisation, et engager des discussions sur les modes d\’action pour lutter contre ces techniques agro-industrielles qui menacent l\’agriculture paysanne et le droit à une alimentation saine.

Brochure disponible ici : https://www.fnab.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/23-24-SEPT-A-POITIERS-OGM-plantes-pesticides-brevets-sur-le-vivant.pdf

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

C\’est à ces questions que Jacques Testart tente d\’apporter une réponse dans un article du Monde diplomatique du mois d\’octobre 2022.

N.B. Cet article n\’engage que son auteur.

\ »Il existe depuis quelques années des perspectives vertigineuses pour trier dans l’œuf les enfants à venir. En 2016, au Japon, des cellules de peau de souris « reprogrammées » ont pu être transformées en gamètes, lesquels ont généré des embryons viables à l’origine de souris fertiles. Appliquée à notre espèce, cette technologie pourrait bouleverser la pratique du diagnostic préimplantatoire (DPI) en générant des embryons en abondance puisque les cellules de peau constituent une ressource illimitée. Si l’on dispose d’une quantité importante d’embryons, la possibilité de sélectionner ceux qui portent certaines caractéristiques s’accroît considérablement. Pareille évolution ouvrirait la voie au remodelage génétique de l’espèce en quelques générations.

Devant un tel risque anthropologique, on aurait pu croire que les autorités politiques et éthiques mondiales réagiraient comme elles le firent en 1996, après l’irruption médiatique du premier mammifère cloné, la brebis Dolly, en justifiant l’interdiction de toute recherche sur le clonage dans l’espèce humaine. Tout au contraire, en France, la loi de bioéthique du 2 août 2021 autorise désormais la création d’embryons transgéniques et encourage la fabrication de gamètes humains in vitro (articles 20 et 21) en même temps que la création de chimères humain-animal.\ »

Retrouvez la suite de l\’article dans version papier du journal ou en suivant le lien suivant (version abonnés) : https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2022/10/TESTART/65153

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

C’est à ces questions que Jacques Testart tente d’apporter une réponse dans un article du Monde diplomatique du mois d’octobre 2022.

N.B. Cet article n’engage que son auteur.

« Il existe depuis quelques années des perspectives vertigineuses pour trier dans l’œuf les enfants à venir. En 2016, au Japon, des cellules de peau de souris « reprogrammées » ont pu être transformées en gamètes, lesquels ont généré des embryons viables à l’origine de souris fertiles. Appliquée à notre espèce, cette technologie pourrait bouleverser la pratique du diagnostic préimplantatoire (DPI) en générant des embryons en abondance puisque les cellules de peau constituent une ressource illimitée. Si l’on dispose d’une quantité importante d’embryons, la possibilité de sélectionner ceux qui portent certaines caractéristiques s’accroît considérablement. Pareille évolution ouvrirait la voie au remodelage génétique de l’espèce en quelques générations.

Devant un tel risque anthropologique, on aurait pu croire que les autorités politiques et éthiques mondiales réagiraient comme elles le firent en 1996, après l’irruption médiatique du premier mammifère cloné, la brebis Dolly, en justifiant l’interdiction de toute recherche sur le clonage dans l’espèce humaine. Tout au contraire, en France, la loi de bioéthique du 2 août 2021 autorise désormais la création d’embryons transgéniques et encourage la fabrication de gamètes humains in vitro (articles 20 et 21) en même temps que la création de chimères humain-animal. »

Retrouvez la suite de l’article dans version papier du journal ou en suivant le lien suivant (version abonnés) : https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2022/10/TESTART/65153

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

Voici le texte de sa présentation (en anglais) :

An NGO created 20 years ago whose objective is to put science and scientists back into society and to democratise science, in many different ways, at the level of the definition of the knowledge we need, of the production of knowledge and its uses. We believe that knowledge and science are eminently political objects and we advocate the role of science in the ecological and social crises, as well as the social responsibility and political commitment of science and scientists.

Our actions take several forms. We seek to foster debates numerous socio-technical controversies linked to the use of certain technosciences (such as GMOs or geo-engineering), but we also develop numerous views on technical democracy and the organisation of the research world. Over the past twenty years, we have set up numerous tools such as the Citizens\’ Conventions, an instrument of citizen\’s political deliberation whose purpose can be, for example, to allow the democratic elaboration of choices on the use of technologies or the orientations of research. We have also been at the origin of thee French Whistleblowers\’ House and have contributed a great deal to the development of participatory research in France, for which we claim for a high degree of democracy and the co-construction of knowledge.

The association is at the crossroads of two types of advocacy: a political advocacy, on the need to democratise the mechanisms of production and use of knowledge and techniques; another on the very nature of socio-technical controversies and the societal choices we make. Genome editing is a perfect illustration of the complementarity of these two pleas and of the complexity of the issues at the Science/Society interface.

Sciences Citoyennes\’s position on genome editing

Genome editing, and more generally the development of all techniques of genetic manipulation of living organisms, do not correspond to any demand from society, nor are they supported by an open, global debate on the legitimacy, usefulness or risks associated with these new technologies. The rapid development of biotechnologies is characterised by a complete democratic vacuum and by the grip of the scientific and industrial worlds on public decisions. The political agenda is captured by a very influential minority, and the choices to develop these techniques are made in an undemocratic way. Not only is the choice to manipulate the living, the genome of plants, animals and humans made without the consent of citizens, but it is made against them.

Indeed, Sciences citoyennes is fundamentally opposed to the vision of man, of society, of the living being that this biotechnological frenzy carries, a project of civilisation that is built against the ethical values on which our societies are based, that endangers the conditions of life of man on Earth and that is an attack on human dignity. We are at the dawn of a technological revolution which, like the revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, will profoundly change our relationship with the world. Today, it is our \’humanity\’ that is at stake and the advances in genetic sciences and technologies give always more powerful weapons to those who wish to dehumanise us.

Bioethics legislation and regulation

This mobilisation is more than necessary in view of the political situation in France. France adopted a bioethics law fairly quickly (in 1994, i.e. 12 years after the first French test-tube baby), agreeing that this law should be amended regularly, every 5/7 years. However, this revision of the law does not always respond to the emergence of new problems or social issues, but rather seems to follow scientific advances, to submit to international competition, to seek ever more medical or paramedical applications which constitute a market with strong growth potential for many companies. French bioethics laws are modified very regularly, they do not regulate the scientific, technical, medical or commercial practices but are constantly adapted to the state of knowledge and techniques and to \’progressive\’ pressure groups. In other words, the law does not regulate Science, it is Science that creates the law. This constant evolution of regulations over the last twenty years is manifested by an increasing permissiveness towards the demands of scientists and certain lobbies and leads to the authorisation of ever more scientific experiments and medical practices. In this respect, certain measures in the latest bioethics law are confounding :

– Authorisation of the mass production of gametes through the directed in vitro differentiation of somatic cells or stem cells. The risks of merchandising of gametes, the generalisation of pre-implantation diagnosis and positive eugenics have obviously not been taken into account.

– Authorisation of human-animal chimeras by combining embryonic cells (human/mouse, human/pig) with transfer into the uterus of the animal species.

The question of the dilution of identity of these \ »hybrid objects\ », the very nature of these demiurgic creations, the infringement of animal and human dignity, etc., did not embarrass the legislators, who saw it only as a practical means of producing organoids (to produce organs for transplantation), or of furthering science.

– Editing the genome of human embryos by applying Crispr-Cas9 on an experimental basis to define the conditions of good practice prior to the birth of genetically modified children. Here again, under the pretext of the non-implantation of embryos, the legislators have authorised the ultimate transgression, that of substituting themselves for Chance/Nature, whatever name we give it, and arrogating to themselves the right to modify, control, and even create our own genetic, bodily and material identity. We would no longer depend on anyone but ourselves, the ultimate fantasy of becoming one\’s own God.

These laws were passed not in the name of the welfare or sake of mankind, but in the name of Science. The law has been used not as a tool for regulation, but as a tool for the promotion of biotechnology; politicians do not seem to care about the best interests of mankind, but rather are in a hurry to blindly respond to the fantasies of the craziest scientists and the most demanding parents. This forced march of biotechnological progress is done while refusing to ask questions about the medical, social, cultural and moral consequences of these laws. Thus, what is the point of producing thousands of gametes artificially, if not to use them intensively and thus profoundly modify our ways of \ »reproducing\ » ourselves as individuals, as a species ? What is the point of authorising the modification of human embryos if not to then, in the name of the \ »care\ » provided to the embryo, henceforth considered as a \ »patient\ », authorise the re-implantation of embryos \ »cured\ » of their genetic defects, related to orphan or social diseases ?

The project of mastering man, from his creation to his death, of improving \ »human quality\ » is what drives this permanent revision of the bioethics laws and is reminiscent of the wildest transhumanist delusions. But obviously, this is not said publicly. The political space in which these laws were drawn up, discussed and voted on has been captured by the scientific and industrial world. There has been no really contradictory public debate on these precise points. In this sense, the evolution of French laws reflects an abdication to scientific or societal pressure groups of what a law should be (regulating science and medicine) and the democratic way in which it should be elaborated.

Lack of public mobilisation

Public attention has been focused on other, less technical, aspects of the latest bioethics laws. The extension of medically assisted procreation and the authorisation of surrogate motherhood, which have given rise to a great deal of mobilisation and discourse, has played the role of the tree that hides the forest. As far as the editing of the human genome is concerned, the general feeling is non-existent. There is very little information, and even less debate on these issues. These debates have had little to do with the issue of human biotechnology, have rather served as a relay for the dominant discourse and have had almost zero media coverage. However, when you explain in detail to your family or friends the state of the legislation in France, what is being done or can be done, the concrete consequences of these new laws… people are individually horrified. No one can imagine that it is acceptable to produce human/animal chimeras, thousands of gametes artificially and even less to modify the human genome… And yet, this is what is going to happen thanks to the latest legislative revision

In France, there are very strong mobilisations against plant biotechnologies, built on many associations and activists, and the issue of GMOs is very present in the media with a strong people’s commitment for or against. But surprisingly, when these biotechnologies are applied to humans, this does not trigger any reactions in the population, as if a smokescreen separated them from this reality. It is likely that this \’factory of ignorance\’ is the result of the activity of pressure groups that were able to capture the space for public discussion and decision-making at a fairly early stage. Unlike other fields (plant biotechnologies, digital technology, pesticides, etc.), these groups are not all in the service of economic interests but seem to defend a certain vision of science and human beings, an ideology.

The responsibility of scientists

In my opinion, the scientific community is largely responsible for the invisibilisation of the issue of human genome editing, and this has been the case since the 1990s and the first law authorising PGD in 1994. The debate has been captured and the terms imposed by scientists who have reduced it to its technical dimension, prevented any possibility of addressing ethical, social, cultural or even medical issues. The absence of contradictory debates illustrates this capture. Positions or initiatives seeking to question the extremely rapid development of human biotechnologies are quickly caricatured and labelled as obscurantist, religious, anti-progress movements… Scientists have imposed their agenda on the political world, by imposing the idea that genome manipulation is inevitable, indispensable. They are manoeuvring to short-circuit any attempt at prohibiting or even regulating human biotechnologies by once again mobilising a rhetoric of scientific and economic promises, by defending the \ »imperative of medical finality\ » and, as is often the case, by waving China around like a scarecrow: \ »It has to be done because if we don\’t do it, China will.

The reaction of the French scientific community to the Chinese GMO babies is an illustration of its position on genome editing: favourable. Indeed, scientists condemned Jangkui He\’s experiments, not for ethical or moral reasons, but because this \ »work\ » had not been done correctly, from a technical and legal point of view. They did not question the very fact of creating GMO babies, and they rather gave the impression that they regretted not having done it themselves first. They were more hurt that they had been scooped by an outsider researcher, than concerned about the risks of developing these human biotechnologies. These scientists are now organised in international networks, penetrate international bodies and hold congresses where they define the conditions they consider necessary to promote their projects. It is a vision of a mythical, omniscient and omnipotent science that is being imposed, a science that places itself above cultural and political norms, above ethical and moral values, a science that is accountable to no one and decides our future without us and even against us, and it is this vision of Science that should frighten us the most and encourage us to react.

Find more about it here : https://stopdesignerbabies.org/news/

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

Voici le texte de sa présentation (en anglais) :

An NGO created 20 years ago whose objective is to put science and scientists back into society and to democratise science, in many different ways, at the level of the definition of the knowledge we need, of the production of knowledge and its uses. We believe that knowledge and science are eminently political objects and we advocate the role of science in the ecological and social crises, as well as the social responsibility and political commitment of science and scientists.

Our actions take several forms. We seek to foster debates numerous socio-technical controversies linked to the use of certain technosciences (such as GMOs or geo-engineering), but we also develop numerous views on technical democracy and the organisation of the research world. Over the past twenty years, we have set up numerous tools such as the Citizens’ Conventions, an instrument of citizen’s political deliberation whose purpose can be, for example, to allow the democratic elaboration of choices on the use of technologies or the orientations of research. We have also been at the origin of thee French Whistleblowers’ House and have contributed a great deal to the development of participatory research in France, for which we claim for a high degree of democracy and the co-construction of knowledge.

The association is at the crossroads of two types of advocacy: a political advocacy, on the need to democratise the mechanisms of production and use of knowledge and techniques; another on the very nature of socio-technical controversies and the societal choices we make. Genome editing is a perfect illustration of the complementarity of these two pleas and of the complexity of the issues at the Science/Society interface.

Sciences Citoyennes’s position on genome editing

Genome editing, and more generally the development of all techniques of genetic manipulation of living organisms, do not correspond to any demand from society, nor are they supported by an open, global debate on the legitimacy, usefulness or risks associated with these new technologies. The rapid development of biotechnologies is characterised by a complete democratic vacuum and by the grip of the scientific and industrial worlds on public decisions. The political agenda is captured by a very influential minority, and the choices to develop these techniques are made in an undemocratic way. Not only is the choice to manipulate the living, the genome of plants, animals and humans made without the consent of citizens, but it is made against them.

Indeed, Sciences citoyennes is fundamentally opposed to the vision of man, of society, of the living being that this biotechnological frenzy carries, a project of civilisation that is built against the ethical values on which our societies are based, that endangers the conditions of life of man on Earth and that is an attack on human dignity. We are at the dawn of a technological revolution which, like the revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, will profoundly change our relationship with the world. Today, it is our ‘humanity’ that is at stake and the advances in genetic sciences and technologies give always more powerful weapons to those who wish to dehumanise us.

Bioethics legislation and regulation

This mobilisation is more than necessary in view of the political situation in France. France adopted a bioethics law fairly quickly (in 1994, i.e. 12 years after the first French test-tube baby), agreeing that this law should be amended regularly, every 5/7 years. However, this revision of the law does not always respond to the emergence of new problems or social issues, but rather seems to follow scientific advances, to submit to international competition, to seek ever more medical or paramedical applications which constitute a market with strong growth potential for many companies. French bioethics laws are modified very regularly, they do not regulate the scientific, technical, medical or commercial practices but are constantly adapted to the state of knowledge and techniques and to ‘progressive’ pressure groups. In other words, the law does not regulate Science, it is Science that creates the law. This constant evolution of regulations over the last twenty years is manifested by an increasing permissiveness towards the demands of scientists and certain lobbies and leads to the authorisation of ever more scientific experiments and medical practices. In this respect, certain measures in the latest bioethics law are confounding :

– Authorisation of the mass production of gametes through the directed in vitro differentiation of somatic cells or stem cells. The risks of merchandising of gametes, the generalisation of pre-implantation diagnosis and positive eugenics have obviously not been taken into account.

– Authorisation of human-animal chimeras by combining embryonic cells (human/mouse, human/pig) with transfer into the uterus of the animal species.

The question of the dilution of identity of these « hybrid objects », the very nature of these demiurgic creations, the infringement of animal and human dignity, etc., did not embarrass the legislators, who saw it only as a practical means of producing organoids (to produce organs for transplantation), or of furthering science.

– Editing the genome of human embryos by applying Crispr-Cas9 on an experimental basis to define the conditions of good practice prior to the birth of genetically modified children. Here again, under the pretext of the non-implantation of embryos, the legislators have authorised the ultimate transgression, that of substituting themselves for Chance/Nature, whatever name we give it, and arrogating to themselves the right to modify, control, and even create our own genetic, bodily and material identity. We would no longer depend on anyone but ourselves, the ultimate fantasy of becoming one’s own God.

These laws were passed not in the name of the welfare or sake of mankind, but in the name of Science. The law has been used not as a tool for regulation, but as a tool for the promotion of biotechnology; politicians do not seem to care about the best interests of mankind, but rather are in a hurry to blindly respond to the fantasies of the craziest scientists and the most demanding parents. This forced march of biotechnological progress is done while refusing to ask questions about the medical, social, cultural and moral consequences of these laws. Thus, what is the point of producing thousands of gametes artificially, if not to use them intensively and thus profoundly modify our ways of « reproducing » ourselves as individuals, as a species ? What is the point of authorising the modification of human embryos if not to then, in the name of the « care » provided to the embryo, henceforth considered as a « patient », authorise the re-implantation of embryos « cured » of their genetic defects, related to orphan or social diseases ?

The project of mastering man, from his creation to his death, of improving « human quality » is what drives this permanent revision of the bioethics laws and is reminiscent of the wildest transhumanist delusions. But obviously, this is not said publicly. The political space in which these laws were drawn up, discussed and voted on has been captured by the scientific and industrial world. There has been no really contradictory public debate on these precise points. In this sense, the evolution of French laws reflects an abdication to scientific or societal pressure groups of what a law should be (regulating science and medicine) and the democratic way in which it should be elaborated.

Lack of public mobilisation

Public attention has been focused on other, less technical, aspects of the latest bioethics laws. The extension of medically assisted procreation and the authorisation of surrogate motherhood, which have given rise to a great deal of mobilisation and discourse, has played the role of the tree that hides the forest. As far as the editing of the human genome is concerned, the general feeling is non-existent. There is very little information, and even less debate on these issues. These debates have had little to do with the issue of human biotechnology, have rather served as a relay for the dominant discourse and have had almost zero media coverage. However, when you explain in detail to your family or friends the state of the legislation in France, what is being done or can be done, the concrete consequences of these new laws… people are individually horrified. No one can imagine that it is acceptable to produce human/animal chimeras, thousands of gametes artificially and even less to modify the human genome… And yet, this is what is going to happen thanks to the latest legislative revision

In France, there are very strong mobilisations against plant biotechnologies, built on many associations and activists, and the issue of GMOs is very present in the media with a strong people’s commitment for or against. But surprisingly, when these biotechnologies are applied to humans, this does not trigger any reactions in the population, as if a smokescreen separated them from this reality. It is likely that this ‘factory of ignorance’ is the result of the activity of pressure groups that were able to capture the space for public discussion and decision-making at a fairly early stage. Unlike other fields (plant biotechnologies, digital technology, pesticides, etc.), these groups are not all in the service of economic interests but seem to defend a certain vision of science and human beings, an ideology.

The responsibility of scientists

In my opinion, the scientific community is largely responsible for the invisibilisation of the issue of human genome editing, and this has been the case since the 1990s and the first law authorising PGD in 1994. The debate has been captured and the terms imposed by scientists who have reduced it to its technical dimension, prevented any possibility of addressing ethical, social, cultural or even medical issues. The absence of contradictory debates illustrates this capture. Positions or initiatives seeking to question the extremely rapid development of human biotechnologies are quickly caricatured and labelled as obscurantist, religious, anti-progress movements… Scientists have imposed their agenda on the political world, by imposing the idea that genome manipulation is inevitable, indispensable. They are manoeuvring to short-circuit any attempt at prohibiting or even regulating human biotechnologies by once again mobilising a rhetoric of scientific and economic promises, by defending the « imperative of medical finality » and, as is often the case, by waving China around like a scarecrow: « It has to be done because if we don’t do it, China will.

The reaction of the French scientific community to the Chinese GMO babies is an illustration of its position on genome editing: favourable. Indeed, scientists condemned Jangkui He’s experiments, not for ethical or moral reasons, but because this « work » had not been done correctly, from a technical and legal point of view. They did not question the very fact of creating GMO babies, and they rather gave the impression that they regretted not having done it themselves first. They were more hurt that they had been scooped by an outsider researcher, than concerned about the risks of developing these human biotechnologies. These scientists are now organised in international networks, penetrate international bodies and hold congresses where they define the conditions they consider necessary to promote their projects. It is a vision of a mythical, omniscient and omnipotent science that is being imposed, a science that places itself above cultural and political norms, above ethical and moral values, a science that is accountable to no one and decides our future without us and even against us, and it is this vision of Science that should frighten us the most and encourage us to react.

Find more about it here : https://stopdesignerbabies.org/news/

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

Certains agriculteurs décident plutôt d’utiliser des techniques écologiques, qui peuvent égaler ou surpasser celle de leurs collègues chimistes.

Une série de rapports venant d’experts du milieu dénoncent les dommages de l’agriculture industrielle et encouragent des méthodes d’agroécologie, les risques sont sévères : ne pas pouvoir nourrir les générations actuelles et futures.

Apprenez plus sur les potentiels dangers des pesticides ici : RNAi_report_French_Final

Source : www.amisdelaterre.org

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

> Avec :

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

> Avec :

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

Sciences Citoyennes rejoint le cortège de nombreuses ONG et de scientifiques, pour s’opposer fermement au forçage génétique, en application du principe de précaution, et étant donnés les risques écologiques et les atteintes éthiques au Vivant.

Sciences Citoyennes rejoint donc les signataires du Manifeste du comité français de l’UICN opposé au forçage génétique :

https://www.infogm.org/IMG/pdf/manifeste_du_comite_francais_de_l_uicn.pdf

Elle publie également, en association avec Save our Seeds, cette brochure expliquant les nombreuses raisons d’opposition à cette technique intrusive et dangereuse : Gene Drive Brochure FRENCH_final

N.B. Merci à Charlotte Coquard, Laurent Dianoux, Dany Neveu et François Warlop pour leur implication dans ce travail.

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes

OGM jusqu\’où ?

Nous vous invitons à partager les informations relatives à la 12e \ »Faîtes sans OGM\ » à laquelle Sciences Citoyennes est associée cette année.

Micro-organismes, plantes, animaux, êtres humains et embryons: tout le monde vivant est concerné.

La Commission Européenne, sous la pression des lobbies, se montre favorable à la déréglementation des OGM issus des nouvelles techniques de manipulation génétique.

La technologie avance à grande vitesse, et les citoyens ne sont ni informés, ni consultés sur l\’orientation imposée par une certaine mafia scientifico-politico-industrielle, qui construit un monde vivant de plus en plus artificialisé, segmenté et confisqué par quelques multinationales.
La voix des scientifiques, des politiques et des citoyens ( convention citoyenne pour le climat comme exemple récent…) opposée à cette vision n \’est jamais entendue et surtout jamais prise en compte.

Les discours d \’acceptabilité sociale polluent et récupèrent les vrais problèmes (faim dans le monde, changement climatique, chute de la biodiversité, pollution etc ) pour diffuser de fausses solutions technologiques.

Cette vision d\’un monde vivant marchandisable et segmentable à souhait, ne correspond pas à la réalité du fonctionnement et de l\’évolution du monde vivant.

Nous devons peser sur le plan de la relance économique. Notre travail et l\’ argent qu\’il produit, doit aller où nous le décidons.
C\’est maintenant ou jamais. Nous sommes à un point de bascule sur notre façon d\’être au vivant.

Soit nous continuons à accepter la conception de l \’homme extérieur au monde, celle de l\’homme qui sait tout, maîtrise tout et prend tout; soit nous acceptons la réalité de notre place au sein du monde vivant et nous regardons notre interdépendance avec réalisme.

Cette interdépendance est pleine de richesses, d \’espoir, de nouvelles connaissances et de beauté.

Pour une décision en toute connaissance, nous vous attendons nombreux pour échanger au cours de ces rencontres.

Une table ronde aura également lieu avec Sauvons nos terres 84.

Lisez plus sur Sciences Citoyennes