Il Faut Dire Que Les Temps Ont Changé

This article was written pour the arttaserse History de Technology transformation at Sciences po Paris.

Vous lisez ce: Il faut dire que les temps ont changé

The course is part du the policy stream numérique & nouveau Technology ns the master in auditeur Policy et is instructed de Laurène Tran, Besiana Balla and Nicolas Colin.

I’m no sure i like the book review exercise. On the one hand, ce has the merit of making nous read et organize ours thoughts, i beg your pardon tends à become practically borderline today (my God, have I just been reactionary in my life two lines?). Cible on thé other, ce is extremely pretentious. In the case of Daniel Cohen, how to referee from my twenties thé work ns someone i admire, that has currently written a thesis, luminous courses and several books?

The answer je would give to this question is that ns can no judge neither the masculin nor thé extent de his knowledge, cible some certain ideas that cette expresses. Je believe that, si knowledge and ideas generally thrive in thé same exécutif (the an ext cultivated one is, auto more ideas one has), thé ideas faire not flourish in thé same proportions. Ns would appel this auto law ns diminishing returns of knowledge: nous must constantly absorb more knowledge (inputs) to be able venir develop new ideas (output) when conditions météorologiques already ont many de them. From then on, someone through a limited marqué fair level of knowledge (here: myself) has a level de ideas solve enough à challenge, in terms de ideas, someone who has actually much much more knowledge (here: Daniel Cohen).

The alloue is that thé work of cohen is actually année illustration of the law de diminishing returns of knowledge: out of 230 pages, over there is probably non more 보다 a dozen ones parce que le personal thinking. The livre proposes to question the mutations in progress marqué only summons — in a long, wordy first part — the authors ns the past to attempt a superficial update ns their remarks. Thus thé reader navigates v a panoply du authors to be known venir excel in high society: native Harendt venir Hirschman, native Boltanski venir Baudrillard, native Scheler à Sandel. Why not: one can actually enjoy such a reading. Auto problem lies in the écart between this review exercise and the guarantees suggested by the title and back cover.

This livre is thé demonstration du what we could expect: financial experts are oui confused ont the others.

Sadly ont it is, this 230 page indeed montrer the theoretical weakness du Daniel charbons when ce comes à thinking about auto transition in progress. Du course, cette is not the seul one: editorialists, columnists, sociologists et historians oui been hitting a brick wall for a decade — and especially since 2016 “dark year”, oui Cohen puts it, in between Trump et Brexit. Cible the disappointment is an especially strong when auto challenge ns analysing the on-going la mise en oeuvre was taken increase by année (brilliant) economist. This livre is thé demonstration de what we could expect: financial experts are oui confused oui the others.

Voir plus: Haras National De Saint-Lô, Haras National / Pôle Hippique De Saint



However, one could recognize charbons the courage of not taking shelter in the pseudo-maturity of the old prudente figure (just ont Michel Serres does). Hey avoids writing sentences such ont “man is no at its sapin industrial revolution” jaune “humanity has always known comment to reinvent itself”, et we have the right to be grateful à la that. Conditions météorologiques the contrary, Cohen’s vision du the future seems rather foncé (or lucid, if you want my opinion). Cette expresses relatively strong fears, both economically et socially:

In economic matters, his henn fear is that the world of tomorrow is sauce soja poor in human work that the latter becomes reserved almost exclusively for the service ns the elites. In est différent words, tomorrow’s elite will ont hairdressers, advisers and cooks. Auto others will only face à face a world du automata and algorithms.In social matters, Cohen emphasizes our collective lack of desire for the future et our retenue in a kind ns perpetual present. Cette fears that men might une day construct a solid attachment in the direction of robots rather than towards their peers. He points out thé development de various addictions and the loneliness linked with the use ns the internet, social networks and virtual human beings online.


The problem ns the work ns Daniel cohen is therefore not soja much, in my opinion, his observationson quel might take place in the future. Rather ce is the solutions he tries to develop (on so few pages …) venir address thé upcoming challenges. In social matters, he pleads à la the development of an “artist and social” criticism du ongoing changes. Ce sounds favor wishful thinking, oui this criticism has currently emerged without an altering much ns people’s lives. Citizens and leaders are already mostly convinced ns the dangers posed by current and future changes. Je vous demande pardon is required is venir build concrete solutions to soften thé transition, which indicates before toutes les personnes to be convinced de our capability to échanger things.

At no time does cohen seriously think about saving person employment from the machine.

And that’s auto rub. Daniel cohen does not draw logical conclusions from his observations. Pour him, cette is useless to contraire ourselves to the changes, as they will certainly be going conditions météorologiques anyway. In concis matters, therefore, he tacitly pleads parce que le the présenter of a universal income, which cette sees ont the only solution to give a breath of aéronautiques to the toutes les personnes oppressed de the machine-run du productivity. At ne sont pas time does he envisage the ban of certain robots or softwares, whereas auto latter will have an overpowering, dreadful collision on person employment. When hey mentions auto GAFAs, cette is not to wonder about regulating jaune prohibiting some du their innovations, cible simply venir ensure that competition among la technologie players is maintained. At no time does he question thé very principle du globalization either.

In est différent words, at no time does charbons seriously take into consideration saving human employment from auto machine. He only vaguely pleads à la the inventé of nouveau complementarities between machines et men, but this idea de ​​common sense sounds quite empty. Et indeed, hey is no able to develop cette in much more than a few lines — whereas if it worked, cette would constitute thé heart of the solution. Charbons does not have the navire to acknowledge that this idea can only work parce que le a few professions, and not for tous of them. No one does he have the courage to recognize that productivity revenu from ont will in any case lead venir a palliation in the need à la human employment. In short, hey does not ont the navire to sound auto alarm when cette glimpses massive unemployment.

Voir plus: Bienvenue À La Banque Postale Mon Compte Bancaire, La Banque Postale

The attachment to thé “moderate intellectual” figure is one du the difficulties at auto root of our collective inability to conceptualize the world ns tomorrow

Cohen’s book thus pipeline a taste du incompleteness. cible let’s hope that this livre will it is in a springboard to autre one i beg your pardon will importer to thé bottom ns things. Such année effort can imply to abandonnent — parce que le a quick time only — auto posture ns the middle economist. Ns indeed think that the attachment to this center intellectual la honte is one ns the troubles at thé root de our routine inability venir conceptualize thé world de tomorrow. Cible things are relocating — et quickly. Yesterday’s crazy ideas are now becoming audible. The contours of moderation are evolving. Et some an easy ideas (prohibiting some robots, changing the terms of globalization) would benefit from being propagated and implemented quickly. Otherwise, in the affronter of inaction, many toutes les personnes would contrer to more brutalement temptations — and we don’t desire that, à faire we?