Femmes, pouvoir et syndrome de l’imposteur
 
Le doute en ses capacités – aussi connu comme le syndrome de l’imposteur – est essentiellement un problème féminin. On l’invoque rarement comme un des raisons qui expliquent pourquoi les femmes atteignent plus rarement le sommet de la pyramide. On en parle rarement lors des discussions assommantes sur ce fameux plafond de verre qui réapparaissent chaque fois qu’une étude montre que seulement 15% des chefs de direction sont des femmes. Il n’est jamais mentionné dans les cours d’étude sur les femmes, qui préfèrent blâmer le spectre invisible de la “discrimination systémique” et les relents durables du patriarcat pour l’exclusion des femmes du pouvoir. On n’en parle pas non plus dans les analyses de la différence salariale, qui si elle a diminué dramatiquement, n’a pas disparu.

….

Debt-ceiling chicken and the end of empire

« As it is, the U.S. is turning into a tyranny of the gerontocracy, one willing to sacrifice its grandchildren so the oldies can live comfortably in their Florida condos as they consume vast quantities of high-tech health care in a futile effort to extend their lives forever. As the thinker Walter Russell Mead puts it, the U.S. health system marries the greed of the private sector to the ineptitude of government. This health-care industrial complex will soon account for one-fifth of the economy. Most health care is consumed by seniors. This isn’t a formula for national greatness. »

….

Organic tastes good, but better for us? No

« All this food tastes good. But is it better for you? Or the planet?
 
I’m sad to tell you it’s not. (……)   «No conclusive evidence shows that organic food is more nutritious than is conventionally grown food,» says the Mayo Clinic, which is perhaps the leading cancer centre in the world. «Most experts agree that the amount of pesticides found on fruits and vegetables poses a very small health risk.» The American Cancer Society is even more unequivocal. It says there is «no evidence that residues of pesticides and herbicides at the low doses found in foods increase the risk of cancer.»
 
« The other problem is that organic farming is not very productive. You need a lot more land to produce the same amount of food. What would we rather do – farm four hectares of land «organically» to feed 40 people (and turn millions and millions more over to food production) – or farm one hectare «artificially»?
 
Organic farming is sustainable so long as not many people have to rely on it. If we did it on a global scale, reckons British scientist John Emsley, two billion people would starve to death. »

(…)
 
« The reason has to do with one thing: fertilizer. All plants depend on nitrogen. Traditional farming takes nitrogen from the soil, but even the best farming practices can’t return nitrogen to the soil very efficiently. The 20th-century discovery of nitrogen fertilizers was one of the most important technological breakthroughs in history. Agrochemical nitrogen has boosted global food productivity so much that it now accounts for meeting about 40 per cent of the world’s dietary needs. 

 But let’s face facts. Artisanal food is too expensive for a lot of folks, including the folks who grow it. (As Barbara Kingsolver proved, the only way to make money on subsistence farming is to write a bestseller about it.) «Sustainable» farming may be fine for sustaining a few rich consumers but not for a hungry planet. »