This introduction presents three aspects of this book: its object, the method chosen, and its organization.


The object of this book is to propose a model of society compatible with the aspirations of mankind of the 21st century.

In the 17th century modern science was born, which notably included the trio of experimentation, the publicity of the results and conclusions with a precise description of the experimental conditions, and verification and criticism by all. This prompted, starting from the 19th century, a technological leap unprecedented in the history of humanity which changed our relationship with nature: we have acquired, thanks to our technical know-how, the capacity to protect ourselves from the greatest scourge that was famine, as well as literally exploding the productivity of labor in many activities.
However, as early as the 19th century, observers such as Zola and Marx noticed that something was going wrong. Indeed, progress (1) seemed to be useful for some at the expense of others, for which the situation seemed to be getting worse. This is still largely true at the start of the 21st century, except that the victims of progress tend to be concentrated in certain countries.
What is wrong is that science has not produced an objective and effective method of organizing human societies, and that in fact, the methods of government have become archaic with regard to our new power resulting from technology, and aspirations that flow from it.

From a system before the 17th century where power was mainly aristocratic, the scientific and technological revolution made power slide towards the capital. This is what Marx describes, and he announces that the people must inevitably regain power to counter the perverse effects linked to this shift.
However, on the one hand the seizure of power by the proletariat did not take place everywhere, and on the other hand, when it did take place, it ultimately produced a simple new temporary shift of power towards the political, which did not resolve the initial problems of the inability of the social system to put progress at the service of all.
Finally, in the 20th century, the absence of an alternative system ended up bringing out another form of protest that Marx had not anticipated, and more negative because it still led inevitably to tyranny and populism.

Let us put it simply: Marx's great strength is to have analyzed with precision the nature and the mechanics of the perversion of the capitalist system, wheras Zola and the other realistic novelists were content to describe its effects. The great weakness of Marx is to have led individuals to think that it was enough to overturn the system for the problem to be solved. However, history regularly shows us that reversing without planning precisely what comes next is very uncertain. We will not go forward as to assert whether Marx was aware of the limits of his work or not, but the subject of this book is to go as far as to propose a complete and coherent system of social organization, suited to the new capabilities that the scientific and technological revolution provided to humans.


To achieve this objective, we have composed this book in three parts:

The first part, consisting of chapters 1 to 7, takes up Marx's analysis and updates it in the light of later contributions from history and the social sciences.

The second part, consisting of chapters 8 to 12, describes the heart of the proposed organizational system, namely how to organize production, justifying each point by its link with the elements of the first part.
The originality of this organization is to avoid the two faults found in practically all the proposals of previous social organizations, namely, to have individual virtue as the keystone of the system, which is the same as supposing the miraculous emergence of a new, more righteous or altruistic humanity, or in the end justifying the oppression of the weaks by the strongs by presenting it as natural or positive.

Finally, the third part, consisting of chapters 13 to 22, addresses a whole series of transformations to be made in related fields to ensure consistency, and therefore the viability of the whole.

The second part immediately shows that we made the choice of a collective solution, in the tradition of philosophers in the Age of Enlightenment, then of Marx, and in opposition to Krishnamurti who advocated an individual liberation. This does not mean in any way that we consider that the individual solution is not valid, but we consider that it concerns only a minority, therefore is not likely to allow us to tame the power resulting from the technological revolutions of the last centuries in a reasonable time to avoid a final ecological or military disaster.
In addition, we deal with the individual aspect in Chapter 22, which can very well be read directly after the first part. However, this reading shows that the main justification for the recommendations we make on an individual basis is the effect of reducing conflict, that is to say their collective effect. In other words, since the most important constraints are on the collective level, and not on the individual level, then it makes sense to center the book on the collective aspect, and not to deal with the individual aspect until the end.Methodologically, this work rests on two pillars. The first is to start by understanding what human nature is, as opposed to what we would like it to be. The second is the cross-checking of themes to properly assess the robustness of the proposed system from all angles. We started from the question, "what is man?,"  specifying what we have inherited from evolution in terms of behavioral capacities, limits, and predispositions, because this seemed to us to be practical for a book that deals with issues of social organization. And yet ... it seems to never have been done, as if the deep nature of man was evident because of the simple fact that we meet men every day ! Defining human nature more precisely will therefore be the subject of our first part. The goal is to build, as a second step, the social system as a good complement to compensate the weaknesses resulting from the imperfection of our genetic evolution. In contrast, the models of society previously proposed are based on an implicit, and above all simply plausible vision of humans, that is to say very largely arbitrary, as it was done since Antiquity, and therefore the reasoning which results from it, possibly brilliant, does not rely on anything solid. On the other hand, we will take the greatest care here to base our vision of human nature on the few solid foundations that have been established in accordance with the modern scientific method, and for that, we will mainly pick from the sociology field and not from philosophy, which is the first singularity of this work.
If the drastic choice that we made among the available theories, as opposed to an encyclopedic approach which would have consisted of presenting them all on an equal footing, can be justified by the scientific and relevant character of the selected ones, on the other hand, we draw lessons that go beyond what the authors of these researches formulated. For example, from the documentary Caribbean Primates we will deduce in Chapter 2 the notion of generalized nepotism. But above all, we are making new connections between observations from different fields. For example, we connect the Caribbean Primates documentary to the work of C. Northcote Parkinson. Therefore, there is danger that we risk falling back into disguised arbitrariness which is very fashionable these days in management methods and simplify sciences. For example, we add arbitrary extrapolations, or simplistic and questionable analogies, or say things that scientists don't. make neuroscience into a  for example, where we make basic sciences, such as for example neuroscience, say things they don't, through adding arbitrary extrapolations or simplistic and questionable analogies.

This is where our second methodological pillar steps in, namely the third part of the book, which aims to secure the proposal by the importance of overlaps. This is the second singularity of this work, namely not to deal in depth, as is usually done, one single aspect of social life, for example justice. Thus we will propose a general organization which covers all the main lines, and whose justification is linked not only to the scientific origin of the bases which served us to pose our vision of human nature in the first part, but also to the coherence of the whole. To explain this overlapping approach, we will quote Jean-Marie Guyau in Esquisse d'une morale sans obligation ni sanction: « Truth is not only what one feels or what one sees, it is what we explain, what we connect. Truth is a synthesis: this is what distinguishes it from sensation, from the raw fact; it is a bundle of facts. It does not draw its obviousness and its proof from a simple state of consciousness, but from the whole of the phenomena which hold and support each other. A stone does not make a vault, nor two stones, nor three; you need them all; they have to lean on each other; even when the vault is built, tear off a few stones, and everything will fall apart: the truth is so it consists in a solidarity of all things. » We will complete this methodological explanation at the beginning of the third part.
As a summary, the originality and the scope of this book are in three points: first the original selection of theories based on experiments in accordance with the modern scientific method to shed light on what human nature is, then the reconciliation just as unprecedented between theories from different fields, and finally the cross-checking to ensure the validity of the whole.

Finally, the choice to take Marx as a starting point is the result of two observations: on the one hand Marx is not content to denounce social misery, but he performs an in-depth analysis of the causes, which remains largely relevant for understanding the current situation; on the other hand, the remedies he suggests are those that have led to the current western system, namely social democracy. To understand this, it is still necessary to get rid of the collective imagination, resulting from the ideological confrontation of the Cold War, which reduced Marx to Marxism, that is to say the seizure of power by the proletariat and the collectivization of means of production in application of The Communist Manifesto of which he is a co-author with Engels. However, Marx's work cannot be reduced to this pamphlet. His major work, to which we are referring here, is The capital, which not only provides a much more in-depth analysis of the causes, but also sets out the broad outlines of the more moderate regulatory solutions that will be implemented in the West in the twentieth century, namely compulsory education and the labor laws.


Regarding the form now, by spinning the architectural metaphor of Jean-Marie Guyau, we would like this book to be read like a cathedral. Indeed, the visitor of a cathedral who would be content to focus on the aesthetics of each stone, one after the other, instead of focusing on the overall structure, is likely to leave very disappointed . The same goes for this book: the reader who would be content to focus on the style of each sentence, instead of trying to see the overall structure, is likely to be similarly disappointed.
Our goal is to allow a new vision to spread in society, and for that, we are also addressing young adults and people whose job is to do, and not just intellectuals. To facilitate understanding, we have therefore adopted a school style, perhaps to the detriment of the pleasure of reading. This is even more true for this english version since english is not my native language.

Just one last warning before we start. The other stylistic specificity of this book is its density. Some concepts, which alone could have justified an entire book are treated here in less than a page, so to get the most out of it, it is necessary to considerably reduce its speed of reading.


Here we define progress as increasing technological capabilities.