BIO: The Global Ceremony of Certifying a Contaminated Planet

 

We now live in a world where we have successfully achieved something remarkable: we have managed to certify “nature”.

Somewhere along the way, humanity decided that nature itself was not quite natural enough, so we created BIO labels to reassure ourselves that a carrot has suffered less psychological trauma than another carrot. Progress, clearly.

In theory, BIO food is simple: fewer pesticides, stricter rules, controlled additives, and better animal welfare. In practice, it is a carefully designed administrative attempt to give a sense of purity inside a system that is already globally mixed, industrially touched, and environmentally shared.

Because of course, the planet is now divided into two categories:

• The “BIO side”, where everything is carefully supervised and morally approved
• And the “non-BIO side”, where nature apparently forgot to fill in the paperwork

The ocean: now also under suspicion

We also discovered that the sea — that ancient, chaotic system that predates human certification schemes by a few billion years — is unfortunately not “clean enough”.

So we invented “BIO aquaculture”, which is essentially:

fish living in controlled environments that are still connected to water systems containing microplastics, industrial residues, and traces of human genius.

In other words:

we built fences inside the ocean and called it purity.

Brilliant.

Human intelligence vs planetary reality

Humans are, without doubt, impressive creatures. We can send objects into space, sequence DNA, and debate food labeling systems with extraordinary seriousness.

And yet, we also manage to:

• pollute global ecosystems
• fight wars that destroy both land and future generations
• and then calmly go shopping for “eco-friendly” packaging to feel better about it

It is a fascinating balance: high intelligence applied with inconsistent results.

Nature, meanwhile, continues without needing certification, branding, or marketing departments. It simply operates — no labels, no advertising, no committee meetings.

Politics, complexity, and collective memory loss

One of the most remarkable features of modern human systems is the belief that extremely complex ecological and planetary issues can be solved within electoral cycles shorter than a smartphone contract.

We vote, we argue, we simplify — and then we act surprised when reality refuses to behave like a campaign slogan.

Wars, environmental degradation, and biodiversity loss are not abstract concepts. They are long-term structural processes with very short-term political attention spans.

But of course, nothing says “advanced civilization” like solving planetary-scale problems in four-year increments.

The BIO illusion (and its usefulness)

To be fair, BIO is not meaningless. It reduces certain impacts, improves certain practices, and creates better standards in many cases.

But it is not purity. It is not a return to Eden. It is not a magical shield against contamination.

It is something far more modest:

a managed compromise inside a world that is already permanently altered.

Or in simpler terms:

we are not cleaning the planet — we are just choosing slightly less dirty corners and feeling good about it.

Final irony

Perhaps the real irony is not that the world is polluted.

The real irony is that we are still surprised by it — while simultaneously certifying carrots, labeling oceans, and trying to regulate “nature” as if it were a product line in a supermarket.

The planet is not pure, and probably never was in any permanent human sense.

But the human talent for naming, classifying, and marketing imperfection remains… impressively clean.

And that, at least, is consistent.

SAISI

Humanity, Climate, Evolution and the Contradictions of Our Civilization

 

Today, I reflected on a television report in France stating that temperatures observed in May 2026 were comparable to those already recorded in 1922. This simple comparison led me to think beyond climate itself and to question humanity, our place in the Universe, and the contradictions of our civilisation.

If similar temperatures already existed more than one hundred years ago, then perhaps climate evolution cannot be reduced to a single explanation.

The Earth evolves.

The solar system evolves.

Stars are born, live and disappear.

Galaxies collide and transform.

The Universe itself is in motion.

And perhaps, beyond the Universe we know, there may exist realities and universes that humanity still understands very little about.

We humans often behave as if we fully understand existence, yet our knowledge remains limited. We are still discovering our oceans, our planet, our atmosphere, and the cosmos itself.

Scientists from past centuries already recognised that Earth is dynamic and constantly changing.

Milutin Milanković demonstrated how planetary movements influence long climate cycles.

Charles Lyell described Earth as evolving through immense natural timescales.

Alexander von Humboldt viewed nature as an interconnected living system.

Long before modern industry, Earth experienced climatic changes, warming periods, cooling periods and environmental transformations.

This does not remove human responsibility. Humanity affects nature. Industrialisation, pollution, deforestation and overexploitation have consequences.

But perhaps humanity is not the only factor in planetary evolution.

Natural mechanisms, oceans, solar activity, geological cycles and forces that we still do not entirely understand may also participate in these transformations.

Yet climate is only one part of a much larger reflection.

Humans call themselves rational animals.

But are we truly rational?

We have transformed oil into energy, fuel, plastics, medicine, transport and technologies that allow billions of people to live longer and more comfortably.

We have created science.

We have explored space.

We have cured diseases.

We have built civilisations.

And yet, despite all this intelligence, humanity still chooses war.

We continue to fight over land.

Over borders.

Over ideologies.

Over power.

History is filled with these tragedies:

The Napoleonic Wars.

The First World War.

The Second World War.

The Cold War.

And even today, conflicts continue in different parts of the world.

After centuries of suffering, humanity still struggles to learn the same lesson.

Power does not create wisdom.

Dominance does not create civilisation.

War does not create humanity.

If one believes in God, one may call this force “the Creator”.

If not, one may simply speak of nature, existence, or the Universe.

But the question remains the same:

Why has humanity been given intelligence, creativity and the ability to cooperate if we continue to choose destruction?

Perhaps the greatest environmental crisis is not climate.

Perhaps it is human behaviour.

Not because humans are evil, but because our civilisation often values domination more than harmony.

We possess extraordinary intelligence, yet we still behave as if strength were greater than wisdom.

The Earth evolves.

The Universe evolves.

Life evolves.

The question is whether human consciousness evolves at the same pace.

Because if we continue fighting for land, power and superiority, then our greatest enemy may never have been nature.

It may be ourselves.

SAISI

Courting a Woman: Has the Art Been Lost?

 

Does a man still have the right to court a woman today without being accused of violence?

Sadly, many men no longer know how to engage in the wonderful tradition of courtship. Even a friendly or suggestive glance can, in today’s climate, be misinterpreted as aggression. This reality is rooted in a broader context: women have historically been, and remain, victims of physical, emotional, and psychological abuse. Protecting women is essential, and measures—especially those heightened during Covid-19—have been crucial in addressing these injustices.

Yet, heightened awareness and legal protections can sometimes lead to misunderstandings or, occasionally, misuse of the system. In my experience as a judicial expert, I have observed cases where claims were not always made in good faith. Thankfully, many judges act with professionalism and fairness, taking context and evidence into account—but this is not consistent across all regions of France.

The result today is a certain instability in how men can express admiration or affection. Compliments that once might have been received as flattering can now be seen as offensive or even abusive. Social media platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and other international forums amplify this problem, exposing men to public criticism and misinterpretation more than ever before.

External factors further complicate the situation. Global conflicts, such as the war between Russia and Ukraine or the ongoing tensions between Israel and Palestine, have created widespread uncertainty and stress. History shows that societies living under prolonged conflict—from the World Wars to the Cold War—experience increased social anxiety, mistrust, and difficulty forming meaningful personal relationships. Stress and insecurity are powerful disruptors of human connection.

At the same time, popular beliefs about life, success, and happiness—whether from social media, cultural norms, or historical ideals of rational self-control—often add pressure rather than relief. Humans have always sought external validation to define their worth, from the Enlightenment era to today, and this continues to complicate the pursuit of authentic relationships.

Many now turn to dating apps to avoid loneliness. Historically, men bore the financial costs of these platforms, but today women often share expenses, which seems fair. Yet, meaningful human connection remains elusive for many. Why?

1.     Digital conversation cannot fully replicate face-to-face interaction.

2.   Even single women often struggle to form genuine connections online.

3.   Social and emotional education has not prepared us for these new ways of meeting people.

Humanity faces a digital inheritance. The next generation will grow up navigating these complexities, building the future based on the values and habits passed down to them. Much of today’s misunderstanding and emotional struggle is the legacy of previous generations.

The pandemic amplified these dynamics, exposing both societal strengths and weaknesses. Yet, history reminds us of human resilience: after the 1918 Spanish flu, and following the devastation of the World Wars, communities rebuilt social bonds, trust, and intimacy. Crises may challenge us, but they cannot extinguish the human desire for connection.

Despite conflicts, misunderstandings, and evolving social norms, one thing remains constant: humans seek companionship, emotional connection, and love. Courtship may have changed, and digital life has transformed the way we meet and interact, but the fundamental human need to connect endures.

This is my reflection—a synthesis from years of observing modern society, the evolving nature of courtship, and the many historical and contemporary factors that shape human happiness.

SAISI

The Libora™ Kit to Quit SMOKING and All Similar Products

                                             

1. Effectiveness of the Libora™ Kit

No independent scientific data is available on this kit. Our research revealed neither clinical trials nor scientific reviews specifically about Libora™. The accessible information comes mainly from commercial websites. In practice, health experts consider these “gesture substitutes” (fake cigarettes, breathing pendants) to be mere psychological crutches. For instance, Tabac Info Service states that the anti-smoking breathing pendant is “not a scientifically validated method” for quitting smoking (tabac-info-service.fr). Similarly, a page on smoking cessation notes that these substitutes are “nothing more than a psychological crutch,” with a very low success rate and a high risk of relapse when the object is abandoned (arreter-de-fumer.pagesjaunes.fr). In summary, there is no clinical evidence to support the real effectiveness of the Libora™ kit beyond possible placebo effects.

Key points:

• No independent study has evaluated this device.
• According to official health bodies, the most effective quitting aids are nicotine replacement therapies (patches, gums, etc.) and medications (varenicline, bupropion), while gesture substitutes like Libora™ have no scientific validation (tabac-info-service.fr, arreter-de-fumer.pagesjaunes.fr).
• Gesture substitutes primarily target behavioral addiction; their success rate is generally low (arreter-de-fumer.pagesjaunes.fr), with a high risk of relapse.

2. Components and Functioning of the Libora™ Kit

(Example of an anti-smoking breathing pendant – similar to the Libora™ pendant)

The Libora™ kit is not a medicine nor a homeopathic product: it is a mechanical device. The central element is a hollow metal pendant (usually stainless steel) pierced by an air channel. The user places it in their mouth and inhales through the pendant. The internal air resistance recreates the sensation of drawing on a cigarette, without any combustion or nicotine. By inhaling plain air, the pendant provides tactile feedback that soothes the craving to smoke through simple physical gesture. According to the manufacturer, the kit “contains no chemical substances, nicotine, or other additives,” but works solely through physical stimulation (lerevedegranny.com). Similarly, it can be compared to a “tobacco-free cigarette”: this gesture substitute contains no nicotine (arreter-de-fumer.pagesjaunes.fr) and maintains the habit of smoking without introducing toxic products (arreter-de-fumer.pagesjaunes.fr).

The main components included in the “complete kit” are:

• The Libora™ pendant itself (metallic tube) with its chain or cord.
• A storage pouch marked with the Libora™ logo for transporting the device.
• A digital guide (“ebook”) The Path to Freedom, included with the kit, offering psychological support tips and techniques.

The kit contains no nicotine patches, no herbs, no tablets: its approach is purely behavioral. Other accessories (sold separately) may be offered by the same vendor – for example, tar filters for real cigarettes or a magnetic bracelet – but these are not part of the basic Libora™ kit. In practice, the method relies on “gesture deconditioning”: by simulating the act of smoking without nicotine, Libora™ aims to break the habitual link to cigarettes by eliminating the reflexive craving (arreter-de-fumer.pagesjaunes.fr).

References:

Information on gesture substitutes comes from health organizations (e.g. Tabac Info Service), which underline the lack of clear evidence and recommend instead the established smoking cessation treatments (tabac-info-service.fr, arreter-de-fumer.pagesjaunes.fr). The technical descriptions of the kit come from vendor websites that describe it (absence of nicotine, function based on air resistance) (lerevedegranny.com). These aspects should be put into perspective: in the absence of clinical studies, the true effectiveness of this type of device remains uncertain.

SAISI

Unemployed but not without Work

 

 The broadcast of this documentary (1h12) I was unable to translate it into English, which I am really sorry.

https://www.facebook.com/100001064094952/videos/399420342860399/

Documentary initiated by a group of RSA (Active Solidarity Income) is a French social protection benefit that complements the income of destitute individuals or those with low resources, to guarantee them a minimum income.

It is as citizens that they wanted to exchange and share their experiences and reflections on the situation in which they live.

The formula surprises many as the difference is not necessarily obvious. For an employee, the two notions merge, but for someone without a job, the difference is glaring.

Everyone interviewed considers that they work, but they receive an RSA allowance because they are not employees and are therefore considered unemployed. Their reflection stems from their analysis of the social, professional, and cultural environment in which they operate, and the observation is clear: in the eyes of society, they have no job, therefore no work, making them a burden on society.

Deconstructing this process is one of the themes of the film, in addition to the notion of Employment/Work. Added to this are the specific issues faced by each individual: difficulties in speech, health problems, mobility issues, precarious month-ends, and the often challenging judgment of others. All the people interviewed are insightful, both about themselves and about the world of work and the RSA system.

Faced with these testimonies, faced with these often moving but always sincere encounters, the choice of editing will be one of sobriety. The best way to honour all these people who have had setbacks is to respect their words, their hesitations, their convictions, and their humanity.

The people who initiated this film and participate in it prove through their commitment that they are not burdens, but fully-fledged members of the society in which they operate.

SAISI

 

Ukraine on Fire - Director speaks out on the war in Ukraine

 

Ukrainian-born Igor Lopatonok is the director of the documentary about the 2014 Maiden events in Ukraine "Ukraine on Fire" (2017, currently censored on many platforms), produced by filmmaker Oliver Stone. For him, what is said at the moment in the Western media about the conflict in Ukraine, the reality on the ground, the nature of the forces present and the demonization of Russia does not correspond to reality, but is a fabricated narrative to compel us to believe and think a certain way.

He is very worried about this illusion sold to the public because, he says, the illusion always ends up colliding brutally with the reality of the facts. While waiting for this inevitable confrontation, the illusion can induce dramatic consequences which could be avoided by re-establishing the truth of the facts, such as, for example, the effective power of nuisance of the Nazi elements in Ukraine and the support they receive from the West.

SE

 

https://www.francesoir.fr/videos-videos-english/ukraine-on-fire-igor-lopotenko

SAISI

 All information on our blog is published in good faith and for general information purposes only. Any action taken by the reader based on information found on our blog is entirely at their own risk.