The vibration caused by the argument has led me to remove the dust from psychological notes and I found the difference between emotions and feelings. The former are spontaneous, universal, own and unconscious. Emotions ensure survival, deliver us from dangers and bring us here from generation to generation. Feelings, on the other hand, are maintained over time and are a consequence of emotions and thoughts, which seem to lead to the interpretation of emotions. They emerge in the prefrontal lobe, where planning, reflection and decision are produced. The rapporteurs therefore confuse the concepts of "emotion" and "feeling".

Nuances nuances draw attention to the return to schemes of rationality vs emotion, as if both had no connection with each other. In any case, it is curious – to say something – that the emotional area in which it opposes an opinion is still being neglected. Very curious.

This dichotomy has also been used to justify the lack of ethics of some activities. In the 19th century animal husbandry treaties, the definition referred to the science that studies the growth, improvement and exploitation of domestic and forestry animals, with the aim of achieving maximum productivity and high performance.

Of course, in this way of working, feelings did not exist – they are – neither of animals, nor of people, but of objectivity. If we were to go to the treaties then, we would not find the word "sustainability" – now yes, let us continue to exploit, but in a cool way –. The spirit of "exploitation" is maintained with some green strokes. The objective remains productivity and performance. The animal is still an element that doesn't feel. The one that shows the least empathy with the animal condemned to live in this situation is the thousandth and animalist.

A century and a half later, in many other areas, if not in most cases, the same philosophy applies to any element, even to people, that is above or below the earth. The definition is repeated, which constructs the way of being in the world and looking at the world.

The issue of energy is no exception, and those who look at reality and life from excel tables accuse us of a lack of rationality to which we uncover the dark aspects of ongoing energy colonialism, emotions seem too heavy. As if there were no precedents, as if the events in other territories were not repeated here, even with another appearance.

Thus, it is difficult to avoid feelings of injustice; it is difficult not to feel anything about the destruction of nature and, therefore, of the lives of all. Not being able to reflect or organize or decide against, because everyone's lives are at stake.

Is it by chance that the proponents of this "rationality" are often men? Do those who don't distinguish emotions and feelings feel nothing? Do you really believe that your pragmatic and technical thinking in steel is free from the sin of feelings?

How can we believe that the same rationality that is making it impossible to live on this planet, in its literal and strict sense, should save us?