Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsMonday, May 18, 2009
Science The New Nature
Posted by Charles Mudede on Mon, May 18, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Zizek writes:
With regard to this inherent instability of nature, the most consequent was the proposal of a German ecological scientist back in 1970s: since nature is changing constantly and the conditions on Earth will render the survival of humanity impossible in a couple of centuries, the collective goal of humanity should be not to adapt itself to nature, but to intervene into the Earth ecology even more forcefully with the aim to freeze the Earth's change, so that its ecology will remain basically the same, thus enabling humanity's survival. This extreme proposal renders visible the truth of ecology.
This extreme proposal is the subject of Jed Dunkerley's paintings:
Environmentalism should not be about restoring nature to its proud and proper place, giving it back its red teeth and claws. There is no going back to a prelapsarian past. And the whole business about the world without us is nothing but a fantasy. No such world is possible anywhere else but in the human imagination. The only kind of world that is possible in reality is a human one. The only nature that is possible is human nature: meaning, a historical nature, a nature in time, a nature in culture—history, time, culture emerging from human interactions. So, from the ground to the clouds, humans must intervene, modify, correct, enhance the environment. Nature is a blind beast. Humans rest not on an obedient horse but "upon the merciless, the greedy, the insatiable, the murderous... back of a tiger."
1
*sings tunelessly*
I haaaate Mudede, oh how I haaaaaate Mudede, boy howdy do I think Mudede is not smaaaaaaart, humans are blind beaaasssts, Mudede is not an ecologiiiiist, he has no ideaaaaaaaaaaa how ecosystems have evooooooooooooolved.
I haaaate Mudede, oh how I haaaaaate Mudede, boy howdy do I think Mudede is not smaaaaaaart, humans are blind beaaasssts, Mudede is not an ecologiiiiist, he has no ideaaaaaaaaaaa how ecosystems have evooooooooooooolved.
4
Well, Charles, that's why colonies in space should be the ultimate goal for the human race.
Maybe if you volunteer, they'll let you be one of the first to go.
Maybe if you volunteer, they'll let you be one of the first to go.
6
Wow. Seriously? You seriously believe this? Shall we stop plate tectonics next to prevent those pesky earthquakes? Humans are incapable of exerting the kind of control you propose and to try would be to only screw ourselves more. What you speak is hubris of the worst kind.
Overpopulation and modes of civilizations that work against ecological rules are what will damn the human race (before an eventual ice age, planet killing impact, or eventual expansion of our sun scouring the surface of the planet) unless we figure out a way to live in space or colonize another planet.
Embrace the temporary nature of human civilization.
Overpopulation and modes of civilizations that work against ecological rules are what will damn the human race (before an eventual ice age, planet killing impact, or eventual expansion of our sun scouring the surface of the planet) unless we figure out a way to live in space or colonize another planet.
Embrace the temporary nature of human civilization.
7
Human beings have defined an idealized nature which is unattainable. You cannot just go back and "recreate" something as it existed before human interaction. You cannot restore something "back to its proud and proper place" the sheer act of doing so negates the purpose of doing so and is not "natural".
I take this as the idea that we have gone too far now, the restorative ways that many environmentalists preach are not aggressive enough and we are clearly incapable of sustaining them. Obviously the proposal outlined is extreme, but I don't see where Charles is doing anything more than showing it to us, no where does he say that it is possible or suggesting that we take this route.
It seems to me like we're screwed no matter what happens, so I will continue to recycle, not to litter, not to own a car and hope that every little bit helps.
I take this as the idea that we have gone too far now, the restorative ways that many environmentalists preach are not aggressive enough and we are clearly incapable of sustaining them. Obviously the proposal outlined is extreme, but I don't see where Charles is doing anything more than showing it to us, no where does he say that it is possible or suggesting that we take this route.
It seems to me like we're screwed no matter what happens, so I will continue to recycle, not to litter, not to own a car and hope that every little bit helps.
8
@7
Based on this: "So, from the ground to the clouds, humans must intervene, modify, correct, enhance the environment." I would say he is saying we take this route.
But you're right, we're screwed no matter what (save for going to other planets or space) so you make the most of it in the time you have, because ultimately environmentalism isn't about saving the whales, trees, etc for their own sake...it's about keeping the environment and the animals in it in a state advantageous to our comfort and survival. All I'm saying is that it's easier to do that working within existing environmental laws and systems rather than trying to circumvent those laws. That is egotistical and will lead to even more unforeseen woe for our species.
Based on this: "So, from the ground to the clouds, humans must intervene, modify, correct, enhance the environment." I would say he is saying we take this route.
But you're right, we're screwed no matter what (save for going to other planets or space) so you make the most of it in the time you have, because ultimately environmentalism isn't about saving the whales, trees, etc for their own sake...it's about keeping the environment and the animals in it in a state advantageous to our comfort and survival. All I'm saying is that it's easier to do that working within existing environmental laws and systems rather than trying to circumvent those laws. That is egotistical and will lead to even more unforeseen woe for our species.
10
@ 8, yes I was rather embarrassed to go back and read (only after commenting of course) what he said more closely ... for some reason I thought he was quoting something, but alas, I was wrong.
And I am with you, I will support environmentalists and their efforts and do my best to enjoy what we have while we have it.
And I am with you, I will support environmentalists and their efforts and do my best to enjoy what we have while we have it.
11
Its a little sad that relatively soon, all the nature that will exist is that which we allow (ala the domesticated forests of Europe). Humans were not meant to be gods.
12
Polluting Slog with pseudointellectual horseshit may be the only thing you know how to do, Charles, but this is bad even for you.
13
Lyotard has, I believe, a great and earlier essay along the same lines in "The Postmodern Condition." The best environmentalists (Earth First!, the ELF, early Greenpeace) have always been focused on the return of the wild, not on the preservation of what we currently view as man.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (13) RSS