Submitted by spuwuky in anticiv

I'm basically trying to coherently explain the way I've combined cybernetics/systems theory with deep ecology, and how I think hacker culture, ransomware, and insurgent do-ocracy could be good praxis. Here's some bullshit so far;

Most ecosophy in my experience is a moralistic approach to combining philosophy with ecology. From what I can tell, this still centers the human in the conversation about material plurality whether or not it actually includes us. The issue with that isn't so much that our morality is informed by civilization (which is problematic enough in itself), but that we can't even know what a morality outside anthropocentric systems would look like. So, I think we risk recreating undesirable systems by centering morality in the conversation.

Instead I think a materialist egoism is better. Divorcing oneself from the implied demand for ideological homogeneity that comes with morality; and with a materialist understanding of the biosphere, one may be able to discover approximate manifestations of our will with less risk of creating unsustainable feedback loops. This could optimize the longevity of desired outputs.

The idea that industrial civilization isn't natural is an example of a moralistic narrative. It disguises itself as radical. It casts nature as good, and human guided non-biological processes as evil. Instead nature is all material plurality. All material things are natural. This doesn't mean that industrial society is sustainable or desirable. Not all natural processes are. If an asteroid destroyed all life on earth, would we say that wasn't natural? Maybe it's desirable (/s), but it's definitely not sustainable. What we typically mean by "nature" is a very specific spectrum of biological and geological networks providing inputs and outputs to one another in such a way that allows life to survive within an approximately sustainable way. A benefit to making this distinction between nature and the processes that sustain life on earth (Nature with a big N) is it sidesteps corny criticisms of biocentric ecosophy. "If man isn't above nature, then industrial society is natural and we shouldn't stop it hueheuhue". Bookchin can eat my whole ass. Yes, industrial society is natural. No, not all configurations of nature maintain life on Earth. Yes, we ought to reduce the centralization of the human narrative in our understanding of plurality.

The idea that climate change must be "solved" is another example of a moral narrative. It sounds like a plot to a movie, and we're the protagonist. But climate change occurs naturally. That's what ice ages are. The issue then isn't climate change. It's ecocide. It's industrial society. It's the Abrahamic concept that God made the Earth for us. Climate change won't be "solved". We won't be "heroes". Biological processes must be enabled to sublate civilization. Will this happen? Probably not. The albedo effect essentially guarantees that whatever the new homeostasis is will be considerably hotter. This is genocide for island nations. Wet bulb temperatures for much of the global south. Food shortages, and a completely fucked global supply chains will likely cripple capitalism, and given its tendency to go mask off when under durress, it may likely find a way to become neo-feudalist techno-fascism. In this scenario, can enough pockets of Nature be allowed to negate civilization, even if that civilization is pushed to the brink by climate change and civil unrest? I don't know.

9

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Twoeyes wrote

But climate change occurs naturally. That's what ice ages are. The issue then isn't climate change.

I don't know if it's just the way you've written it, but it seems like you're denying the effect of humanity on climate change. But, I think you're just trying to say, the planet has been through this before and life survived.

Overall I enjoyed some of the ideas discussed.

5

spuwuky OP wrote

That's not my intention. I just think it's worthwhile to make a distinction between climate change and industrially accelerated climate change. It allows people to better contextualize climate change instead of having this moralistic original sin perspective, which in my experience paralyzes people.

6

kin wrote

Would be interesting reading it. But I am not sure I agree with your prompt dismiss of a more complex critique of Industrial Civilization, or your certainty about a new global homeostasis.

(...) is natural and we shouldn't stop it

For me this can be argued to be a "moral" view of the nature, something that shouldn't be disturbed and somehow feel contradictory with your other points, maybe I dunno

I would like to read more, maybe you are heading to some interesting conclusions

3

spuwuky OP wrote

That "civ is natural and we shouldn't stop it" quote is a paraphrase of Bookchinite criticisms I've seen of deep ecology. I do intend to go more in depth about my perspective on the impact of civilization on the biosphere and the domestication of humans though. It's generally going to be from a systems theory perspective, which is going to have some level of a birds eye view. As for a new global homeostasis, at least from what I understand about ecology, given enough time, an approximate homeostasis will be met at some point. Not within the near future, but at some point. This is almost definitely a point in time beyond the release of the gases stored in ice caps and sheets, just to give an idea of the timeline I'm thinking of. But generally, an approximate homeostasis is met over time.

5

_caspar_ wrote (edited )

Im also interested to see where youre headed with this, as I think youre right to point out the moralism developed out of a human/nature split. however, I think its a mistake to look to "a materialist understanding of the biosphere" in order to "reduce the centralization of the human narrative in our understanding," an earth-for-us.

I recently read a chapter from Karen Barad's Meeting the Universe Halfway which breaks down (unfortunately in an annoyingly jargony and roundabout way) what they see as the limits of standard materialist science as stuck in representational thinking: analyzing as an outside observer (as you say, bird's or god's-eye view: the macroscope mirroring the reductive microscope), which places the human outside of what they call the intra-acting phenomena taking place. even though Barad hasnt outright abandoned materialism, I think they (and other quantum physicists) recognize gaping holes that others dont. if you too are hesitant to drop materialism altogether, maybe there is something useful here.

4

kin wrote

Gotcha!

Maybe my point is to think that new homeostasis woudl include civilization as we conceive it. I personally distance myself from solarpunk and Bookchin's social ecology to get to a more anticiv discourse. But I still have my own hidden fetish with some science and woudl love to see some reconciliation of primitivism and transhumanism, nihilistically

2