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.
Twoeyes wrote
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.