Subject: Re: AUT: science, technology and ecology
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 10:14:56 -0000


I think the interesting point was not the technology itself that was
proposed but the response to it.  The question is, can we come up with a way
of reorganising society and the basis of it (for instance, something that
clearly rejects the fetishization of technology under capitalism while
allowing for sustainable material progress) that reassures the
eco-anarchists and allows us to unite with them on a more effective basis -
otherwise they will always distrust class struggle anarchists as
overly-humanistic, civilisation-cum-techology worshippers.  The trouble is,
we have not yet articulated (due to the degeneracy of most anarchist
thinking currently) a moral/philosophical/ethical basis for future society,
merely its politico-democratic lineaments.  I wouldn't trust us either......
John Owens
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Hoh" <jebni-AT-bigpond.com>
To: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 11:42 PM
Subject: Re: AUT: science, technology and ecology


> On 3/2/02 7:41 AM, "Michael Handelman" <mhandelman1-AT-yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > in an anarchist/communist society, as a result of science/technology
being in
> > the hands of all, and every investment decision would be heavily
> > discussed/debated, it seems highly unlikely that a weather control
system
> > could result in ecological destruction. If anything it would be
extremely
> > useful at preventing "natural disasters" like Earthquakes etc.
>
> Interesting question! I know where you're coming from, and I agree that
what
> we currently fetishise as "technology" is always social and political, but
> radical democracy doesn't magically make certain technoscientific projects
> (like a "nondestructive" weather control system) *possible*, does it?
Maybe
> something like weather control would require so much energy or certain
weird
> processes that to do it in any effective form in the middle term future
> would require great sacrifices of some sort to be made. And you know what
> happens when people start calling for sacrifices... (I guess nuclear
fission
> reactors also kinda fall under this objective category in terms of safety,
> waste and inelegance as a solution, but I've yet to be convinced that
> they're as *intrinsically* evil as some greenies impressionistically make
> out.)
>
> Also, thinking about the future makes me think about the theory of hisory,
> and to question the "we only have to win once" thesis. I know how it
applies
> as an inverse to capital always having to reign in the powers of labour,
or
> else lose control like a sorcerer's apprentice, yada yada, but wouldn't
the
> capability to intervene so drastically into entire planetary systems imply
a
> radical material reconstitution about our assumptions of production and
> sociality, and hence mode of production? Or maybe not. Confused.
>
> And what do earthquakes have to do with "the weather", anyway? (I'm
assuming
> that "weather control" would be about controlling superficial atmospheric
> phenomena, like taking a painkiller.) Wouldn't earthquake prevention
involve
> a complete re-engineering of the earth's crust, which would involve
> expending astronomical amounts of energy? If we had that much energy, we'd
> be better off building a portal into another dimension. On my list of
> priorities, I'd prefer communism in an alternate universe to an
> earthquake-free zone. :-)
>
> On another note: I'm definitely no primitivist (hell, I'm ready to join
the
> Borg), but it seems that most thinking about natural disasters and our
> capacity to build "civilization" in the face of them is heavily informed
by
> what sociology defines as questions of scarcity, security, necessity, etc.
> And aren't all of these concerns usually framed by a kind of
instrumentalist
> anthropocentrism (i.e. an overinvestment in narratives involving mankind
> wielding his tools against the voracious elements!) that precludes an
> ethical relationship with ecology? What that ethical relationship would be
> is an open question -- I see the genetic and technological modification of
> our species and others as possibly part of it.
>
> (The whole "nature vs. civilization" thing has been fresh in my mind since
> some of my friends and family were evacuated during the Sydney bushfires.)
>
> BTW, has anyone read Dan Simmons' _Hyperion_ series of science fiction
> novels? The capitalist "Hegemony" wages a hysterical war against
> interstallar nomadic anarcho-mutants! Interesting.
>
>
> Bem
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---