We'll Have To Share
April 14, 2024 1:51 AM Subscribe
As further argued by the authors in a forthcoming Berggruen Press volume, “the Planetary as a scientific concept focuses on the Earth as an intricate web of ecosystems, with myriad layers of integration between various biogeochemical systems and living beings — both human and non-human. Drawing on earth system science and systems biology, this holistic understanding is being enabled by new planetary-scale technologies of perception – a rapidly maturing technosphere of sensors, networks, and supercomputers that collectively are rendering the planetary system increasingly visible, comprehensible and foreseeable. This recently-evolved smart exoskeleton — in essence a distributed sensory organ and cognitive layer — is fostering an unprecedented form of planetary sapience.” The open question is how, and if, human governance in the late-stage Anthropocene can align with the knowledge we are now attaining. from The Third Great Decentering [Noema]
I just finished Amitav Ghosh's The Nutmeg's Curse the other day--his The Great Derangement has been something like a gospel to me since I first read it, and I've been the dutiful John the Baptist talking about it ever since--but in this new book he does an interesting thing. The book itself is a lot of things--a history of the spice trade, a natural history of the nutmeg, an exploration of how the West evolved from 'exterminate all the brutes' to a tactic of omnicide--there's a lot. But one thing that has really been on my mind is his description of a sort of hyper-extensive vitalism, a sense that parts of nature are best thought of as having their own mind, their own intent.
It's easy to wave that off; in reading his explanation of the thought of a particular shaman, for instance, you sort of sense in your western bones what the proper response is, a liberal-minded "ah, good for him, best not to criticize that too harshly since that might be a little bit racist, but it's not what science teaches."
But the reason I keep coming back to it isn't that, say, volcanos and oceans absolutely necessarily have conscious being or anything like that, it's that we, as human beings, as social animals, are primed to think best in terms of intentions and motives. Thinking of the sea as angry and vengeful may not be accurate, but it does lead us to accurate predictions of its danger, and leads us to take proper steps to safety. We're really good at this. The vitalism we need is not necessarily worshipful, but gossipful.
Alas. That same vitalism lets us look at any planetary government as...let's say, low-probability. Because nation-states don't work well together. Unlike people, who in times of crisis put aside their differences to solve problems and self-organize, nation-states are dumb, immature things that can't cooperate for five minutes without looking to score an advantage over the other. The US and China could come together today as an unstoppable force for good, causing all the nuclear weapons to be dismantled, ending poverty, and making climate change a workable problem. But they cannot do that, because they answer to their own internal needs. No one can give up their position, even for a second. We set up the United Nations with the best of intentions and then spent the next 80 years ignoring it. Anything that might count as a voluntary weakening of one's own supremacy is a mortal sin, even if clinging to that supremacy means self-destruction.
Worse still, "the formation of consent within a common narrative," necessary to this planetary governance, seems to be actively beyond reach, as every source of narrative is also in competition, producing a multiplicity of meanings and stories so great that we are faced with an impenetrable wall of noise. How is a common narrative of planetary survival going to make it through all the stuff?
posted by mittens at 6:43 AM on April 14 [8 favorites]
It's easy to wave that off; in reading his explanation of the thought of a particular shaman, for instance, you sort of sense in your western bones what the proper response is, a liberal-minded "ah, good for him, best not to criticize that too harshly since that might be a little bit racist, but it's not what science teaches."
But the reason I keep coming back to it isn't that, say, volcanos and oceans absolutely necessarily have conscious being or anything like that, it's that we, as human beings, as social animals, are primed to think best in terms of intentions and motives. Thinking of the sea as angry and vengeful may not be accurate, but it does lead us to accurate predictions of its danger, and leads us to take proper steps to safety. We're really good at this. The vitalism we need is not necessarily worshipful, but gossipful.
Alas. That same vitalism lets us look at any planetary government as...let's say, low-probability. Because nation-states don't work well together. Unlike people, who in times of crisis put aside their differences to solve problems and self-organize, nation-states are dumb, immature things that can't cooperate for five minutes without looking to score an advantage over the other. The US and China could come together today as an unstoppable force for good, causing all the nuclear weapons to be dismantled, ending poverty, and making climate change a workable problem. But they cannot do that, because they answer to their own internal needs. No one can give up their position, even for a second. We set up the United Nations with the best of intentions and then spent the next 80 years ignoring it. Anything that might count as a voluntary weakening of one's own supremacy is a mortal sin, even if clinging to that supremacy means self-destruction.
Worse still, "the formation of consent within a common narrative," necessary to this planetary governance, seems to be actively beyond reach, as every source of narrative is also in competition, producing a multiplicity of meanings and stories so great that we are faced with an impenetrable wall of noise. How is a common narrative of planetary survival going to make it through all the stuff?
posted by mittens at 6:43 AM on April 14 [8 favorites]
planetary-scale technologies of perception – a rapidly maturing technosphere of sensors, networks, and supercomputers that collectively are rendering the planetary system increasingly visible, comprehensible and foreseeable. This recently-evolved smart exoskeleton — in essence a distributed sensory organ and cognitive layer — is fostering an unprecedented form of planetary sapience.in essence a distributed sensory organ
okay...
and cognitive layer
Nope. Computational but not yet anywhere near cognitive, which remains the preserve of squishy bits inside the exoskeleton.
posted by flabdablet at 9:39 AM on April 14 [2 favorites]
I'm going to keep going, but I find my head in my hands reading the first few paragraphs.
Paragraphs 1-3: Woah, hey, did you know that someone has considered an alternative to human hubris?
Paragraph 4: Recent human technological advances should be called Unprecedented Planetary Sapience.
Paragraph 6: [emphasis mine]"...Convergence entails divergence because the universalizing and rationalizing logic of technology and economics that ties the world together operates in a wholly different dimension than the ethos of politics and culture, rooted in emotion and ways of life cultivated among one’s own kind."
Oh yeah, that binary covers fuckin EVERYTHING there is to learn from the planet. Did Elon Musk write this?
Ok , the rest of it is so much about being bossy and not even in a cool humble Marcus Aurelius kind of way. I don't think this article is about getting off the hubris juice.
posted by droomoord at 11:07 PM on April 14 [2 favorites]
Paragraphs 1-3: Woah, hey, did you know that someone has considered an alternative to human hubris?
Paragraph 4: Recent human technological advances should be called Unprecedented Planetary Sapience.
Paragraph 6: [emphasis mine]"...Convergence entails divergence because the universalizing and rationalizing logic of technology and economics that ties the world together operates in a wholly different dimension than the ethos of politics and culture, rooted in emotion and ways of life cultivated among one’s own kind."
Oh yeah, that binary covers fuckin EVERYTHING there is to learn from the planet. Did Elon Musk write this?
Ok , the rest of it is so much about being bossy and not even in a cool humble Marcus Aurelius kind of way. I don't think this article is about getting off the hubris juice.
posted by droomoord at 11:07 PM on April 14 [2 favorites]
Upfront, I have to admit I'm partial to Noema's project. They regularly challenge modes of thought that I'd gotten a bit lazy about and started to feel were settled, and they do so in constructive ways.
I think the authors readily admit the criticisms we've hit upon in this thread. These are the challenges their proposal is up against. Restating them doesn't really offer much critique for that reason, but instead sounds like a kind of denialism or, worse, a defense of the status quo. What's on offer here is a story, more than anything, about how we get from here to there.
The planetary sapience thing is a good example. True, the squishy bits aren't there yet, but the authors are suggesting we're at a turning point, not a fully-arrived-at reality. The Copernican Turn wasn't fully revolved at its inflection point, either.
Like droomoord, I also get a little allergic at the hubris of considering human technology a planetary exoskeleton. Something that's not gotten into much here, if at all, is an explanation of how that definition is arrived at, which I think acts as a sort of antihistamine. The argument I favor is that human intelligence is not discontinuous with the planetary. You might think of it as an emergent property. There are many forms of intelligence (we often measure these with the exoskeleton) and the human variety, especially the highly technological kind, builds upon these and so enjoys pride of place. That's too teleological and hubristic for me still, but I try to take it seriously that even our AI fever is an Earthly phenomenon, one that is not so meaningfully distinct from spiders' visual perception, or bonobos' sociality, all of which are forms of intelligence.
mittens, your "gossipful vitalism" is something I want to hear more about! I tend to think about intelligence as a kind of capacity for accomplishing some kind of being, so a Jane Bennett style vital materialism appeals to me. You might guess that I also think about different ways of human being in similar terms, so the gossipful or worshipful has a similar empirical bent to it in my mind, but I'm also reenchantment to some degree, and it seems like you're striking my kind of balance with your idea.
posted by criticalyeast at 7:59 AM on April 15 [2 favorites]
I think the authors readily admit the criticisms we've hit upon in this thread. These are the challenges their proposal is up against. Restating them doesn't really offer much critique for that reason, but instead sounds like a kind of denialism or, worse, a defense of the status quo. What's on offer here is a story, more than anything, about how we get from here to there.
The planetary sapience thing is a good example. True, the squishy bits aren't there yet, but the authors are suggesting we're at a turning point, not a fully-arrived-at reality. The Copernican Turn wasn't fully revolved at its inflection point, either.
Like droomoord, I also get a little allergic at the hubris of considering human technology a planetary exoskeleton. Something that's not gotten into much here, if at all, is an explanation of how that definition is arrived at, which I think acts as a sort of antihistamine. The argument I favor is that human intelligence is not discontinuous with the planetary. You might think of it as an emergent property. There are many forms of intelligence (we often measure these with the exoskeleton) and the human variety, especially the highly technological kind, builds upon these and so enjoys pride of place. That's too teleological and hubristic for me still, but I try to take it seriously that even our AI fever is an Earthly phenomenon, one that is not so meaningfully distinct from spiders' visual perception, or bonobos' sociality, all of which are forms of intelligence.
mittens, your "gossipful vitalism" is something I want to hear more about! I tend to think about intelligence as a kind of capacity for accomplishing some kind of being, so a Jane Bennett style vital materialism appeals to me. You might guess that I also think about different ways of human being in similar terms, so the gossipful or worshipful has a similar empirical bent to it in my mind, but I'm also reenchantment to some degree, and it seems like you're striking my kind of balance with your idea.
posted by criticalyeast at 7:59 AM on April 15 [2 favorites]
We're nowhere near individual sapience, in the "action based upon wisdom" sense demanded by these problems. I've real trouble losing weight dispite being well educated and knowing the risks.
We could've planetary government of course, if only via bloody conquest, but we've no reason to beleive that any form of planetary government could avert collision with planetary boundaries like climate, well not for long anyways.
We do know island dictatorships who planted more trees like the tokugawa shogunate, but their civilizations all moved onwards towards greater exploitation eventually, which spells disaster if done worldwide.
As I've argued elsewhere, we seemingly have the opposite problem, in that nation states work too well together, once they've tied their economies together via trade. If trade unravels then maybe nations could perceive "acts of war" in other nations' carbon emissions, meat consumption, plastics, PFAS, etc.
There is already a real vitalism in humanity's distruction of the ecosystem upon which humanity depends, but if human action demands an "other" then maybe we need balance in that every nation should be "other" to enough nations with enough resources.
We could hope that after nations have sabatoged one anothers' infrastructure enough, driven by the more limited sapience of merely understaning that planetary boundaries exist, then maybe some new strategies for collaboration emerge, while still repsecting planetary boundaries. We're unlikely to jump directly from here to there though, not without elites first watching their infrastructure projects, cattle farms, etc be destroyed by sabatoge.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:46 AM on April 18
We could've planetary government of course, if only via bloody conquest, but we've no reason to beleive that any form of planetary government could avert collision with planetary boundaries like climate, well not for long anyways.
We do know island dictatorships who planted more trees like the tokugawa shogunate, but their civilizations all moved onwards towards greater exploitation eventually, which spells disaster if done worldwide.
As I've argued elsewhere, we seemingly have the opposite problem, in that nation states work too well together, once they've tied their economies together via trade. If trade unravels then maybe nations could perceive "acts of war" in other nations' carbon emissions, meat consumption, plastics, PFAS, etc.
There is already a real vitalism in humanity's distruction of the ecosystem upon which humanity depends, but if human action demands an "other" then maybe we need balance in that every nation should be "other" to enough nations with enough resources.
We could hope that after nations have sabatoged one anothers' infrastructure enough, driven by the more limited sapience of merely understaning that planetary boundaries exist, then maybe some new strategies for collaboration emerge, while still repsecting planetary boundaries. We're unlikely to jump directly from here to there though, not without elites first watching their infrastructure projects, cattle farms, etc be destroyed by sabatoge.
posted by jeffburdges at 8:46 AM on April 18
« Older Apparently, Meta deems climate change too... | The Oldest Boats Ever Found in the Mediterranean Newer »
posted by nofundy at 3:38 AM on April 14 [2 favorites]