Re: AUT: science, technology and ecology

[Ben Hoh <jebni@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/2/02 7:41 AM, "Michael Handelman" <mhandelman1@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---