HomeUncategorized3/14 News Roundup & Open Thread

Leave a Reply

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Don midwest

There was a post today by Jonathan Turley

Study: 90 Percent of Coral Reefs Will Be Gone By 2050

And I wrote the following comment:

Who are the real terrorists?

The ones who kill a few people and can be handled by police actions? This includes those who did 9/11

Or us. We the people who have attacked the Earth. Attacked Gaia. Started the ball rolling for the Anthropocene, the geology period after the Holocene — the name is not yet official but as more creatures die off, and more acid in the sea, and ice melts, and …..

The Frenchman Bruno Latour is my choice for the most important thinker alive today. He wrote in Nov 2015

…..If you rightly use the word nihilism to describe these militant madmen, it would seem to me that the word also applies, but with more far-reaching
implications, to those who, in a twisted way, are expressing a death wish of
their own. Just like those who kill themselves in the act of killing, people in
positions of responsibility who fail to take on the issue of global climate
change with the greatest seriousness is shouting in unison with the
terrorists: Long live death!

This was an op-ed

In another piece he says that Trumpism is the first election run on climate denial. And many have pointed out that a false flag operation here in the USA could lead to a police state like Hitler pulled off. With the crap about Russia from the democratic party who refuses to face their loss and the lies of Trumpism and the attack on science and the constitution, there is a clear and present danger to our culture and the Earth.

The last paragraph from the 2015 piece is

It would be truly tragic if, by rightly seeking out and destroying those who, within a limited time and place, go about killing innocent people, we delay yet again the necessary work of addressing those who would kill on a deliriously massive scale, over a long period, sweeping away life in all its forms, human or otherwise. Though it is legitimate that a well-calibrated state of emergency allows for secure street demonstrations, the powers that be have to remember that they could declare a different state of emergency, an extreme one this time, that could teach the citizenry how to identify and grapple with the larger enemy. All the more so, since this is a war that finds us very much divided, among nations, territories and peoples, and tragically, within ourselves, as we argue endlessly over the causes and the cures of global warming. Government alone is helpless: it needs all its citizens in this effort. And government should not impede those citizens who, by demonstrating, are trying to help their elected officials — it might even be an occasion to invent demonstrations more innovative than yet another march from Place de la République to Place de la Nation.

The Other State of Emergency

In a more recent op ed he states that The Climate Regime has been the most important political actor for the last 30 years.

polarbear4

Excellent. And the wars that we do fight add immensely to climate chaos.

Don midwest

There was a climate denier who posted about the East Angelica emails and Michael Mann and these scientists are just like a lobby group.

I replied with more of Latour

Surprise! Scientists are human. Scientists have back and forth discussions and they advocate for their positions. Politics cannot be separated from science, nor religion.

The 2010 “Climategate” episode — the unauthorized release of emails from Britain’s East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit — vindicated much of Latour’s work. Those emails showed climate scientists engaging in precisely the kind of subjective conversations over what what data was relevant and what data should be thrown away. It showed the scientists engaging in small-p politics — strategizing, for instance, about how to keep articles they disagreed with out of mainstream scientific journals. Skeptics pointed to the emails as evidence that scientists make up facts — and thus that global warming is not happening. Defenders of climate science defensively insisted that the emails revealed absolutely nothing of importance. But by idealizing climate scientists as dispassionate, objective, and neutral voices, liberal policy makers and environmentalists made it easy for skeptics to dismiss the whole of climate science on evidence of their passions and politicking.

The Monsters of Bruno Latour

Bruno points out that one of the main reasons that the dialogue between climate scientists and climate skeptics seems to get nowhere is that both operate out of the same frame. Here is Bruno himself

One way to seize upon the breakthrough from environmentalism to postenvironmentalism is to reshape the very definition of the “precautionary principle.” This strange moral, legal, epistemological monster has appeared in European and especially French politics after many scandals due to the misplaced belief by state authority in the certainties provided by Science.8

When action is supposed to be nothing but the logical consequence of reason and facts (which the French, of all people, still believe), it is quite normal to wait for the certainty of science before administrators and politicians spring to action. The problem begins when experts fail to agree on the reasons and facts that have been taken as the necessary premises of any action. Then the machinery of decision is stuck until experts come to an agreement. It was in such a situation that the great tainted blood catastrophe of the 1980s ensued: before agreement was produced, hundreds of patients were transfused with blood contaminated by the AIDS virus.9

The above quotation is from

Love Your Monsters:
Why We Must Care for Our Technologies As We Do Our Children

polarbear4

Standing ovation when he arrives. oh, yeah. :O) Wish they would talk green energy Marshall Plan putting WV back to work.

Love that the coal miner wants universal health care.

Don midwest

Bernie talks politics.

Here is Bruno Latour

What if we talked politics a little

Abstract

Political enunciation remains an enigma as long as it is considered from the
standpoint of information transfer. It remains as unintelligible as religious talk. The
paper explores the specificty of this regime and especially the strange link it has
with the canonical definition of enunciation in linguistics and semiotics. The
‘political circle’ is reconstituted and thus also the reasons why a ‘transparent’ or
‘rational’political speech act destroys the very conditions of group formation

This is also very important for group formation which is needed as an alternative to the democratic party

Complaints about a loss of interest in politics are heard all over.1 But what if
the famous ‘crisis of representation’ stems simply from a new misunderstanding
of the exact nature of this type of representation? As if, in recent years, we
had begun to expect it to provide a form of fidelity, exactitude or truth that is
totally impossible. As if talking politics were becoming a foreign language
gradually depriving us of the ability to express ourselves. Could it be possible
to forget politics? Far from being a universal competency of the ‘political
animal’, might it not be a form of life so fragile that we could document its
progressive appearance and disappearance? This is the hypothesis that I would
like to explore in this paper.

The idea can be formulated simply: by attempting to explain politics in terms
of something else, we might have lost its specificity and have consequently
forgotten to maintain its own dynamics, letting it fall into disuse. To retrieve
the invaluable effectiveness of political talk, we need to start with the idea that,
as Margaret Thatcher so forcefully put it, ‘society doesn’t exist’. If it does not
exist, we have to make it exist, but in order to do so we need the means to do so.
Politics is one of those means.

polarbear4

This is very hard to do–the people most willing to talk about politics are entrenched in their “side,” me included. It would be wonderful, though, if we could build our castle starting anew.

Sort of what Bernie is all about.

I was sad to hear the coal miner say that because he wasn’t a scientist, he couldn’t know about climate chaos for sure, but he tended to believe those that minimize it. Not sure quite how that fits in with Latour except that he’s been taught to listen to others supposedly more educated than he is for his truth.

Very cool that he is now imagining health care for all, though, so that is, in a sense, starting fresh. And globally, people are starting to want a say in how they/we are governed.

Part of me wishes Latour would speak a little less academically, because he seems to very much want to help those without voices.

And how to start a new conversation when TPTB have a stranglehold on that conversation. Not sure if this makes sense re Latour.

Always enjoy your posts about him, though. It makes me think. :oP

Don midwest
polarbear4

Replies not posting.

wpDiscuz
Skip to toolbar