Minimal Ethics for the Anthropocene

8/10/2019 Minimal Ethics for the Anthropocene

1/157

Minimal Ethicsfor the Anthropocene

Joanna Zylinska


2/157


3/157

Minimal Ethics for the Anthropocene


4/157


5/157

Minimal Ethics for the Anthropocene

Joanna Zylinska

An imprin o Michigan PublishingUniversi y o Michigan Library, Ann Arbor

2014

OPEN HUMANITIES PRESS


6/157

Firs edi ion published by 2014

Freely available online a htp://dx.doi.org/10.3998/ohp.12917741.0001.001

Copyrigh 2014 Joanna Zylinska

Tis is an open access book, licensed under Crea ive Commons By Atribu ion Share Alike license.Under his license, au hors allow anyone o download, reuse, reprin , modify, dis ribu e, and/or copy

heir work so long as he au hors and source are ci ed and resul ing deriva ive works are licensed underhe same or similar license. No permission is required from he au hors or he publisher. S a u ory fair

use and o her righ s are in no way affec ed by he above.

Read more abou he license a crea ivecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0

Cover Ar , gures, and o her media included wi h his book are copyrigh 2014 Joanna Zylinska andlicensed under Crea ive Commons By Atribu ion Share Alike license.

ISBN-13 978-1-60785-329-9

www.publishing.umich.edu www.openhumani iespress.org

is an in erna ional, scholar-led open access publishing collec ive whosemission is o make leading works of con emporary cri ical hough freely available worldwide. Bookspublished under he imprin a Michigan Publishing are produced hrougha unique par nership be ween OHPs edi orial board and he Universi y of Michigan Library, whichprovides a library-based managing and produc ion suppor infras ruc ure o facili a e scholars o pub-lish leading research in book form.

OPEN HUMANITIES PRESS


7/157

Contents

Acknowledgmen s 7

1. Grounding 92. Scale 253. Process 374. Evolu ion 495. Humani y 616. On ology 77

7. E hics 918. Poe ics 1059. Poli ics 12310. Mani es ing 139

Works Ci ed 145


8/157

Fig. 1: Joanna Zylinska, Topia daedala 1, 2014


9/157

Acknowledgments

Tis book was inspired by Annie Sprinkle and Be hS ephens wonder ully provoca ive wedding o Lake

Kallavesi a he AN I Con emporary Ar Fes ivalin Kuopio, Finland, in Sep ember 2012. I am gra e-

ul o Annie and Be h, and o Luke Dixon, or allow-ing me o develop ur her my ideas on e hics and he An hropocene a heir 2013 Ecosex Symposium aColches er Ar Cen re in England. Many o her peoplehave generously provided a space bo h men al and

physical or me o experimen wi h his projec , indifferen guises. I am par icularly gra e ul o my an ip-odean riends (Nina Sellars, S elarc, Oron Cats andIona Zurr o Symbio icA) as well as he innumer-able generous in erlocu ors rom Mexico (Ana MaraMar nez de la Escalera rom UNAM; Alber o LpezCuenca and Gabriela Mndez Co a rom UDLAP; he

ransi io MX_05 es ival eam and i s gues s), Ka eORiordan and B ihaj Ajana. I owe a big hank-youo many o my Goldsmi hs colleagues and s uden s,or keeping bo h he ques ion o cri ical hinking andhe ques ion o poli ics permanen ly alive and open.

Las bu no leas , I am gra e ul o Sarah Kember, Sigi Jtkand , David Otina and Gary Hall.


10/157



11/157

Chap er 1

Grounding

Li e ypically becomes an objec o reec ion wheni is seen o be under hrea . In par icular, we humanshave a endency o engage in hinking abou li e(ins ead o jus con inuing o live i ) when we aremade o con ron he prospec o dea h: be i hedea h o individuals due o illness, acciden or old age;

he dea h o whole e hnic or na ional groups in warsand o her orms o armed conic ; bu also o wholepopula ions, be i human or nonhuman ones. Even

hough his book is rs and oremos abou li ecomprehended as bo h a biological and social phe-nomenon i is he narra ive abou he impendingdea h o he human popula ion, i.e., abou he ex inc-

ion o he human species, ha provides a con ex ori s argumen . In con emporary popular science andmains ream media he problem o ex inc ion is usuallypresen ed as some hing bo h inevi able and impend-ing. o ci e he Bri ish scien is S ephen Emmot,head o Microsofs Compu a ional Science researchand co-au hor o he booken Billion ,1 he currensi ua ion in which he human species nds i sel can be mos adequa ely described wi h he phrase we are


12/157

10 Chap er 1

ucked. Te reasons or his supposed s a e o even sare as ollows:

Ear h is home o millions o species. Jusone domina es i . Us. Our cleverness, ourinven iveness and our ac ivi ies have mod-ied almos every par o our plane . In

ac , we are having a pro ound impac oni . Indeed, our cleverness, our inven ive-ness and our ac ivi ies are now he driverso every global problem we ace. And everyone o hese problems is accelera ing as wecon inue o grow owards a global popula-

ion o en billion. In ac , I believe we canrigh ly call he si ua ion were in righ nowan emergency an unpreceden ed plan-e ary emergency. (non-pag.)

Tis unique si ua ion, or ra her geo-his orical period,in which humans are said o have become he bigges

hrea o li e on ear h, has recen ly gained he monikerAn hropocene. Emmots prac ical solu ion o hissi ua ion is ra her blun : given ha any possible ech-nological or behavioral solu ions o he curren s a eo even s, even i heore ically possible, are unlikely

o work, he advice he would give his son would be o buy a gun. Tis is o course a power ul s ory,

he goal o which is o shock and awe us in o ac ion. Wi hou shoo ing our gun-wielding messenger, i is wor h poin ing ou ha here seems o be some hing bo h de ea is and narcissis ic abou jeremiads o his

kind and hose ha ell hem. Also, we humans haveac ually produced narra ives abou differen orms o


13/157

Grounding 11

apocalypse ever since we developed he abili y o ells ories and record hem.

Ra her han add o his ca alogue, my aim in his book is o ell a differen s ory abou he world andour human posi ioning in and wi h i , while akingseriously wha science has o say abou li e and dea h.I am mind ul o philosopher John Grays admoni ionin his review o Emmots book ha Te plane does

no care abou he s ories ha humans ell hemselves;i responds o wha humans do, and is changing irre- versibly as a resul (6). Gray is no doub correc inhis skep icism. Ye i should be no ed ha we humansdo care abou he s ories we ell ourselves. Moreimpor an ly, s ories have a per orma ive na ure: heycan enac and no jus describe hings even i here

are o course limi s o wha hey are capable o enac -ing. Tis book is one such s ory abou li e and dea ha bo h macro and micro scales, shaped in o a se ophilosophical proposi ions or non-philosophers.More specically, i s aim is o ou line a viable posi ionon e hics as a way o living a good li e when li e i sel isdeclared o be under a unique hrea . In o her words,i is a s ory abou how we can live a good li e a hisprecarious geo-his orical momen and abou whacons i u es such goodness.

Te injunc ion o ou line some kind o eachingo he good li e (Adorno 15) when li e i sel is said

o be under hrea comes o me par ly rom Teodor Adornos Minima Moralia , a 1944 slim volume by heFrank ur philosopher writen as a gif o his riendand collabora or Max Horkheimer, and sub i led


14/157

12 Chap er 1

Reec ions on a Damaged Li e. On one level, Adornosdiagnosis seems o be similar in enor o Emmots:

Li e has changed in o a imeless successiono shocks, in erspaced wi h emp y, para-lysed in ervals. Bu no hing, perhaps, ismore ominous or he u ure han he ac

ha , qui e li erally, hese hings will soon be pas hinking on, or each rauma o

he re urning comba an s, each shock noinwardly absorbed, is a ermen o u uredes ruc ion. Karl Kraus was righ o callhis playTe Las Days o Mankind. Wha is being enac ed now ough o bear he i le:Afer Doomsday. (54)

Ye he con ex o Adornos reec ions, hemselvespresen ed in a series o ragmen s and wha we migh

erm shards o hough , is very unique: hey springrom wha he perceives as li es ca as rophic and

irreparable des ruc ion in he Holocaus . Bemoaninghe ac ha o hers are already envisaging he possi-

bili y o rebuilding cul ure as i he murder o mil-lions o Jews had been jus an unpleasan in erlude, hesees modern li e as reduced o he sphere o he pri- va e and hen merely consump ion, a s a e o even s

ha leads o aliena ion and he wi hdrawal o vi ali yrom li e i sel . Ci ing he Aus rian wri er Ferdinand

Krnberger, Adorno lamen s ha Li e does no live.Bu Adorno does no s op because o ha : ins ead, hegoes on looking or li es races buried in language, and

or he possibili y o con inuing wi h cri ical hough


15/157

Grounding 13

and wri ing, wi h a de ermina ion o each us abou he good li e, even i on a very small scale.

My own projec on minimal e hics draws inspira-ion rom Adornos persis ence in Minima Moralia o

keep philosophizing as i agains all odds, o look orsigns o li e in he middle o an apocalypse, even imy own con ex and he exis en ial hrea s ha shapei are very differen rom his. Te ambi ion and ori-

en a ion o my e hical proposi ions also differ rom Adornos: even hough I embrace he cri ical spiri ohis work, I urn o various philosophies o li e as wellas eminis hough in order o ou line a more affirma-

ive ramework or he imes when li e is said o ndi sel under hrea on a plane ary scale. My aim hereis or us o consider o wha ex en we can make li e

go on and also how we ourselves can con inue olive i well, while in erroga ing wha i means o liveli e well, and whe her such a consensus can ac u-ally be reached.

I needs o be signaled righ rom he s ar hahe very we o he argumen ha will ensue is also

already posi ed as a problem, re erring as i does o wha philosophy and common sense have designa edas humans bu also opening on o a complex anddynamic ne work o rela ions in which we humansare produced as humans and in which we remainen angled wi h nonhuman en i ies and processes.Te seeds o his book were originally plan ed dur-ing he prepara ions or a wedding o ecosex ar is sBe h S ephens and Annie Sprinkle, who married LakeKallavesi which is par o he Iso-Kalla lake sys emin Nor hern Savonia a he AN I Con emporary


16/157

14 Chap er 1

Ar Fes ival in Kuopio, Finland, on Sep ember 30,2012. (I wro e a shor piece on minimal e hics as a wedding gif or hem.) Tis human-nonhuman wed-ding be ween more han wo par ies was no S ephensand Sprinkles rs : in previous ceremonies hey hadmarried he Ear h, he Sea, he Snow and he Rocks,

hus play ully aking on and enac ing he na urocul-ural kinship in whichlove is no enough. S ephens

and Sprinkles per ormance serves or me as an en rypoin in o a differen mode o philosophizing, oneha borrows rom ar is ic sensibili ies and ha pro-

duces ideas wi h hings and even s ra her han jus wi h words. Tis mode o philosophical produc ionis necessarily ragmen ed: i gives up on any desire o

orge sys ems, on ologies or worlds and makes i sel

con en wi h minor, even i abundan , in erven ionsin o ma erial and concep ual un oldings. A minimale hics ou lined hroughou his book is one such pos-sible in erven ion.

Te mode o working employed in his bookmobilizes wha could be ermed a pos -masculinisra ionali y, a more specula ive, less direc ional modeo hinking and wri ing. Tis no ion develops romDarin Barneys concep o pos -masculinis courage.For Barney, courage ha is pos -masculinisis nonecessarily here ore eminine(or even really pos -mas-culine hough i is very likely o be eminis ) (non-pag.). Barneys call is in urn inspired by poli ical he-oris Wendy Brown, who has ou lined a vision or apos -masculinis poli ics in which reedom is recon-ciled wi h love and recogni ion. Such poli ics requiresmuch courage and willingness o risk (Brown 202).


17/157

Grounding 15

Barney sugges s his sor o courage needs o be dis in-guished rom he sor o bravado whereby men seek

o exer con rol over every hing around hem by heorce o ins rumen al ra ionali y (non-pag.). Pos -

masculinis courage involves or him he courage oace he uncer ain y o ha which we canno con rol;

[...] he courage o be le go in o ac ion ha beginssome hing ruly new and unpredic able (non-pag.).

A pos -masculinis ra ionali y is by no means non- oran i-ra ionalis ; i jus calls or a differen modula iono ra ionali y, one ha remains more atuned o i sown modes o produc ion. I is always already embod-ied and immersed, responding o he call o materand o i s various ma erializa ions ma erializa ionssuch as humans, animals, plan s, inanima e objec s,

as well as he rela ions be ween hem. Such pos -masculinis ra ionali y remains suspicious owardsany curren atemp s o (re) urn o on ology, in bo hi s idealis and ma erialis guises, as a predominanmode o philosophizing. I sees any such atemp s or wha hey are: ways o producing and hence also mas-

ering he world and hen passing i on (as ac ) oo hers even i such on ological produc ion is o bedressed in he language o immanence and au opoi-esis. (My suspicion owards on ology does no mean Ido no believe here are hings ou here beyond herealm o he human and beyond he human concep-

ualiza ion o hem. However, as soon as he humanakes o he human-cen ric prac ice o philosophizing,

hings immedia ely become ar less objec ive, realisand ou here han his human would ofen like, or would like o hers o believe.)


18/157

16 Chap er 1

Te reec ions offered in his shor book arelinked o my previous work on wha i means o livea good li e a a ime when he very no ion o li e isundergoing a radical re ormula ion, bo h on a philo-sophical and bio echnological level. However, I amless concerned here wi h a cri ical discussion o di -

eren heore ical posi ions on e hics and more wi hske ching ou an affirma ive proposal or an e hics ha

makes senseand ha senses i s own making . Tis ideao he e hical call o he universe, in i s emporary s a- biliza ions, expands on my argumen rom Bioe hics in

he Age o New Media , in which I posi ioned bioe hicsas an originary philosophy, si ua ed even be ore on ol-ogy. Ta idea was inspired by he work o EmmanuelLevinas, al hough I was and s ill am roubled by

he humanis limi a ions o Levinas e hics, wherebyprimordial responsibili y exer ed upon me alwayscomes rom human o hers. In bioe hics as an e hicso li e he way I unders and i , he human sel has orespond o an expanded se o obliga ions ha affecher, make an impression on her, allow or her differ-en ia ion rom he world around her and demand aresponse ha is no jus a reac ion. While I do rec-ognize, oge her wi h o her heoris s o pos -an hro-pocen ric hough , ha i is no all abou us,2 I alsoacknowledge he singular human responsibili y whichis exercised bo h by philosophical heory (which isconsciously under aken by ew) and by philosophicalprac ice (which is a much more widespread under ak-ing, even i no always a conscious one). Tis recog-ni ion hope ully jus ies o some ex en he reluc an ye also some imes inevi able use o he pronoun I


19/157

Grounding 17

hroughou his volume, and he mul iple paradoxesimplied in any atemp on he par o a singular emalehuman wri er o au hor a pos -an hropocen ric e h-ics. Te pos -an hropocen ric e hics o expandedobliga ions becomes a way o aking responsibili y, by he human, or various sor s o hickenings o heuniverse, across differen scales, and o responding o

he angled mesh o everyday connec ions and rela-

ions. o do his, I shall go back o Levinas or inspi-ra ion, bu also cross-pollina e him wi h o her ideas wi h he help o some Brillian Bees: (Henri) Bergson,(Karen) Barad, (Rosi) Braidoti, (Wendy) Brownand (Jane) Bennet, as well as some o her mem- bers o he Philosophical Hive Mind ( om Cohen,Claire Colebrook, Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Derrida,

Donna Haraway, im Ingold, S anisaw Lem andimo hy Mor on).I he mode o working in his book embraces a

pos -masculinis ra ionali y, i s me hod in a depar-ure rom a modernis orm o cri ique can be

loosely described as cri ical vi alism. Tis me hodinvolves re hinking and remaking li e and wha wecan do wi h i . aking li e as a (ye ) non-valorizedminimal condi ion, cri ical vi alism remains atuned

o s oppages in li e, seeing li e as bo h a becoming anda rac uring process. Claire Colebrook ar icula es hisdual, produc ive-des ruc ive endency o li e, in he

ollowing erms: Philosophy canno simply decideo begin rom ground zero; nor can he living being

become so open and recep ive o i s milieu ha i would no inec , perver or old i s passions aroundi s own li e. Immanence is an ongoing s ruggle, and


20/157

18 Chap er 1

he aims o becoming-impercep ible, seeing he worldanew or becoming-child are given orce and power jus hrough he resis ances hey encoun er (2010:166). Cri ical vi alism en ails knowing he differenceo difference. I considers how differences ensue andmater, who hey mater o, how mater resis s andrecoils, and o wha effec . S ar ing rom he premise

ha every hing is in erconnec ed (Mor on 2010: 1),

i also considers differen ia ion wi hin hose processeso connec ivi y while offering a reec ion on humansi ua edness in and responsibili y or differen con-nec ions o rela ions o which s/he is par . Si ua ed a

he crossroads o cul ural heory, media and cul urals udies, con inen al philosophy and ar , he bookinscribes i sel in he rajec ory o wha imo hy

Mor on has called he ecological hough . Ye , s illollowing Mor on, his is a curious kind o ecology,as i is no based on any prelapsarian, roman icizedno ion o Na ure ha can allegedly be recouped inorder o make he world and our lives in i beter.

Le me explain a las wha i hus means or hee hical ramework ou lined here o be poin ed, via

he preposi ion or included in he books i le,owards he geo-his orical period described as he

An hropocene. Proposed by he Du ch chemis PaulCru zen in 2000, he erm An hropocene ( roman hropo , man, andcene,new) serves as a name ora new geological epoch ha supposedly ollows heHolocene, he epoch ha began a he end o helas ice age, 11,700 years ago, and ha officially,a leas con inues o his day (Kolber 29). Teneed or he new erm is being jus ied by he ac


21/157

Grounding 19

ha human inuence upon he geo- and biosphere via processes such as arming, de ores a ion, min-ing and urbaniza ion, o name bu a ew, has been soimmense ha i ac ually meri s a new designa ion inorder o address he challenges raised by ha inu-ence. Even hough he erm has no been universallyand unques ioningly adop ed by all geologis s, i s usehas signican ly increased over he las decade and

has been popularized beyond he pro essional sci-en ic communi y hanks o he 2011 ar icle on heopic by Elizabe h Kolber in he Na ional Geographic

magazine. Ye even amongs hose who are sympa-he ic o he erm here is widespread doub as o

which momen in ime should serve as a beginningo his epoch: some poin o he early days o agri-

cul ure some 8,000 years ago, o hers o he Indus rialRevolu ion or o he las fy years o excessive con-sump ion, while s ill o hers see he An hropocene asan epoch ha is ye o come.

Signican ly, in he opening pages o his EcologicalTough Mor on claims ha One o he hings hamodern socie y has damaged, along wi h ecosys emsand species and he global clima e, is hinking (4).Te An hropocene can here ore perhaps be seen asar icula ing, alongside he ecological disas ers, hiscrisis o cri ical hinking. My own use o he ermAn hropocene in his book is rs and oremos asan e hical poin er ra her han as a scien ic descrip-

or. In o her words, he An hropocene serves hereas a designa ion o he human obliga ion owards

he geo- and biosphere, bu also owards hinkingabou he geo- and biosphereas concep s. Te e hics


22/157

20 Chap er 1

or he An hropocene would here ore en ail a callor a re urn o cri ical hinking, or a repara ion ohough . Combining inven iveness wi h cri icali y,

i would promo e non-ins rumen al modes o hink-ing, while avoiding easy solu ionism and wha some

heoris s have called he derangemen o scale (seeClark; Kember and Zylinska), whereby lling in hala ketle is perceived as doing ones bi or he environ-

men . Ye , even i he An hropocene is abou he ageo man, he e hical hinking i designa es is s ronglypos -an hropocen ric, as indica ed earlier, in he sense

ha i does no consider he human o be he domi-nan or he mos impor an species, nor does is see he world as arranged solely or human use and bene .Te erm does however en ail an appeal o human sin-

gulari y (no o be con used wi h human supremacy),coupled wi h a recogni ion ha we can make a differ-ence o he ongoing dynamic processes aking in he biosphere and he geosphere o which we are par .

Minimal e hics or he An hropocene is no jusan upda ed orm o environmen al e hics: i does nopivo on any coheren no ion o an environmen (or,as men ioned earlier, na ure) as an iden iable en i y bu ra her concerns i sel wi h dynamic rela ions be ween en i ies across various scales such as s emcells, owers, dogs, humans, rivers, elec rici y pylons,compu er ne works, and plane s, o name bu a ew.Tis is why he closes way o describing his kind ominimal e hics would be as an e hics o li e, wi h li eunders ood bo h philosophically and biologically. I ss ar ing premise is ha we humans are making a di -

erence o he arrangemen s o wha we are calling


23/157

Grounding 21

he world. Na urally, we are no he only or even hemos impor an ac ors ha are making such a differ-ence. I would be ex remely naive and shor -sigh ed

o assume ha , as i would be o proclaim ha we canaffec or con rol all occurrences wi hin ha world bu we are perhaps uniquely placed o urn he mak-ing o such difference in o an e hical ask. Tanks oour human abili y o ell s ories and o philosophize,

we can no only grasp he deep his orical s ra ica-ion o values hrough an involvemen in wha GillesDeleuze and Flix Guatari called a geology o mor-als (1987) bu also work ou possibili ies or making beter differences across various scales. While our par-

icipa ion in he differen ia ion o mater is ongoing,requen ly collec ive or dis ribu ed, and ofen uncon-

scious, e hics names a si ua ion when hose processeso differen ia ion are accoun ed or when hey occuras a cogni ive-affec ive effor o rearrange he solidi-ed moral s ra a, wi h a view o producing a betergeo-moral landscape.

Te e hics discussed here is minimal in he senseha i is non-sys emic (i.e., i does no remain roo ed

in any large concep ual sys em) and non-norma ive(which is o say, i does no res on any xed prior values, nor does i pos ula e any rm values in heprocess). Inevi ably, or some readers a non-norma-

ive e hics will be a non sequi ur, a concep ual blindalley ha will no deliver wha i promises. For me,in urn, non-norma ivi y is he only possible way o

hinking e hics and li e generally in a responsible andnon-hubris ic way, rom amids li e i sel . Bu , wary ocapi al-V values, I never heless embark on his projec


24/157


25/157

Grounding 23

In medias res can ac ually serve as a descrip ion o heloca ion o our minimal e hics.

Notes

1. Te book arose rom a success ul lec ure-play a heRoyal Cour in London in which Emmot ook par in

he summer o 2012.

2. Tis is a requen man ra o various heoris s o pos -an hropocen ric hough , principally he ollowers oac or-ne work heory and objec -orien ed on ology: i iseven included in he dedica ion o Levi R. Bryan sTe Democracy o Objec s.


26/157



27/157


28/157

26 Chap er 2

he early universe rom one region o ano her (122).Te preceding s a emen s already posi his somewhaimaginary en i y, he universe, which includes plan-e s, galaxies and he space be ween hem, or, putingi differen ly, all mater and energy ha exis s, or hais ac ively ransmu ing and in errela ing. Te universe

hus serves as a c i ious poin o uni y or an ongo-ing process o he un olding o mater across ime

and space ha supposedly s ar ed around 13.82 bil-lion years ago, wi h an even we have re rospec ivelycalled he Big Bang. (Even hough ongoing, his pro-cess will one day come o a hal . Tere could have also been o her even s and processes be ore he Big Bang, bu we do no know any hing abou hem.)

Te erm scale, rom La inscala , means ladder:

i is a prac ical and concep ual device ha allows uso climb up and down various spa io emporal dimen-sions in order o see hings rom differen viewpoin s. Adop ing a universal scale is here ore inevi ably adynamic process. I involves coming o erms wi h

ime unders ood, afer Bergson, as dura ion, a con in-uous ow in o which we as observers make inser ionsin order o carve ou some solids rom i , o empo-rarily s abilize mater in o en i ies. In an atemp ograsp he passage o ime, we make incisions in i wi hour propriocep ive and cogni ive appara uses, and

hen pass off he produc s o hese incisions as imageso he world. Bringing (back) he universal scale will

hus serve as a reminder or us ha here is an excesso our ac s o world-making and ha i is perhaps

impruden or even irresponsible o orge abou i inall kinds o discussions hose concerning poli ics,


29/157

Scale 27

e hics or even our everyday exis ence. imo hy Clarkpoin s ou ha considera ions o scale end o under-mine many policies, concep s and common-sense belie s abou wha we re er o as our world, since anyeffor s o conduc environmen al re orm in one coun-

ry, say, may be effec ively nega ed by he lack o anysuch effor s in many o her ( requen ly more power-

ul, weal hier and more environmen ally damaging)

loca ions o he globe. Tis orgeting o scale resul sin wha Clark calls a derangemen o linguis ic andin ellec ual propor ion, whereby lling he ketle wi h jus enough wa er o make ea or buying a sligh ly lesspe rol-guzzling make o car are seen as ways o saving

he plane . Ye i is no only many eco-ac ivis s and,more broadly, hose who care abou he environmen

and clima e change, ha suffer rom his kind o sca-lar derangemen . Te later malady also affec s manyscholars in he humani ies, including hose occupy-ing hemselves wi h problems o e hics and morali y. Adop ing a similarly mechanis ic approach o his pre-sumed en i y hey al erna ively call he plane and he world, humani ies hinkers o various heore icalpersuasions in various disciplines rs posi and loca e

his en i y a a dis ance, and hen ry oac on i . Tisleads Clark o conclude ha dominan modes o li -erary and cul ural cri icism are blind o scale effec sin ways ha now need o be addressed (150). Teproblem wi h his plane ary mode o hinking lies in

heapparen grasping o complexi y, which is no hingmore bu a orm o reduc ionism, whereby [r]eceivedconcep s o agency, ra ionali y and responsibili yare being s rained or even begin o all apar in o a


30/157


31/157

Scale 29

make sense may ac ually urn ou o be, accordingo Clark, a orm o in ellec ual and e hical con ain-

men . [] Viewed on very long ime scales, humanhis ory and cul ure can ake on un amiliar shapes,[] al ering concep ions o wha makes some hingimpor an and wha does no . Nonhuman en i ies

ake on a decisive agency (159). Acknowledging hismeans being called o reconsider our no ions o poli-

ics and e hics beyond he conven ional liberal andhuman/is bounds and empla es in he ligh o herecogni ion ha i is no all abou us even i heac o heorizing and reec ing on such poli ics ande hics i sel is o remain, a leas or he ime being, auniquely human ask.

An invi a ion o look a hings on a universal scale

is also mean as an encouragemen or us o swap heelescope or he microscope,4 o change perspec iverom he universal o he quan um, in order o ry

and see o herwise wi hou losing sigh o he com-plex en anglemen s o mater, and usas mater , across various ways, and o he ac ha we are no reallyable o see much a ei her end o he physical spec-

rum. Te no ion o en anglemen is used here in hespecic sense given o i by Karen Barad, or whomExis ence is no an individual affair. According oBarad, Individuals do no preexis heir in erac ions;ra her, individuals emerge hrough and as par o heiren angled in ra-rela ing (ix). From his perspec ive,

he no ion o scale canno be seen as an ex ernal mea-suring s ick ha can be objec ively applied o ime andspace bu is ra her par o he phenomena i atemp s

o measure, as ime and space, like mater and


32/157

30 Chap er 2

meaning, come in o exis ence, are i era ively recon-gured hrough each in ra-ac ion, hereby makingi impossible o differen ia e in any absolu e sense be ween crea ion and renewal, beginning and re urn-ing, con inui y and discon inui y (ix). Te on ol-ogy o he world is here ore ha o en anglemen . Ien ails he cons an un olding o mater across ime bu also a emporary s abiliza ion o mater in o

en i ies (or ra her, hings we and o her nonhumanbeings recognize as en i ies) in order o execu e cer-ain ac s and per orm cer ain asks. Only very ew ohese ac s will be pre-planned and conscious. Ye i is

precisely his perhaps ra her narrow domain o a leaspar ly conscious ac ivi y under aken by en angled beings who have his orically alloca ed o hemselves

he name humans ha becomes a eld o ac ion orhe minimal e hics ou lined here.Tis mode o hinking on a universal scale migh

seem o be seamlessly and unproblema ically aligned wi h o her modes o big hinking curren ly en vogue, such as big his ory or ubiqui ous compu ing. Ye , in heir upscaling and downscaling effor s, helater approaches more ofen han no urn ou o be jus no deep enough because hey overlook oo muchin he process. Tis is why Sarah Kember and I, in ourar icle Media Always and Everywhere: A Cosmic Approach, have drawn on a principle ha pos ula es

he jus righ size or amoun o be applied in eachpar icular case, while no losing sigh o he wider hori-zon. Called he Goldilocks principle, his houghdevice is used in elds such as compu ing, biology oreconomics o sugges ha a given phenomenon needs


33/157

Scale 31

o remain wi hin cer ain margins and avoid reachingex remes. Te erm is developed rom a childrenss ory Te Tree Bears, in which a litle girl namedGoldilocks sneaks in o a house inhabi ed by hree

urry crea ures, rying o make hersel com or ablein i . On iden i ying he jus righ porridge, chairand bed, he respassing litle pro o- eminis is made

o ace he ira e bears, who chase her away rom heir

house. For Kember and me, Goldilocks inscribes i selin he long line o eminis gura ions such as hecyborg or he nomad proposed by hinkers such asDonna Haraway and Rosi Braidoti.5 Te cyborg and

he nomad read oreign erri ories as uninvi ed gues s wi h a view o ou lining an al erna ive poli ical imagi-nary. Te role o Goldilocks in hinking on he univer-

sal scale is o make us aware o our own derangemen s when sliding up and down he his orical or even geo-logical pole all oo smoo hly, o recognize some block-ages on i , and o add some s oppage poin s hersel .I is here ore o provide a jus righ assessmen ouniversali y.

A Goldilocks-con rolled universali y can help usenac he pos -masculinis ra ionali y men ioned in

he rs chap er, which is a orm o ra ionali y ha , inacknowledging he mul iscalar proper ies o he universe, eschews any atemp s o collapse hose scalesin order o ell a o alizing s ory abou i . A minimale hics hus envisaged is hus inevi ably a orm o prag-ma ics. I involves recognizing, as well as under aking,pragma ic emporary s abiliza ions o ime and ma -

er. Minimal e hical s a emen s can be unders ood asar icula ions, rom La inar icula io (separa ion in o


34/157

32 Chap er 2

join s), as hey bo h link hings oge her and enaca separa ion be ween hem in order o say some hingabou he rela ions o he world, and abou our pos-sible modes con ribu ion o developing and man-aging hose rela ions. E hical ar icula ions here orealways per orm an on ological unc ion: hey s abilizeand organize he universe or us, bu in a way ha is

o bene no jus us bu alsohe universe as such. I is

in his sense ha e hics precedes on ology: no on alinear scale bu ra her in he sense o making a priordemand on us.

Seeing hings across differen scales is more hanan atemp o represen he universe: i ac ively pro-duces en i ies and rela ions. I is in his sense haseeing is already a doing (Barad 51), wi h concep s

being unders ood as specic physical arrangemen s,no mere idea ions (54). Such an approach makes oheorizing an embodied prac ice, ra her han a spec-a or spor o ma ching linguis ic represen a ions o

pre-exis ing hings (Barad 54). Consequen ly, heminimal e hics I am ou lining here needs o be anembedded and embodied prac ice; i needs o involvea ma erial working ou o he rela ions be ween en i-

ies and o heir varying orces, ins ead o relying on apriorisys emic norma ivi y. rue o i s name hough,i does adop some minimal principles, he rs oneo which is he recogni ion o he en angled posi ion-ing o he human in, or ra her wi h, he universe and auniquely human responsibili y or ha universe. Taresponsibili y is also minimal, in he sense ha i doesno involve any pre-decided values and rules. I onlycarries an injunc ion o mobilize he human acul ies


35/157

Scale 33

o reasoning and sensing, and o ar icula ing hough sand affec s hrough he his orically ou lined prac iceo philosophy (or, more specically, e hics as a prac-

ice o bo h value orma ion and reec ion on i ), inorder o respond o he processes and rela ions o heuniverse some o which may direc ly involve hehuman. Tis inheren connec edness o he universeshould no be unders ood as linkages among preex-

is ing nes ed scales bu as he agen ial en olding o di -eren scales hrough one ano her (so ha , or exam-ple, he differen scales o individual bodies, homes,communi ies, regions, na ions, and he global are noseen as geome rically nes ed in accordance wi h somephysical no ion o size bu ra her are unders ood as being in ra-ac ively produced hrough one ano her)

(Barad 245). Te no ion o in ra-ac ion as opposedo he concep o in erac ion, which assumes anencoun er be ore previously s abilized en i iespoin s o he inheren dynamism o mater, whichonly becomes some hing in rela ion o some hingelse, over and over again. Na urally, he majori y osuch in ra-ac ions across differen scales are beyondhuman ken. Minimal e hics re ers precisely o his verynarrow spec rum o he universes in ra-ac ions or which he human is able o ake a leas some degreeo responsibili y ma erially, concep ually and mor-ally. I is his par ialabili y o do his , ra her han a priorresolu ion ohow o do i , ha serves as a iny corner-pebble o our minimal e hics or he An hropocene.


36/157


37/157


38/157



39/157

Chap er 3

Process

Tere has been a endency in recen years amongscul ural heoris s o various ilk o speak abou processand rela ionali y as he dominan modes o cap ur-ing he uns able on ology o wha we conven ionallyre er o as he world. So-called process philosophy,expounded by hinkers such as Friedrich Nie zsche,

Gilles Deleuze or A.N. Whi ehead, oregroundschange as he key aspec s o he becoming o he ma -er o he world and o our becoming ma erial in he

world. Te world i sel , as we will discuss la er on, isseen here as no hing more han a emporary men alorganiza ion, under aken by he spa ially embeddedand embodied human, o he various processes o which his human is par . Process philosophy pos u-la es wha could be described as a uid on ology, where being is no dened hrough subs ances wi h

heir supposedly inheren and immu able proper ies bu is ra her seen as dynamic and cons an ly chang-ing. Even hough he roo s o process philosophy can be raced back o he ideas o he Greek philosopherHeracli us, wi h his heory o he universal ux, hisphilosophical ramework has always cons i u ed amore marginal line o hinking wi hin he Wes ern


40/157

38 Chap er 3

epis emic edice. Ye processual hinking has recen lygained a new lease o li e hrough i s (no alwaysunproblema ic) encoun ers wi h scien ic develop-men s in quan um physics, cosmology and molecu-lar biology, developmen s ha poin o he inherenins abili y and changeabili y o he universe a bo hpar icle and cosmic level. Te growing in eres inprocess philosophy can be seen as an atemp o over-

come he inheren bias o Wes ern me aphysics, whichhas shaped many s a ic concep s and assump ions haunderpin our language and worldview.

Te argumen developed in his book remainsaligned wi h he processual mode o hinking abou wha our language radi ionally describes as reali y, bu i also s ays atuned o he possible disrup ions o

he ow o li e encapsula ed by his ramework eveni i does no go all he way owards replacing he pro-cessual ramework wi h a (so-called) objec -orien edone. Ye i is hese disrup ions o he process ha , rs ,allow us o see he processas a process , and, second,

ha make he process in eres ing as an even . I is pre-cisely hrough hese disrup ions ha li e ge s empo-rarily s abilized, ha i presen s i selo us as a serieso s a es and objec s. Many process philosophers doin ac acknowledge ha here are emporally s ableand reliably recurren aspec s o reali y. Bu hey akesuch aspec s o persis ence o be he regular behavioro dynamic organiza ions ha arise due o he con-

inuously ongoing in erac ion o processes (Seibnon-pag.). I is impor an o recognize ha hese

emporary s abiliza ions, which can be described ascu s made o he ow o li e , occur bo h a he level o


41/157

Process 39

mater and (human) mind. Some o hese cu s are,o use Karen Barads erm, agen ial, which is o sayhey enac a resolu ion wi hin he phenomenon ohe inheren on ological (and seman ic) inde ermi-

nacy (140) al hough no all o hese agen ial cu shave a corresponding human agen ha enac s hem.Te recogni ion o he ou comes o hose cu s is anepis emological ac ivi y: his is how we make sense,

cogni ively and affec ively, o he chaos o he world.Te ac o aking responsibili y or hose, perhaps rare,cu s which we humans are capable o enac ing (or noenac ing) is in urn wha I am dening hroughou

his book as an e hical endeavor.Henri Bergson is one o he process philosophers

who can be o help o us in geting o grips wi h he

process-en i y dualism. HisCrea ive Evolu ion is anatemp o encourage us o overcome he ossilizedhabi s o our mind. Te mind inevi ably spa ializes

ime by cuting i s ow in o wha he calls solids, husmaking us miss ou on he rue essence o li e, or wha we migh call i s li eness. Indeed, or Bergson, ourin ellec is unable o grasp rue dura ion because i isonly a home working on iner mater, bu he ow o

ime requires us o adjus i s somewha mechanical working (169). I our exis ence were composed osepara e s a es wi h an impassive ego o uni e hem,

or us here would be no dura ion, wri es Bergson(6). Bergsons philosophy o ime is here ore primar-ily in ui ive or, we migh even say, experien ial, a poinhe ar icula es in his res a emen o he Heracli eanriver dilemma: consciousness canno go hrough hesame s a e wice (8). For Bergson, ime and dura ion


42/157

40 Chap er 3

provide he organizing logic o he universe, a houghhe expresses as ollows: he ru h is ha we change wi hou ceasing, and ha he s a e i sel is no hing buchange (4). o deal wi h his incessan dura ion, weneed o urn o in ui ion o recap ure a more ins inc-

ual way o grasping li e ha allows us o apprehendha which is in process. Ye Bergsons observa ionha No doub , i is use ul o us, in view o our ul erior

manipula ion, o regard each objec as divisible in opar s arbi rarily cu up, each par being again divisibleas we like, and so on ad inni um (169-70) signals acer ain inevi able i reluc an pragma ism en ailed inhis argumen , one ha brings up s a es even i in order

o debunk hem.Te differen ia ion be ween process and en i y is

i sel premised on he possibili y o he human s ep-ping ou side he world she is describing in order osay some hing abou i . However, his is no o say

ha process is all ha is. I is ra her o recognize haprocess and en i y are erms we humans use odescribe, however clumsily, he differen speeds andscales a which he rans orma ions o mater are ak-ing place in he universe and o acknowledge ha

hese rans orma ions mater o us humans in differ-en ways. Derrida makes a similar poin when reply-ing o Bernard S iegler in Echographies o elevision in heir discussion o he echnical process and whai involves (inciden ally, or S iegler as much as orDerrida, echne is originary o li e, including humanli e, ra her han being a mere produc o human ac iv-i y). Derrida says: o speak o a echnical process, andindeed o i s accelera ion, mus n lead us o overlook


43/157

Process 41

he ac ha his ux, even i i picks up speed, none-heless passes hroughde erminedphases and s ruc-ures (76). He is concerned wi h he way he erm

process ends o be used as a pre ex or saying:I s a ow, a con inuous developmen ; here isno hingbu process (76). Consis en wi h he decons ruc-

ive logic ha shapes his philosophical endeavor, oneha shows seemingly opposing erms as each o hers

condi ions o possibili y when hey emerge as par oour human discourse in he shape o ools ha help usmake sense o he world, Derrida insis s: No, here isno onlyprocess. Or a leas , process always includess ases, s a es, hal s (76). Tis kind o argumen has been branded correla ionis by Quen in Meillassouxand o her proponen s o he recen ly ashionable spec-

ula ive realism, in he sense ha humans are seem-ingly unable o envisage he world in isola ion romhemselves and heir own concerns. Ye his is no hing

o he kind. Te world (or ra her wha we are callinghe world) does o course un old and ac in a myriad

ways ou side and beyond us, many o which we areunable o see, experience and grasp. However, or us

o be able o say any hing abou i , o engage in anykind o philosophizing, we are a he same ime bring-ing or h his world in a necessarily cu -up, solidiedand inadequa e way, or which we urnish ourselves wi h concep s such as adequacy and ru h in order

o assess our effor s, as well as effor s o hose whosemodes o hinking are no aligned wi h our own.Many seem oblivious o his ac , engaging ins ead as

hey do in he cons ruc ion o on ological edices ha


44/157

42 Chap er 3

oa like palaces in he sky and hen passing hemoff as descrip ions o reali y on o o hers.

Te linguis ic acroba ics we are inevi ably engagedin here go beyond a mere exercise in represen a-

ionalism or me aphor-produc ion. In his readingo Bergsons use o concep s, John Mullarkey poin sou ha i he language o process corresponds oprocess-reali y ha is because i also proceeds as a pro-

cess-reali y , ra her han because i is a s a ic image oi (154; emphasis added). In o her words, languagedoes no so much atemp o (and ail o atemp o)cap ure li e bu ra her enac s i , or us humans, in acer ain way. Te dis inc ion be ween process anden i y is here ore a heuris ic, a concep ual device

ha helps us grasp he world and respond o i , while

a he same ime moving in i and being moved by i .Te dis inc ion is here ore bo h an on ological cuand an e hical device. aking on he role o an injunc-

ion, i calls on us humans o respond o he move-men ha carries us hrough he world. Signican ly,

or im Ingold humans do no livein he world bura her movehrough i . He uses he erm way aring

o describe he embodied experience o his per-ambula ory movemen (2011: 148). Movemen isalso a way o geting o know he world, according oIngold, where knowledge is no seen as classica ory bu ra her as s oried, being cons an ly under con-s ruc ion (159). Indeed, he goes so ar as o sugges

ha movemen i sel is knowing (160), challengingin his way he rigid axonomies we cons ruc abou

he world and hus oreclose i , make i li eless, or oci e Bergson solid.


45/157


46/157

44 Chap er 3

clima e change as a mater o individual moral deci-sions one is obliged o ake, while comple ely blank-ing ou he scale o phenomena we are acing, phe-nomena such as he overexploi a ion o oceans, heloss o ropical rain ores s and woodlands, he rise ina mospheric brown clouds as a resul o wood burn-ing and oil use, and he overconsump ion o wa er(including so-called hidden wa er, i.e., wa er used

o produce o her hings) and mea .6 Even he genericcall or he pro ec ion o li e is misguided, even i well-in en ioned, because i , somewha hubris ically, urnsli e in o an objec , one ha needs pro ec ion and hais posi ed as separa ed rom us humans so hawe canofferi pro ec ion, while equipping us wi h a God-like

an asy ha we can indeed con rol and regula e i . In a

ruly Bergsonian vein, Ingold argues ha An unders anding o he uni y o li e in

erms o genealogical rela edness is bougha he cos o cuting ou every single organ-ism rom he rela ional ma rix in which ilives and grows. In his unders anding, li epresen s i sel o our awareness no as he

in erlaced meshwork, amously invoked byCharles Darwin in his image o he en an-gled bank (Darwin 1950: 64, see Chap er6, p. 84), bu ra her as an immense schemeo classica ion nowadays going by hename o biodiversi y in which everyindividual is assigned o a specic axon

(species, genus) on he basis o cover atribu es, comprising he geno ype, ha i is


47/157

Process 45

deemed o possess in advance o heir phe-no ypic expression in a real-world environ-men (Ingold 2000a: 217). (2011: 163)

A minimal injunc ion or our e hics o he An hropocene would no here ore call on hose o us who call ourselves human o pro ec li e a all cos bu ra her o recognize ha li e i sel is a sys em con-s i u ed by a dynamic movemen o orces, ha imei sel is movemen , ha we are jus way arers in he world, and ha microbes were here be ore us (seeEldredge) and will no doub survive us. Such e hicsmay seem erribly ineffec ive bu , given he ineffec-

ivi y o he more grandiose sounding programs andunder akings as described above, perhaps a mod-es experimen in reimagining li e and in hinkingand living cri ically can ac ually be seen as a viableand vi al al erna ive? Tis recogni ion o way aringas a cri ical model o engaging o herwise involvesacknowledging, wi h Lynn Margulis, ha Nei heranimal nor plan is an e ernal ca egory o classica-

ion (56), ha Animals and plan s are ar more simi-lar o each o her han hey are o all he o her kinds

o Ear h li e (56) and, las bu no leas , ha ex inc-ion as a orm o movemen is par and parcel ohe process.

Tis recogni ion does no have o amoun o a al-ism: i carries a ask or us ransien human animals

o s ar guring ou ways o moving beter, o dying beter, and o becoming ex inc beter, while no los-

ing sigh o he ac ha any no ion o goodness wi h regard o li e is always species-specic and hence


48/157

46 Chap er 3

inevi ably an agonis ic owards i s o her ar icula ionsand enac men s across o her scales. Minimal e hicscan here ore be said o re er loosely o a se o ac ions we can under ake once we have in ui ively grasped

his cons an movemen o li e, o which we are par ,and hen urned o our compromised and imper ec

acul y o reason which is perhaps primarily a s ory-elling acul y in order o ell beter s ories abou li e

in he universe, and abou li e (and dea h)o he universe. Read on an evolu ionary non-an hropocen ricscale, ex inc ion is an inevi able process o he wi h-ering away o any species, a process agains whichhuman atemp s o adap beter mus look hubris-

ically naive. I he human canno armor himselagains ex inc ion, i s looming prospec opens up he

ques ion o li e more generally, and o how we wisho live wha ever ime is lef or he human species(Colebrook 2012: non-pag.). Evolu ion and ex inc-

ion here ore open up he ques ion o e hics.

Notes

6. For more on hese issues see imo hy Clark,Derangemen s o Scale and S ephen Emmot,en Billion.


49/157


50/157



51/157

Chap er 4

Evolution

Tis chap er provides some ur her his orical andin ellec ual con ex or he e hical projec under-

aken in his book. I is hrough he s ory o evolu-ion unders ood as bo h narra ive and ac , as he

un olding o his ory as well as he very possibili y ohis ory ha he con ex ualiza ion o minimal e hics

will ake place in wha ollows. Te problem o con-ex is impor an , par ly because con ex ualiza ion issome hing ha any pragma ic approach o e hics musembark upon and par ly because here is no hing ou -side con ex (Derrida 1988: 136).7 Tis later s a e-men does no indica e ha our minimal e hics will berela ivis , as con ex ualiza ion is simply inevi able. Ino her words, here can be no e hics ha would remainsepara e rom he con ex in which i opera es, eveni , orespecially i his e hics is o be hough acrossdifferen scales. Tis ac o pragma ic recogni ionrequires us o abandon any an asy o speaking abouuniversally applicable ru hs, values and morals. Such

hings simply do no exis , and indeed canno exisal hough here are many dispensers o morali y who

ry o persuade us o herwise. Paradoxical as i maysound, a call o consider hings across differen scales


52/157

50 Chap er 4

is an atemp o avoid any kind o universaliza iono e hics, and o acknowledge he limi a ions o hehuman worldview. In o her words, we mus recognize

ha he human only ever carves ou small sec ions ohe universe, a process hrough which s/he produces

ideas and en i ies. Overcoming he presump ionha man is he measure o all hings, minimal e h-

ics which we have ermed pos -an hropocen ric, or

(afer Karen Barad and Rosi Braidoti), pos human-is will no be held cap ive o he dis ance scale ohe human bu will ra her remain aten ive o he

prac ices by which scale is produced (Barad 136).Te impera ive o engage, ma erially and concep u-ally al hough inevi ably in a way ha is res ric ed by our loca edness in a iny sec ion o space- ime

wi h scalar processes and effec s across he universe ishere ore he rs condi ion o minimal e hics. Tis isprecisely wha I mean when I say ha his e hics needs

o be hough on a universal scale , even i i i sel willremaindecidedly non-universalis .

One major issue ha he ques ion o scale requiresus o re hink in our in erroga ion o human on ologyand human his ory is he differen ia ion be ween biol-ogy and cul ure upon which he division be ween sci-ences and humani ies has been premised. Ye he mainsource o he problem is no so much he cona ion o

he cul ural wi h he biological, as explained by imIngold in his ar icle Beyond Biology and Cul ure:Te Meaning o Evolu ion in a Rela ional World, bura her he reduc ion o he biological o he gene ic, amode o hinking ha s ill in orms modern evolu ion-ary heory. Even hough he majori y o biologis s are


53/157


54/157

52 Chap er 4

and unmaking he opological boundaries. Tis bringsus o a concep ualiza ion o li e as he crea ive po en-

ial o a dynamic eld o rela ionships in which spe-cic beings emerge and ake he orms hey do, eachin rela ion o he o hers. In ha sense, li e is no somuchin organisms as organismsin li e (Ingold 2004:219). Arguably, such a mode o hinking was alreadya work in Darwins early heory o evolu ion bu , in

i s la er incarna ions, such as Henry Spencers heoryo na ural selec ion as encapsula ed by he concepo he survival o he tes (la er eviden in heins rumen alism o evolu ionary biology), i became

ransla ed in o a linear orce wi h a se o predesignedasks o accomplish. Bergsons 1907 bookCrea ive

Evolu ion was an atemp o coun er such a eleological

and ins rumen alis reading o evolu ion. Te ongoingengagemen wi h Bergsonian hough in con empo-rary humani ies may be seen o be inspired by a desire

o recap ure ha orgoten vi ali y o li e. As explained in he previous chap er, Bergsons

argumen inCrea ive Evolu ion is premised on he cri-ique o he human in ellec . Ra her han seeing i as

a pinnacle o evolu ionary developmen , he posi ionshe in ellec as a ossilized produc o evolu ion ha is

s ruc urally incapable o presen ing he rue na ure oli e, he ull meaning o he evolu ionary movemen in

he course o i s way, and hus a regression as muchas a progression (xx). Bergson jus ies his conclusion by explaining ha he in ellec deals only wi h sol-ids, emporarily s abilized images and concep s o

he world which we ake or he laters rue s a es andheir represen a ions. However, on aking cognizance


55/157

Evolu ion 53

o hem, we are simul aneously overlooking he wider background, or we could saycon ex : ha o dura-

ion and o li es con inuous un olding. Tis is whyBergson encourages us o urn o in ui ion, a modeo apprehending he world which bridges ins inc ualac ions and reac ions wi h our habi s o hough inorder o recap ure wha he in ellec has banned us

rom experiencing. I mater has a endency o con-

s i u eisolable sys ems, ha can be rea ed geome ri-cally, Bergson acknowledges ha his is jus a en-dency, since mater does no go o he end, and heisola ion is never comple e (13). Reconnec ing hein ellec back o in ui ion can help us experience he vibran vi ali y o mater, i s ongoing dynamism andproduc ivi y. He goes on o argue ha [ ]he universe

endures, which means ha by s udying he na ureo ime we shall comprehend ha dura ion meansinven ion, he crea ion o orms, he con inual elabo-ra ion o he absolu ely new (14). I is in his sense

ha evolu ion or Bergson is crea ive ra her han pre-planned and mechanis ic.

In he ligh o he preceding argumen wi hregard o he ongoing dura ion o he universe, wecan see biology and cul ure as mu ually en angledprocesses ha differ in degree, bu no in kind, ouse Bergsonian erminology. A similar view has beenembraced by proponen s o he so-called big his-

ory model, which si ua es human his ory along ara her more expansive scale. Simply pu , big his ory isa modern science-based crea ion s ory ha s ar s wi h

he Big Bang and ends wi h i s en ropic coun erpar :he End o he Universe. One o i s main proponen s,


56/157

54 Chap er 4

David Chris ian, explains in his magis erial work, Maps o ime: An In roduc ion o Big His ory , ha even

hough here exis some undamen al similari ies inhe na ure o all change in he universe, he ask ohe big his ory projec is o explain how he rules o

change vary a differen scales. However, he also goeson o claim ha : Human his oryis differen romcosmological his ory; bu i is noo allydifferen

(7). I evolu ion occurs across differen scales and adifferen speeds and i , on a human scale, we call icul ure or his ory, while on he scale o he geo-logical epochs (e.g. he Pleis ocene, he Holocene, henewly posi ed An hropocene) we re er o i as biol-ogy hen he argumen abou he supposed pur-pose ulness o i s un olding is no really sus ainable,

especially when we consider mul iple evolu ionary blind alleys and alse s ar s.Te later line o hinking has been developed mos

power ully by he Polish au hor S anisaw Lem, whois bes known o English readers as a science c ion wri er bu who also penned a number o philosophi-cal commen aries on science, echnology and evolu-

ion he mos accomplished o which is his 1964rea ise on u urology, echnology, and science called

Summa echnologiae. Serving as a perhaps unwitingcoun erpoin o he idealism ha underpins BergsonsCrea ive Evolu ion wi h i s no ion o vi al impe us(lan vi al), LemsSumma offers a much more sober,even ironic view o evolu ion, one ha is roo ed in hescien ic me hod and in skep icism.9 Lems inves iga-

ion in o he parallel processes involved in biologicaland echnical evolu ion, and his explora ion o he


57/157

Evolu ion 55

consequences o such parallelism, provide an impor-an philosophical and empirical ounda ion or con-

cep s ha many humani ies scholars use somewhaloosely oday, such as li e, en anglemen and rela-

ionali y, while also s ripping hese concep s o any vi alis hubris. For Lem, evolu ion jus happened, we migh say. Tis way o hinking is no doub a blow

o an hropocen rism, which posi ions he human, and

human consciousness, as he pinnacle o all crea ion.For Lem no only did evolu ion no have any planor overarching idea behind i s ac ions, i also seems

o have moved in a series o jumps which were ull omis akes, alse s ar s, repe i ions, and blind alleys. Heargues ha any atemp o delinea e a s raigh genea-logical line o man would be comple ely u ile, given

ha atemp s o descend o ear h and walk on wo eehad been made by living beings over and over againin he course o he evolu ionary process. As Polishcri ic and au hor o many publica ions on Lem, Jerzy Jarzbski, poin s ou , Lem also draws an impor andis inc ion be ween biological evolu ion and heevolu ion o reason, rejec ing he assump ion ha anincrease in he later au oma ically means improveddesign capaci y. Preda ing Richard Dawkins idea oevolu ion as a blind wa chmaker by over wo decades,Lems view o evolu ion is no jus non-roman ic; i isalso ra her ironic as mani es ed in he closing chap-

er oSumma , A Lampoon o Evolu ion. Evolu ionis described here as oppor unis ic, shor -sigh ed,miserly, ex ravagan , chao ic, and illogical in i s designsolu ions. Lem wri es:


58/157

56 Chap er 4

We know very litle abou he way in whichEvolu ion makes i s grea discoveries, i srevolu ions. Tey do happen: hey consisin crea ing new phyla. I goes wi hou say-ing ha also here evolu ion proceeds grad-ually here is no o her way. Tis is why we can accuse i o comple e randomness.Phyla do no develop as a resul o adap a-

ions or care ully arranged changes bu area consequence o lo s drawn in he evolu-ionary lotery excep very ofen, here is

no op prize. (341)Te produc o evolu ion ha is o mos in eres ous i.e., he human is seen by Lem as he las relico na ure, which is i sel in he process o being rans-

ormed beyond recogni ion by he invasion o ech-nology he human has in roduced in o his body andenvironmen . Tere is no mourning o his impendingchange on Lems par hough, no atemp o de endna ures ways and preserve he essen ial organic uni yo he human, since he later is seen o be bo h ran-sien and o some ex en c i ious.

And ye , even hough none o he en i ies in heuniverse are indeed pre-planned or necessary, andeven hough he human unc ions as a c i ious poino uni y in he non-purpose ul un olding o evolu ion,one ha in ime will no doub will be overcome byo her orms o maters s abiliza ion, he humans em-porary presence in he dura ion o hings poses him/

her wi h a unique responsibili y. I is he na ure ohis unique human responsibili y wi hin evolu ionary


59/157

Evolu ion 57

his ory ha I am par icularly in eres ed in exploringin his book. Wi hou rejec ing his dura ional evo-lu ionary ramework o varying speeds, I here ore wan o signal ha we should perhaps remain cau-

ious abou presen ing oo nea an analogy be weendifferen emporali ies and scales. However, ra her

han engage in on ological o-ing and ro-ing by ry-ing o ei her de end an analogy or even con igui y, or

pos ula e an inassimilable difference, be ween he woypes o evolu ion, and, more broadly, be ween biol-ogy and cul ure, I wan o sugges , ye again, ha we

urn ins ead o e hical ques ions ha he deba e opens be ore us. Indeed, he problem wi h he big his oryapproach is no ha i akes us beyond he realm o

he human o look a larger scales bu ra her ha ha i

na uralizes (in a s raigh orwardly humanis manner)he concep o complexi y across ci ies and cells, wi hhe echnological even s o human his ory perceived

as plane ary even s wi hou any deeper socio-poli icalcon ex or signicance. Mater does no end up ma -

ering here very much: i s only orien a ion being i sinscribed decay, which we as humans mus do every-

hing o preven . Sys emic equilibrium, unders oodin hermodynamic erms as energy conserva ion,is here ore he goal o he big his orical projec . IBig His orians have a philosophy o media and ech-nology, i is an en ropic one. Tey share wi h poli i-cians and indus rialis s he belie ha wha damns usmay also save us and so negen ropy comes o be g-ured as sus ainabili y. In he wake o hermodynam-ics, sus ainabili y has i s own hree laws: popula ioncon rol, clima e change con rol and environmen al


60/157

58 Chap er 4

equilibrium (Kember and Zylinska XX). Pos ula ingan underlying uni y (Chris ian xxiv) o hings, bighis ory shores up he An hropocene as a cross-scalarscarecrow gure, one ha banishes he s udy o li -era ure, ar , sociology, poli ics, philosophy and eco-nomics o he dus bin o human his ory. Te problem wi h big his ory is here ore rs o all poli ico-e hicalra her han on ological in ha i pu s orward a se o

implici echnicis xes o he An hropocene, wi h-ou reec ing on i s own embeddedness in he ne - work o human(is ) sel -possession and sel -in eres .

aking seriously Rosi Braidotis injunc ion o exer-cise civic responsibili y or he role o he academic

oday (2013: 10), he chap ers ha ollow will makemore use o hese old s yle humani ies disciplines o

come up wi h a beter mode o hinking hese poli icaland e hical ques ions, hus hope ully con ribu ing in asmall way owards he developmen o a pos -humani-

ies ramework.10

Notes

7. Tere is no hing ou side con ex is ano her possibleransla ion offered by Derrida o his amous s a emen ,il

n'y a pas de hors- ex e ( here is no hing ou side he ex ), which some have mis akenly reduced o jus saying halanguage is all here is.

8. Ingold argues ha his implied essen ialisa ion o biology as a cons an o human being, and o cul ure

as i s variable and in erac ive complemen , is no jusclumsily imprecise. I is he single major s umbling block ha up o now has preven ed us rom moving


61/157

Evolu ion 59

owards an unders anding o our human selves, and o

our place in he living world, ha does no endlesslyrecycle he polari ies, paradoxes and prejudices o wes ern hough (2004: 217).

9. Te ma erial on Lem included in his and he nexchap er has been par ly reworked rom he in roduc ionI wro e o my ransla ion oSumma , Evolu ion May BeGrea er Tan he Sum o I s Par s, Bu I s No All TaGrea : On LemsSumma echnnologiae, which came ou wi h he Universi y o Minneso a Press in 2013.

10. In her bookTe Pos human Braidoti recognises heimpor ance o de ending he legacy o he humani iesas an academic discipline, especially in he ligh o

he cri ique his discipline is curren ly receiving inhe neoliberal poli ical regime. Her agenda or pos -

human Humani ies, premised on a radical reinves menin cri ical hough and a crea ive engagemen wi h

echnology, is ou lined in he ollowing erms: Te

image o hough implied in he pos -an hropocen ricdeni ion o he Human goes much ur her in hedecons ruc ion o he subjec , because i s resses radicalrela ionali y, ha is o say non-uni ary iden i ies andmul iple allegiances. As his shif occurs in a globalizedand conic -ridden world, i opens up new challengesin erms o bo h pos -secular and pos -na ionalisperspec ives [] Agains he prophe s o doom, I wan o argue ha echnologically media ed pos -

an hropocen rism can enlis he resources o bio-gene iccodes, as well as elecommunica ion, new media andin orma ion echnologies, o he ask o renewing

he Humani ies. Pos human subjec ivi y reshapeshe iden i y o humanis ic prac ices, by s ressing

he eronomy and mul i- ace ed rela ionali y, ins eado au onomy and sel -re eren ial disciplinary puri y(2013: 144-45).


62/157



63/157


64/157

62 Chap er 5

pos humanis posi ions bring in humanism and o herorms o essen ialism hrough he back door o heirheories anyway, under he guise o concep s such as

love, kindness, rela ionali y and co-emergence (seeZylinska 2012).

Tis (non- or pos -humanis ) human one hacould be writen in quo a ion marks, placed undererasure, or, as I have done here, preceded by a quali-

ying adjec ive en ails he realiza ion on he paro many heoris s who s ill keep using his erm ha we are in (philosophical) rouble as soon as we s arspeaking abou he human, bu i also shows a cer ainin ransigence ha makes (some o ) us hang on o he ves iges o he concep ha has s ruc ured our hink-ing and philosophy or many cen uries. Tere is no

doub some hing narcissis ic abou his enquiry in ohe ins abili y o he human, inevi ably conduc ed bya human subjec , as is perhaps abou he very prac iceo philosophy. Bu i narcissism is our way o rela ing,no mater i in a hospi able or violen way, o wha wesee as being differen rom us, hen we should work

owards wha Derrida has called a welcoming, hos-pi able narcissism, one ha is much more open o

he experience o he o her as o her (1995: 199)even i his o her is already par o us. Te we o

his sen ence re ers precisely o his cri iqued, erasedand qualied human, bu he later needs o be seenas an e hical injunc ion direc ed a hose o us whocan ge involved in he prac ices o hinking wha imeans o live a good li e, in a pro essional or ama eurcapaci y, ra her han as any s able on ological designa-

ion. Ins ead, he human is posi ioned here a s ra egic


65/157

Humani y 63

designa ion ha allows or he ormula ion and under-s anding o injunc ions and e hical asks o all kinds,one ha remains aware o he his ory o philosophyand o i s cri ique.

Te plurali y o his human we in he e hicalcon ex is no wi hou problems: Emmanuel Levinasclaims ha e hical obliga iononly ever applies o me.For Levinas, I am pu in he passivi y o an unde-

clinable assigna ion, in he accusa ive, a sel . No as apar icular case o he universal, an ego belonging ohe concep o ego, bu as I, said in he rs person

I, unique in my genus (1998: 139). I ismy anxie yabou dea h andmy awareness o my own mor al-i y ha place me on a linear and ni e emporal scale while also crea ing a se o possibili ies o be real-

ized wi hin ha scale. Tese possibili ies include heul ima e possibili y o hings coming o an end: heyen ail he end o me as a specimen o humans and

he end o he human as a species. We may here orego so ar as o sugges ha Levinas e hics, which we will discuss in more de ail la er on, can be seen as a parexcellence e hical ramework or he An hropocene because i makes me ace up o he ques ion o ex inc-

ion across differen scales. Te humanism o Levinasown e hics aside,12 he perhaps unabashedly narcis-sis ic singulari y o he I o ha ramework i selposes us wi h a problem. Tis problem was poignan lycap ured by imo hy Mor on, whose book o eco-cri icism, Ecology wi hou Na ure , has been inspired

o some ex en by Levinas no ion o responsibili y.Offering an accoun o his own wri erly effor s o ell


66/157

64 Chap er 5

a philosophical s ory o wha coun s as Na ure andhow we humans perceive i differen ly, Mor on wri es:

Te more I ry o evoke where I am heI who is wri ing his ex he morephrases and gures o speech I musemploy. I mus ge involved in a processo wri ing, he very wri ing ha I am nodescribing when I evoke he environ-men in which wri ing is aking place. Temore convincingly I render my surround-ings, he more gura ive language I endup wi h. Te more I ry o show you whalies beyond his page, he more o a page Ihave. And he more o a c ional I I have-spliting me in o he one who is wri ingand he one who is being writen abou

he less convincing I sound. (2007: 30)Tis kind o vacilla ion can perhaps be dismissed byenemies o cri ical heory as philosophical navel-gaz-ing, ye he suspension o human mas ery he mas-

ery claimed bo h over himsel and he universe ien ails does provide a more viable grounding or ane hical posi ion ha deems i sel minimal. I alsoserves as a cau ion agains any atemp s o issue s ronge hical injunc ions rom his posi ion, atemp s haseemingly orge abou our human loca edness in evo-lu ions deep his ory.

A more processual unders anding oevolu ionaerm Bergson uses in erchangeably wi h no ions such

asmovemen andli e will help us in ui ha here isno nali y o evolu ionary movemen and, here ore,


67/157

Humani y 65

ha he line o evolu ion ha ends in man is no heonly one (Bergson xxii). Chemis Pe er Bu ko poin sou ha we humans are no he crowning achieve-men o evolu ion, and i would indeed be s range ievolu ion s opped now (102). However, even hough we humans are jus a emporary s abiliza ion in henon-purpose ul un olding o he evolu ionary process,our emergence in and wi h li e arguably does pose us

wi h a unique responsibili y. Tis responsibili y ispar ly his orical, i.e., i is connec ed wi h our evolvedabili y o pu our in ui ion and in ellec o cer ain usesin order o reec on wha makes li e good, and how omake li e beter or ourselves and or o hers whilerecognizing ha here may exis an inheren an ago-nism be ween differen en i ies and species in judging,

or simply experiencing, such goodness. Tose o hersdo no o course have o be human or even comple elyex ernal o us: he universe i sel is our mos pressingo her. Tis is no o deny he ac ha he key signalpoin s o he human such as language, cul ure, ool useand emo ions have ac ually been ound across he spe-cies barrier.13 Ye he his orici y o his reec ion on

he human use o hose produc s o evolu ion en ailsacknowledging ha heHomo sapiens is also aHomo aber moraliae , ha is ha he human has developed along radi ion o reec ing on he emergence o cus-

oms, morals and values across cul ure a prac ice o which s/he has given he name e hics, and in whichs/he has requen ly resor ed o s ory elling. In o her words, even i he difference be ween he human ando her living en i ies is more o degree han o kind, ore urn o he Bergsonian erminology we have made


68/157


69/157

Humani y 67

give an accoun o , and simul aneously coun er, whaas rophysicis s call he s rong an hropic principle,a endency o explain he universe rom our humans andpoin , as i i exis ed uniquely or us humans. AsHawking claries,

We have developed rom he geocen riccosmologies o P olemy and his orebears,

hrough he heliocen ric cosmology oCopernicus and Galileo, o he modernpic ure in which he ear h is a medium-sized plane orbi ing around an averages ar in he ou er suburbs o an ordinary spi-ral galaxy, which is i sel only one o aboua million million galaxies in he observableuniverse. Ye he s rong an hropic principle would claim ha his whole vas cons ruc-

ion simply exis s or our sake. Tis is veryhard o believe. Our Solar Sys em is cer-

ainly a prerequisi e or our exis ence, andone migh ex end his o he whole o ourgalaxy o allow or an earlier genera ion os ars ha crea ed he heavier elemen s. Bu

here does no seen o be any need or allhose o her galaxies, nor or he universeo be so uni orm in every direc ion on he

large scale. (126)Te recogni ion o his non-necessi y o he universe, and o he emergence o li e including con-scious li e in i , does no diminish our responsibil-

i y or his medium-sized plane we call home andi s surroundings, or or i s human and nonhuman


70/157

68 Chap er 5

inhabi an s. However, i does po en ially s rip anymode o philosophizing abou i off a cer ain explana-

ory and in erven ionis hubris. Tis kind o pos hu-manis , or beter, non-an hropocen ric s andpoinposes a challenge o human excep ionalism, bu ialso remains accoun able, o ci e Barad, or he role we play in he differen ial cons i u ion and differen-

ial posi ioning o he human among o her crea ures

(bo h living and nonliving) (136). So even houghiis no all abou us , we humans have a singular respon-sibili y o give an accoun o he differen ia ions omater, o which we are par . E hics is here ore con-s i u ively linked wi h poe ics, because i comes ous hrough s ories, i.e. hrough narra ives o differengenres and kinds. I is hrough he later ha we make

sense o he world and pass on ins ruc ions on howo live o younger genera ions. We need such ins ruc-ions because we come in o he world un ormed, lack-

ing he basic capaci ies o move wi hin i , communi-ca e wi h o hers and rans orm our surroundings. Ino her words, we lacksophia , widely conceived wis-dom, which s ands or bo h in elligence and affec ive-mo oric know-how, and wi hou which we are equallyinclined o crea e and des roy ourselves and o hers,

o make love and war (see S iegler). I is only houghrela ionali y wi h wha is no in us wi h o her living beings bu also wi h he widely conceived environ-men ha consis s o anima e and inanima e en i-

ies and processes ha we can ac iva e he li e hamoves us, and i is only hrough ins ruc ion in wis-dom ha we can learn o apprehend our own si ua ed-ness in he ne work o ever changing rela ions.


71/157

Humani y 69

From our own narrow and ear h-bound humanpoin o view, here is some hing ra her ragic abou

he universe and he way i un olds in such a seem-ingly u ile manner. Our atemp s o cons ruc civili-za ions, philosophies and religions are ways o over-coming his u ili y, even i he very no ion o u ili yis i sel a produc o hose civiliza ions, philosophiesand religions. An hropocen rism becomes our shield

in his s ruggle, one ha has served us well hroughcen uries bu ha we may wan o pu down i we wano avoid being like a child who hinks he has become

invisible only because he has closed his eyes. Wi hour eyes closed, we will no be able o see he evolu-

ionary un olding which is likely o sweep us away asome poin (al hough here may be reasons why we

may pre er o miss ou on his par icular even ). Tisan hropocen ric shield will also hide rom us heun olding o he echnoevolu ionary process which we ourselves pu in mo ion and which is s ill revers-ible, a leas heore ically. Ye S anisaw Lem, whosea oremen ioned 1964 bookSumma echnologiae isone o he mos power ul accoun s o evolu ion and

he humans place in i , has serious doub s abou helikelihood o any such reversal on our par . Moving beyond he an hropocen ric ramework in which hehuman is seen as occupying he very op o he chaino beings, Lem never heless spends a good deal o

ime considering humans singulari y in he cosmicuniverse, as well as heir moral and poli ical respon-sibili y. Te Polish au hor remains skep ical wi hregard o he ra ionali y o human beings. As Lempu s i ra her ominously, Man knows more abou his


72/157

70 Chap er 5

dangerous endencies han he did a hundred yearsago, and in he nex hundred years his knowledge will be even more advanced. Ten he will make use o i (2013: 6). I becomes qui e clear ha Lem is no veryop imis ic abou he human as he produc o evolu-

ion no jus in erms o our u ure developmen alprospec s, as men ioned above, bu also in erms oour curren e hico-poli ical si ua ion. Tis is perhaps

unsurprising since, as explained in he previous chap-er, evolu ion canno be rus ed wi h knowing whai is doing. Nei her, seemingly, can we a leas noalways or consis en ly because we lack wisdom ha would preven us rom en ering in o unnecessary con-ic . Tis limi a ion resul s rom an underlying con-ic be ween a conscious mind ha can hink and

an underlying program ha de ermines ac ion, i.e.,genes, as explained by N. Ka herine Hayles (29). Wha is he human o do in he ligh o his con-

ic ? According o Lem, he radi ionally inheri edypes o e hics are all rapidly becoming impo en

(Swirski 115). Living hrough he collapse o vari-ous orms o au hori y, seculariza ion, he emer-gence o bo h ex reme na ionalisms and ex remeregionalisms, as well as he pa hologies o escapism,

he modern human aces a kind ohorror vacui , giv-ing us as a resul a new ype o man wi hou con-science (Swirski 114). Such pessimism and sorrowabou he human condi ion is obviously a amiliar

rope in bo h philosophy and li era ure. Ye we haveo dis inguish here be ween he pessimis ic view ohe human as encapsula ed by many me aphysical

narra ives, including hose o he dominan religions,


73/157

Humani y 71

whereby man is suffering rom some kind o originalsin or some o her inna e aul ha predisposes him odoing evil, and he more skep ical-realis argumen , which evalua es human aul s empirically, so o speak,on he basis o his orical experience. Fur hermore,

his posi ing o he po en ial o do evil is an argumenhrough sub rac ion: he human will even ually make

use o he acquired knowledge and pu i o various

uses, including harm ul ones, because here is no h-ing inheren ei her in he human or he world o s ophis course o ac ion. (Pseudo-scien ic heories o

evolu ionary e hics, whereby our moral in ui ionsare seen as evolved orms o behavior ha pro ec usagains our genes and he supposed ru h hey carry,

all apar bo h agains circums an ial evidence and

rigorous philosophical enquiry in o heir oundingassump ions.)Poli ical sys ems, s a e and organiza ional policies,

moral codes, and cul ural values may serve as barriersagains such nega ive and damaging urns o even s.However, in mos cases poli ics and e hics nd i di -cul o ca ch up wi h he developmen o science. Asa consequence hey arrive oo la e o preven variouseven s rom happening. Tis res ric ed reedom wi hregard o his/her own agency, combined wi h he lacko knowledge abou being wi h o hers in he world,con ribu e o he humans sel -diagnosed ragic con-di ion discussed earlier. Lem is less inclined o offersolu ions o his s a e o even s, even i he does rec-ognize he role o e hics as a s ruc ural device used ocon ain human aggression and violence. Be riza ion, aprocedure rom his novelRe urn fom he S ars which


74/157

72 Chap er 5

is execu ed upon all human e uses in order o ameheir violen impulses, is raised as an ironic proposi-ion, wi h he belie ha any solu ion o he human

evil would have o be echnicis . (Inciden ally, asimilar argumen re urns, less ironically, in Emmots book, en Billion and is ac ually already applied by

he pharmaceu ical indus ry in he so-called devel-oped world hrough he widespread propaga ion o

an idepressan s and ADHD medica ion.)Drawing on his line o hough ha sees e hics asa uniquely human in erven ion in o he world whichis quin essen ially nonhuman, he minimal e hics ou -lined hroughou his book ries o move beyond hele hargy o irony and he ins rumen alism o echnicalxes. Minimal e hics is here ore less a solu ion and

more a proposi iona proposi ion o pu up he ques-ion o e hics on he curren agenda , alongside o her,seemingly more pressing and global issues such sus-

ainabili y, clima e change, ossil uel crisis, humansurvival, e c. Unless we are prepared o do his, and oposi ion e hics i sel as a par icularly pressing issue or

he An hropocene, we run he danger o alling preyei her o an hropocen ric moralism (where values are being laid ou wi hou ques ioning he process o heir

abrica ion and he conic in which hey always exis wi h some o her values) or o delega ing au hori y o

echnology which remains underpinned by ins ru-men alis assump ions. I goes wi hou saying haany orm o e hics hus posi ed needs o remain ech-nically aware i.e., i needs o ake responsibili y orour echnical genealogy and echnical u ure, o man-age echnology while seeing ourselves and he world


75/157

Humani y 73

in and wi h which we emerge as inheren ly echni-cal ins ead o being posi ioned as a human weaponagains echnology. Indeed, e hics i sel is always a

orm o echnics, a reaching ou beyond he con-nes o he human(is ) moral sel o o her orms o becoming in he universe, many o which he humanis coevolving wi h. However, even hough he e hicalhuman subjec is o be seen as rela ional, and hence

echnological and pros he ic, his does no mean haany in erven ions o his biogene ic make-up, or o hemake-up o his environmen , will have o be seen asmorally equal. Te minimal e hical ask ha emergeshere consis s in knowing how o differen ia e be weendifferen orms o rela ionali y, or, in o her words, how

o manage echnics well, as much as we can, in he li -

le ime ha we have lef.One nal issue ha needs addressing here is hao he on ological and e hical s a us o animals in

his ramework a erm I have so ar eschewed usingin his book. Even hough I recognize he impor anpoli ical work under aken bo h by animal s udiesscholars and animal ac ivis s in drawing aten ion oanimal suffering or even managing o reduce i , I amalso aware o he limi a ions o his all-encompassingconcep , embracing bo h pe s and pes s; companionspecies wi h a recognizable ace as well as spiders,seahorses, slo hs and shrews. Te problem is no

ully resolved by incorpora ing he human in o he wider spec er o animali y because he ac ual ges ureo obvia ing he human-animal dis inc ion can onlyever be made rom he poin o species difference (seeZylinska 2012) al hough such an argumen can be


76/157

74 Chap er 5

use ul in challenging human superiori y and specialposi ioning across evolu ionary un oldings. Ye in anysuch atemp s he humandesire o philosophize abou

he animal(or even abou himselas animal) remainssurprisingly ree rom cri ical enquiry: many scholarsseem oblivious o he ac ha any suspension or aban-donmen o he human-animal dis inc ion, jus likeany orm o hinking abou he animal as he humans

supposed o her, can only be under aken rom wi hinhe an hropocen ric posi ion o cogni ive superiori y, wi h all he hegemonic au hori y i en ails and con-rms. Te s ra egic use o he erm human in his book is here ore no coupled wi h an equally s ra-

egic embracing o i s animal equivalen , precisely because he later is no i s equivalen . Te ypological

gap we are in roducing here should be seen as rs andoremos an e hical orien a ion ra her han as an abso-lu e epis emological or on ological differen ia ion.Mor ons erm s range s rangers (2010: 41) can helpus in designa ing his orien a ion, wi hou rein ro-ducing any radical differences be ween species or li e

orms, because all hese s range s rangers are mu u-ally enmeshed. However, e hics is no a mu ual

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	juan-poblete
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

Minimal Ethics for the Anthropocene

Documents