8 replies to this topic

[Render]

I've just watched a documentary where Slavoj Zizek also had his say about ecology.

Now I don't completely follow a certain argument of his, and maybe someone could clarify?

He says: "danger of global warming and everything like that, but why don't we do anything about it? I act as if I don't know. Everything can be destroyed but I simply do no belief that this(de wereld) can be destroyed. We are not wired to even imagine something like that. So I think what we should do to confront this ecological catastrophy, is not this new age stuff to break out of this technological manipulative world and find our roots in nature. But on the contrary, to cut of even more these roots in nature. We need more alienation from nature, we should become more artificial."

Does he mean that we need te become more technological so we can imagine the disaster that could happen and confront it? Because we are now still holding on to the illusion of living in between trees?
Or does he mean that nature is an illusion and it could just as much be something technological/artificial? That trees and all that are maybe just a phase..and we'll "overcome" it if you will?

Nature is merely a defintion...?

[667-Neighbor of the Beast]

Triade, on 09 March 2010 - 03:39 PM, said:

I've just watched a documentary where Slavoj Zizek also had his say about ecology.

Now I don't completely follow a certain argument of his, and maybe someone could clarify?

He says: "danger of global warming and everything like that, but why don't we do anything about it? I act as if I don't know. Everything can be destroyed but I simply do no belief that this(de wereld) can be destroyed. We are not wired to even imagine something like that. So I think what we should do to confront this ecological catastrophy, is not this new age stuff to break out of this technological manipulative world and find our roots in nature. But on the contrary, to cut of even more these roots in nature. We need more alienation from nature, we should become more artificial."

Does he mean that we need te become more technological so we can imagine the disaster that could happen and confront it? Because we are now still holding on to the illusion of living in between trees?
Or does he mean that nature is an illusion and it could just as much be something technological/artificial? That trees and all that are maybe just a phase..and we'll "overcome" it if you will?

Nature is merely a defintion...?

To me, it sounds like he is saying that in order to stop ecological disasters, such as global warming, we don't need to "go green" and become even more dependent on nature.  Rather, we should turn our back on nature altogether, and become so technologically independent, that we can separate ourselves from nature completely, basically allowing the planet to heal itself.  This could be a logical solution, except for the fact that everything we use, consume, make, or produce has it's basic ingredients in nature.  Even things such as plastic, gasoline, and synthetic products, are all unnatural combinations of natural ingredients or refined from natural substances.  There is no way we could keep producing anything on this planet without affecting the planet in some way.

Edited by 667-Neighbor of the Beast, 09 March 2010 - 03:56 PM.

[Wickian]

I don't think becoming more artificial will give us a better vantage point to confront catastrophes in the future.  Better technology will, but not more mechanical.

[Render]

667-Neighbor of the Beast, on 09 March 2010 - 03:56 PM, said:

To me, it sounds like he is saying that in order to stop ecological disasters, such as global warming, we don't need to "go green" and become even more dependent on nature.  Rather, we should turn our back on nature altogether, and become so technologically independent, that we can separate ourselves from nature completely, basically allowing the planet to heal itself.  This could be a logical solution, except for the fact that everything we use, consume, make, or produce has it's basic ingredients in nature.  Even things such as plastic, gasoline, and synthetic products, are all unnatural combinations of natural ingredients or refined from natural substances.  There is no way we could keep producing anything on this planet without affecting the planet in some way.

ah yes! thx for that. That's indeed probably what he meant by it.
Hmmm, I do feel he's on to something..but as you mentioned we still need the destruction of nature to get our technology. But I guess he means striving to become more artificial to that point that we completely create objects out of something non-naturalistic.

Deserves some thought imho.

[Alchera]

We are a part of nature, not a serparate entity, it cannot be any other way. Everything we have made is just nature turned inside out and shaped into new forms. Even technology is a part of nature.

[667-Neighbor of the Beast]

Triade, on 10 March 2010 - 07:46 AM, said:

ah yes! thx for that. That's indeed probably what he meant by it.
Hmmm, I do feel he's on to something..but as you mentioned we still need the destruction of nature to get our technology. But I guess he means striving to become more artificial to that point that we completely create objects out of something non-naturalistic.

Deserves some thought imho.

But that is exactly my point.  The only resources we have are what is provided by the earth, and we refine what we need out of those.  There is no other source.  So, there really is a non-naturalistic source for us to create anything out of.  The only way for us to create anything without using something provided by the earth is to literally create it out of nothing, which is impossible.  Everything we create has a source for it's materials somewhere on this earth.

[J.B.]

He means, I think, we should study every role we can from nature and create an artificial way to reproduce it. That way, we can redefine nature as our own technological world we can completely control. Like using Gentech to improve plants, or researching the way plants pull CO2 out of the air and making CO2 scrubbers for smokestacks that are even more effective.

[Render]

Thx for the input J.B. ! Makes sense. And didn't know about that Gentech stuff until now, useful info  

[KennyB]

667-Neighbor of the Beast, on 12 March 2010 - 10:11 PM, said:

But that is exactly my point.  The only resources we have are what is provided by the earth, and we refine what we need out of those.  There is no other source.  So, there really is a non-naturalistic source for us to create anything out of.  The only way for us to create anything without using something provided by the earth is to literally create it out of nothing, which is impossible.  Everything we create has a source for it's materials somewhere on this earth.

What about 'solar power'? Wind, wave, and water energy are all solar. KennyB