[FRA:] Mass-extinction

[steve.devos at krokodile.co.uk]

Simon/fred

The term 'mass-extinction event' is the phrase used to describe the 
periodic disapperence of large numbers of species. The term event is 
used to emphasize that the mass-extinctions seem to usually have a 
singular cause,  an asteriod colliding with the earth,  a super-volcano 
and now the human species becoming dominant.  The singular difference 
here is that the cause of the event can make the decisions to not 
continue to exterminate the non-human.

The universals issue is really quite straightforward - that the subject 
of philosophy is always human and that when a philosopher speaks of 
'being', unless they specifically state otherwise, it is a reasonable 
assumption that they are referring to the 'human', that the concept of  
'being' rarely if ever incorporates the non-human.  The central problem 
is that it always raises the human above the non-human in value. That 
critical-theory cannot theorize that a human and non-human are precisely 
equivilant in value is precisely why critical-theory needs 
reformulating, if it is to adequately address the changed nature of the 
human position.  This is necessary because it is no longer a question of 
humanity wanting to dominate every thing,  we simply have dominion. 
Consquently then we have to be able to make decisions (philosophical or 
not)  which are based on something better than the delusion that a human 
life has a value (even Agamben's bare life retains an aspect of this) 
and a non-human's does not. I recognize the concept that "the desire of 
Adorno (and Marcuse) was for a reconciliation with nature..."  but is 
this a sufficient response given our responsibility for every thing on 
this planet ? Reconcile with nature, I don't understand what that might 
mean. It has been succintly argued that since Galileo the terrain of 
nature has been owned by science,  indeed I think that Galileo was 
probably the first to try and put a wall around nature (and consequently 
us) and say "this belongs to science".  The ultimate consequence of this 
is that we have recently moved beyond the cartesian imperative of 
domination and that hundreds of years after Galileo it is not a question 
of reconciling with nature but of how we control the human domination 
of  it... The philosophical question (which I'm trying to ask those who 
are more directly engaged with critical theory) is what within this 
tradition needs to happen to enable the work to address this ?

And just so that we who live in the present don't get cosily 
anti-techno-science - the sixth mass-extinction event began with the 
first industrial revolution 10,000 to 12,000 years ago...

steve


simon smith wrote:

>
> (sorry, I know this post wasn't addressed to me)
>
> In message <44009F73.9090702 at krokodile.co.uk>, 
> "steve.devos at krokodile.co.uk" <steve.devos at krokodile.co.uk> writes
>
>> The point about the mass-extinction event
>
>
> Why this phrase "mass-extinction event". It seems a little odd. What's 
> the reason for the "event" bit? Just wondering.
>
>> is that it is another way of recognizing  that global capitalism, 
>> which is still predominantly the west can no longer consume at the 
>> expense of the world.
>
>
> That's certainly true, unless some extraordinary new technology emerges.
>
>> Further it is necessary to realise that the very universals which 
>> critical theory maintains - are specific to the human and we are 
>> perhaps no longer that simple creature trying to dominate it's local 
>> environment,
>
>
> I don't understand what this means.
>
>> don't we need to accept that theory needs to be able to  address the 
>> non-human as equivilant in value to the human ?
>
>
> No - critical theory would never do that, if it were even possible. It 
> would be a return to blind nature and would only come about through a 
> regression. It would be back to kill or be killed.
> I don't like to repeat myself, but the desire of Adorno (and Marcuse) 
> was for a reconciliation with nature. While I'm not aware that Adorno 
> thought about ecological disaster, Adorno's formulation is still the 
> most advanced that I know of, and it's just as important for it to 
> influence and inform ecological thought (as I know it sometimes has) 
> as the other way round.
>
>>  If you accept this level of human accountability, then it's clear 
>> that whatever passes as critical theory needs some critical 
>> reconstructing.
>
>
> Yes, the critique of technology and its uses does need reconstructing 
> on the basis of the ecological dangers that face us. I still haven't 
> got a clear idea of Adorno's attitude to industrial society, and I 
> think that's because he didn't have a clear idea himself, and nor did 
> Marcuse.
>