On Saturday, October 23, 2004, at 07:11 PM, michaelP wrote:
No, apart from Heidegger's critique of the technologically empowered will to will the constant expansion of planetary order. Some writers approach the oil problem from a biologically deterministic perspective which claims we are genetically predisposed to exploit all available resources and overpopulate our ecological niche, which in the case of us humans means the entire earth's surface and its atmosphere. But this determinism is just pseudo science when it comes down to actually questioning what biological determinism means, for them it's the starting proposition from which their interpretations flow. For me this determinism is already a good example of our modern understanding and I think the ground of that understanding, uncovered in Heidegger's critique of technology and the will to will, is the problem. The constant maintenance and expansion of technological order became a planetary problem for Heidegger in the 30's, he foresaw its gigantism and lived through its globalising birth pains in WW1 and WW2. We may well be reaching the limits of that post WW2 globalisation now.
Energy is a thermodynamic concept, I don't think it's idle chatter at all but a physical reality, a factical element of our ontological reality as we enter an era of entropy. How you interpret 'energy' in respect to the ontology of being is something else though and is what I'm interested in at the moment. Physical energy is the ultimate standing reserve, without it all other resources are useless to a modern globalising will to order. Technological power is a primal force that has allowed or rather driven us westerners to colonise this planet but it has physical limits and its fundamental physical limit is energy supply.
The 'for-what' indeed... for the continued safeguarding and expansion of technological order until biosphere destruction places a final limit on the human species? This question has been asked for the last 3 decades by environmentalists around the world. 'Growth' seems to define our modernity, the growth of order, of debtor economies, soil degradation, fisheries decline, global pollution, climate change and above all overpopulation. Currently 200 000 potential consumers are added to our world population every single day, and for what?
The search for alternative energies is speeding up but it is becoming apparent that the global growth based order simply cannot survive the transition i its current form. A move to sustainable energies and the economic/political orders they might support will also most probably require a fundamental rethink of the modern project away from constant expansion to a real form of 'sustainability' defined by our environment's physical limits and the threat of extinction. I think if we want to fundamentally understand what this transition requires we'll have to understand what 'growth' means in the context of modernity. Heidegger's notion of the will to will with its dynamic ordering may be the 'growth' engine of that modernity in which case we will have to understand ourselves a whole lot better than we do at the moment. It will not be a matter of just toning down our economic activity. As this energy problem develops, itself a factical part of the problem concerning technology, our modern world view is going to be called into question in ways hard to imagine over the next decade and beyond.
Cheers,
Malcolm
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Malcom, do you know of any move towards really, I mean really,
challenging/questioning critically the supposed 'need' for moving fast
wherever whenever whatever (the consequences)?
No, apart from Heidegger's critique of the technologically empowered will to will the constant expansion of planetary order. Some writers approach the oil problem from a biologically deterministic perspective which claims we are genetically predisposed to exploit all available resources and overpopulate our ecological niche, which in the case of us humans means the entire earth's surface and its atmosphere. But this determinism is just pseudo science when it comes down to actually questioning what biological determinism means, for them it's the starting proposition from which their interpretations flow. For me this determinism is already a good example of our modern understanding and I think the ground of that understanding, uncovered in Heidegger's critique of technology and the will to will, is the problem. The constant maintenance and expansion of technological order became a planetary problem for Heidegger in the 30's, he foresaw its gigantism and lived through its globalising birth pains in WW1 and WW2. We may well be reaching the limits of that post WW2 globalisation now.
This heat death (nominally
called "transport") perhaps needs to be slowed down dramatically if not
halted in its masquerade of 'energy' (the material form of heidegger's 'idle
chatter' as the they's model of 'saying'?).
Energy is a thermodynamic concept, I don't think it's idle chatter at all but a physical reality, a factical element of our ontological reality as we enter an era of entropy. How you interpret 'energy' in respect to the ontology of being is something else though and is what I'm interested in at the moment. Physical energy is the ultimate standing reserve, without it all other resources are useless to a modern globalising will to order. Technological power is a primal force that has allowed or rather driven us westerners to colonise this planet but it has physical limits and its fundamental physical limit is energy supply.
The for-what? needs to be
urgently asked, not just (or at all) the search for 'alternatives' and/or
new sources of energy. Stop as a principle! Or what?
The 'for-what' indeed... for the continued safeguarding and expansion of technological order until biosphere destruction places a final limit on the human species? This question has been asked for the last 3 decades by environmentalists around the world. 'Growth' seems to define our modernity, the growth of order, of debtor economies, soil degradation, fisheries decline, global pollution, climate change and above all overpopulation. Currently 200 000 potential consumers are added to our world population every single day, and for what?
The search for alternative energies is speeding up but it is becoming apparent that the global growth based order simply cannot survive the transition i its current form. A move to sustainable energies and the economic/political orders they might support will also most probably require a fundamental rethink of the modern project away from constant expansion to a real form of 'sustainability' defined by our environment's physical limits and the threat of extinction. I think if we want to fundamentally understand what this transition requires we'll have to understand what 'growth' means in the context of modernity. Heidegger's notion of the will to will with its dynamic ordering may be the 'growth' engine of that modernity in which case we will have to understand ourselves a whole lot better than we do at the moment. It will not be a matter of just toning down our economic activity. As this energy problem develops, itself a factical part of the problem concerning technology, our modern world view is going to be called into question in ways hard to imagine over the next decade and beyond.
Cheers,
Malcolm
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---