The aim of this study is to identify the key terms and arguments of J. Lovelock՚s sustainable retreat concept and their analysis with emphasize on the consequences of this concept for political, social and environmental thinking. J. Lovelock points out that considering rapid and complex changes in global environment, marked by the term Anthropocene; we do not have enough time and sources to realize the sustainable development concept. For that reason, it is, according to him, necessary to formulate (...) sustainable retreat concept as a strategy which will allow to prepare for climate change in a way that not only a man as a biological specie, but also civilized society could survive. Even basic theses of this concept indicate a need to revalue majority political concepts, mainly concepts of sovereignty, citizenship, also the freedom of movement and residence, freedom of business and consume, which are fundamentals of neoliberal economic-political system. Retreat expects elaborated and organized migration to beforehand chosen and arranged areas. Opposite to retreat is mass escape chaos that reduces human relations to fight for survival. As J. Lovelock proposed in his sustainable retreat concept, relocating people from areas affected by climate changes to climate oases would mean that rich northern countries give up their current, in fact, isolationistic politics that refuses climate migrants. Therefore the sustainable retreat concept requires much greater competence and mainly willingness to cooperate not only on national, but also on international and global level more than humanity is able to do it currently. (shrink)

Critical examination of possible socio-political Anthropocene consequences leads to the conclusion that the sustainable development concept is not an adequate answer for current threats and risks. An effort to implement the sustainable development concept can even make climate changes and other forms of nature devastation worse, as it turns out on ongoing greenhouse gas concentrations growth in the atmosphere, despite obligations that result to all states of the world from Paris agreement. The climate change rate and range of plant and (...) animal species extinction confirms J. Lovelock´s thesis that humanity does not have enough time and, most likely, enough sources to implement the sustainable development concept and, as B. Latour points out, we do not have a big enough planet. Therefore, it is necessary to think about a retreat – to areas that are likely to stay livable even after the sea level rise and desertification; it is necessary to think about how to move millions of people from areas flooded by sea or parched by desert; to think about a change of our current way of life, of production of food and energy so that not only humankind as animal species would continue, but also our civilization and its technological and organizational knowledge. Even basic theses based on this concept indicate a need to reassess most political concepts, mainly the concepts of sovereignty, citizenship, but also those of freedom of movement and residence, freedom of business and consume, which work as fundamentals of the neoliberal economic-political system. Retreat expects complex and organized migration to beforehand chosen and arranged areas. Opposite to retreat is mass escape chaos that reduces human relations to fight for survival. As J. Lovelock proposed in his sustainable retreat concept, relocating people from areas affected by climate changes to climate oases would mean that rich northern countries give up their current, in fact, isolationistic politics of refusing climate migrants. Therefore, the concept of sustainable retreat requires much greater competence and especially willingness to cooperate not only nationally, but also internationally and globally, in addition to what humanity is capable of doing today. (shrink)

Some Scenarios for What is Coming Down on Us .

Chinese environmentalists have called for an ecological civilization. To promote this, ecology is defended as the core science embodying process metaphysics, and it is argued that as such ecology can serve as the foundation of such a civilization. Integrating hierarchy theory and Peircian semiotics into this science, it is shown how “community” and “communities of communities,” in which communities are defined by their organization to promote the common good of their components, have to be recognized as central concepts not only (...) of ecology, but of life itself. This perspective is used to defend Lovelock’s “Gaia” hypothesis and the call of Prugh, Costanza, and Daly for strong democracy. An ethics and political philosophy is sketched based on “eco-poiesis” or “home-making,” which is equated with augmenting the life of communities, both human and non-human. (shrink)

Aldo Leopold accorded great significance to the images he used to describe both the land and humankind’s relation to it. Focusing on three key images of Leopold’s “ecological imaginary”—the balance, the pyramid, and the round river—this article argues that the most profound of these is the round river. Contrasting this image with James Lovelock’s portrayal of the earth as Gaia, it further argues that Leopold’s round river can be interpreted as a contemporary, ecological reworking of the primordial, Homeric experience (...) of Being, according to which the foundation of the world is a round river, Oceanus. (shrink)

De la existențialismul lui Albert Camus și Sartre, la înlocuirea ritualului de excludere cu mecanismul disciplinar al lui Michel Foucault, o formă ideală de control al autorităților statului a tuturor formelor de ”dezordine”, și modernitatea virală și bioinformaționalism. Și despre ipoteza Gaia, dezvoltată de James Lovelock și susținută în actuala pandemie de Bruno Latour. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31276.49284.

Lucrarea debutează cu o retrospectivă a dezbaterilor privind originea vieții: virusul sau celula? Virusul are nevoie de celulă pentru replicare, în schimb celula este o formă mai evoluată pe scara evoluționistă a vieții. În plus, studiul virușilor ridică întrebări conceptuale și filozofice presante despre natura lor, clasificarea lor, și locul lor în lumea biologică. Subiectul pandemiilor este abordat pornind de la existențialismul lui Albert Camus și Sartre, înlocuirea ritualului de excludere cu mecanismul disciplinar al lui Michel Foucault, și despre ipoteza (...) Gaia, dezvoltată de James Lovelock și susținută în actuala pandemie de Bruno Latour. În continuare sunt evidențiate dimensiunile sociale ale pandemiilor, legătura lor cu încălzirea globală care a dus la o creștere a bolilor infecțioase, și despădurirea unor zone întinse, care au determinat virușii să migreze din zona lor nativă („rezervorul” lor). Etica pandemiilor este abordată din mai multe puncte de vedere filosofice, din care cel mai important într-o criză de asemenea dimensiuni globale este utilitarismul care presupune maximizarea beneficiilor pentru societate în conflict direct cu viziunea obișnuită (kantiană) privind respectul față de persoane ca indivizi. După o retrospectivă a virusul COVID-19 care a cauzat actuala pandemie, a ciclului său de viață și a istoriei sale, cu accent pe filosofia morții, este discutat conceptul de bioputere dezvoltat inițial de Foucault, cu referire la practica statelor naționale moderne de control al populațiilor și dezbaterea generată de Giorgio Agamben care afirmă că ceea ce se manifestă în această pandemie este tendința crescândă de a folosi starea de excepție ca o paradigmă normală de guvernare. O altă abordare de interes și foarte dezbătută este cea generată de lucrările lui Slavoj Žižek, care afirmă că actuala pandemie a dus la falimentul actualului capitalism ”barbar”, întrebându-se dacă nu cumva drumul pe care îl va lua omenirea este un neo-comunism. Un alt efect negativ important este desocializarea, cu concluzia unor filosofi că nu putem exista independent de relațiile noastre cu ceilalți, că umanitatea unei persoane depinde de umanitatea celor din jurul ei. Ultima secțiune este dedicată previziunilor despre cum va arăta lumea după pandemie, existând deja semne ale unei schimbări de paradigmă, inclusiv dispariția bruscă a ideologiei legate de „ziduri”: o tuse a fost suficientă pentru a face dintr-o dată imposibilă evitarea responsabilității pe care fiecare individ o are față de toate ființele vii pentru simplul fapt că este parte a acestei lumi, și a dorinței de a fi parte a ei. Întregul este întotdeauna implicat în parte, pentru că totul este, într-un anumit sens, în tot și în natură nu există regiuni autonome care să constituie o excepție. Pandemia COVID-19 pare să restabilească supremația care a aparținut cândva politicii. Una din virtuțile virusului este capacitatea acestuia de a genera o idee mai sobră de libertate: a fi liber înseamnă a face ceea ce trebuie făcut într-o situație specifică. -/- CUPRINS: -/- Abstract Introducere 1 Viruși 1.1 Ontologia 2 Pandemii 2.1 Dimensiuni sociale 2.2 Etica 3 COVID-19 3.1 Biopolitica 3.2 Neocomunism 3.3 Desocializarea 4 Previziuni Bibliografie -/- DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27611.39205 . (shrink)

Although Heidegger thinks cybernetics is the “supreme danger,” he also thinks that it harbours within itself poiēsis, the “saving power.” This article providesa justification of this position through an analysis of its relation to Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela’s Santiago theory of cognition and James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis’ Gaia theory. More specifically, it argues that Maturana and Varela’s criticism of cybernetics and their concomitant theory of “autopoiesis” constitutes the philosophical disclosure of “Being itself,” and that the extension of (...) Santiago theory’s various different conceptualizations of poiēsis to Gaia theory makes possible the rise of the “saving power.”. (shrink)

From the existentialism of Albert Camus and Sartre, to the replacement of the exclusion ritual with the disciplinary mechanism of Michel Foucault, an ideal form of control of state authorities of all forms of "disorder", and viral modernity and bioinformationalism. And about the Gaia hypothesis, developed by James Lovelock and supported in the current pandemic by Bruno Latour. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34967.80801.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Why Gaia?Massimo Pigliucci (bio)The Gaia Hypothesis: Science on a Pagan Planet, Michael Ruse, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013. 272 pages.“The Gaia Hypothesis: Science on a Pagan Planet tells a story that comes out of the 1960s, a story that reflects all of the beliefs and enthusiasms and tensions of that decade.” So begins Michael Ruse’s fascinating, if at times puzzling, exploration of James Lovelock’s famous idea that (...) our planet is, in a serious scientific sense, a living organism with a tendency of taking care of (her)self. But why tell this particular story, especially considering that Gaia hardly makes an appearance in today’s scientific or philosophical publications, and doesn’t even seem quite that popular with the lay public as it used to be? Because, as Ruse tells us near the end of the book, at the onset of chapter seven: “the paradox that set us on our path [is] why the scientific community reacted so negatively to the Gaia hypothesis, whereas the public reaction was so positive.”As it turns out, there is a good answer to that conundrum, one that Ruse himself lays out clearly in the last chapter of the book, and which makes the reader wonder why this should count a paradox at all. But we will get there in due time. First, the basics: the so-called Gaia hypothesis is the brainchild of iconoclastic inventor-turned-independent-scientist James Lovelock, who later got significant help in elaborating (and promoting) his ideas from another iconoclast, biologist Lynn Margulis. By the time you get to the end of Ruse’s engaging book, however, you won’t have gained a particularly good understanding of what the hypothesis actually consists. But that’s not Ruse’s fault, it is Lovelock’s (and Margulis’). At times it sounds like the entirely uncontroversial claim that the Earth’s [End Page 117] biosphere is a somewhat homeostatic system—i.e., a biophysical system that is resistant to major changes, at the least within a certain range (the planet’s atmosphere, after all, did change dramatically early on, increasing its oxygen content as a result of the evolution of photosynthetic organisms—the anaerobic life forms that had up to that point been dominant did not appreciate the novelty). At other times the claim is downright preposterous: the Earth literally is a living organism (according to Lovelock) (Chapter 7),1 a finding that allegedly puts in question the whole Darwinian view of biological evolution (according to Margulis) (Chapter 7), a position that can only be characterized as nonsense on stilts. At yet other moments, Gaia is presented as just a metaphor to help us wrap our minds around the complexities (and homeostatic properties) of the world’s ecosystems (Chapter 8). It is this never-ending oscillation between the trivial and the bizarre that has led the majority of scientists to write off Gaia, to the chagrin of Lovelock, Margulis, and a large number of New Age tree huggers from the 1960s.Indeed, the scientific reaction to Gaia was swift and ranging from the condescending to the unforgiving. Evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith—never one to mince words—called it “an evil religion” (Chapter 2). Another evolutionary biologist, Stephen Jay Gould (whose own disagreements with Maynard Smith became legendary) said that “Gaia strikes me as a metaphor, not a mechanism” (Chapter 2). Ecologist Robert May, who eventually became president of the Royal Society, called Lovelock “a holy fool” (Chapter 2). The highly respected theoretical biologist W.D. Hamilton said that in order for the hypothesis to work, it would require “treaties between Neptune and Zeus, a Gaian Interpol, conventions about bills of lading for chemical transport by air and water, and so on” (Chapter 7). Finally, Richard Dawkins accused Lovelock of committing the fallacy of “the BBC theorem,” assuming (or wishfully thinking) that the world is a harmonious place, just like in naive BBC nature documentaries (Chapter 2).You get the gist: pretty much from the beginning, and with very few exceptions, the scientific establishment rejected Gaia on the grounds that it is not a scientific hypothesis at all, and that its main tenets actually go against pretty... (shrink)

De l'existentialisme d'Albert Camus et Sartre, au remplacement du rituel d'exclusion par le mécanisme disciplinaire de Michel Foucault, forme idéale de contrôle des autorités étatiques de toutes les formes de « désordre », et à la modernité virale et au bioinformationalisme. Et à propos de l'hypothèse Gaia, développée par James Lovelock et soutenue dans la pandémie actuelle par Bruno Latour. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20639.18089.

The paper begins with a retrospective of the debates on the origin of life: the virus or the cell? The virus needs a cell for replication, instead the cell is a more evolved form on the evolutionary scale of life. In addition, the study of viruses raises pressing conceptual and philosophical questions about their nature, their classification, and their place in the biological world. The subject of pandemics is approached starting from the existentialism of Albert Camus and Sartre, the replacement (...) of the exclusion ritual with the disciplinary mechanism of Michel Foucault, and about the Gaia hypothesis, developed by James Lovelock and supported in the current pandemic by Bruno Latour. The social dimensions of pandemics, their connection to global warming, which has led to an increase in infectious diseases, and the deforestation of large areas, which have caused viruses to migrate from their native area (their "reservoir") are highlighted below. The ethics of pandemics is approached from several philosophical points of view, of which the most important in a crisis of such global dimensions is utilitarianism which involves maximizing benefits for society in direct conflict with the usual (Kantian) view of respect for people as individuals. After a retrospective of the COVID-19 virus that caused the current pandemic, its life cycle and its history, with an emphasis on the philosophy of death, the concept of biopower initially developed by Foucault is discussed, with reference to the practice of modern states of control of the populations and the debate generated by Giorgio Agamben who states that what is manifested in this pandemic is the growing tendency to use the state of emergency as a normal paradigm of government. An interesting and much debated approach is the one generated by the works of Slavoj Žižek, who states that the current pandemic has led to the bankruptcy of the current "barbaric" capitalism, wondering if the path that humanity will take is a neo-communism. Another important negative effect is desocialization, with the conclusion of some philosophers that we cannot exist independently of our relationships with others, that a person's humanity depends on the humanity of those around him. The last section is dedicated to forecasting what the world will look like after the pandemic, and there are already signs of a paradigm shift, including the sudden disappearance of the "wall" ideology: a cough was enough to make it suddenly impossible to avoid the responsibility that every individual has it towards all living beings for the simple fact that he is part of this world, and of the desire to be part of it. The whole is always involved in part, because everything is, in a sense, in everything and in nature there are no autonomous regions that are an exception. The COVID-19 pandemic seems to restore the supremacy that once belonged to politics. One of the virtues of the virus is its ability to generate a more sober idea of ​​freedom: to be free means to do what needs to be done in a specific situation. -/- CONTENTS: -/- Abstract Introduction 1 Viruses 1.1 Ontology 2 Pandemics 2.1 Social dimensions 2.2 Ethics 3 COVID-19 3.1 Biopolitics 3.2 Neocommunism 3.3 Desocialising 4 Forecasting Bibliography -/- DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31039.74405/1. (shrink)

Le papier commence par une rétrospective des débats sur l'origine de la vie : le virus ou la cellule ? Le virus a besoin de la cellule pour se répliquer, mais la cellule est une forme plus évoluée à l'échelle évolutive de la vie. De plus, l'étude des virus soulève des questions conceptuelles et philosophiques pressantes sur leur nature, leur classification et leur place dans le monde biologique. Le sujet des pandémies est abordé à partir de l'existentialisme d'Albert Camus et (...) Sartre, du remplacement du rituel d'exclusion par le mécanisme disciplinaire de Michel Foucault, et de l'hypothèse Gaia, développée par James Lovelock et soutenue dans la pandémie actuelle par Bruno Latour. Les dimensions sociales des pandémies, leur lien avec le réchauffement climatique, qui a conduit à une augmentation des maladies infectieuses, et la déforestation de vastes zones, qui ont provoqué la migration des virus de leur zone d'origine (leur « réservoir ») sont mis en évidence ci-dessous. L'éthique des pandémies est abordée sous plusieurs points de vue philosophiques, dont le plus important dans une crise de telles dimensions globales est l'utilitarisme qui consiste à maximiser les bénéfices pour la société en conflit direct avec la vision ordinaire (kantienne) du respect des personnes en tant qu'individus. Après une rétrospective du virus COVID-19 qui a causé la pandémie actuelle, son cycle de vie et son histoire, avec un accent sur la philosophie de la mort, est discuté le concept de biopouvoir initialement développé par Foucault, en référence à la pratique des États modernes de contrôle des populations, et le débat généré par Giorgio Agamben qui déclare que ce qui se manifeste dans cette pandémie est la tendance croissante des États à utiliser l'état d'urgence comme un paradigme normal de gouvernement. Une autre approche intéressante et très débattue est celle générée par les travaux de Slavoj Žižek, qui déclare que la pandémie actuelle a conduit à la faillite du capitalisme « barbare » actuel, se demandant si le chemin que l'humanité empruntera est un néocommunisme. Un autre effet négatif important est la désocialisation, avec la conclusion de certains philosophes que nous ne pouvons pas exister indépendamment de nos relations avec les autres, que l'humanité d'une personne dépend de l'humanité de ceux qui l'entourent. La dernière section est consacrée à prédire à quoi ressemblera le monde après la pandémie, et il y a déjà des signes de changement de paradigme, y compris la disparition soudaine de l'idéologie du « mur » : une toux a suffi à rendre soudain impossible d'échapper à la responsabilité qui chaque individu l'a envers tous les êtres vivants pour le simple fait qu'il fait partie de ce monde et du désir d'en faire partie. Le tout est toujours impliqué en partie, car tout est, en un sens, dans tout et dans la nature il n'y a pas de régions autonomes qui font exception. La pandémie COVID-19 semble restaurer la suprématie qui appartenait autrefois à la politique. L'une des vertus du virus est sa capacité à générer une idée plus sobre de la liberté : être libre signifie faire ce qui doit être fait dans une situation précise. -/- SOMMAIRE: -/- Abstract Introduction 1 Virus 1.1 Ontologie 2 Pandémies 2.1 Dimensions sociales 2.2 Ethique 3 COVID-19 3.1 Biopolitique 3.2 Néocommunisme 3.3 Désocialisation 4 Prévisions Bibliographie -/- DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17905.92003 . (shrink)

Considers that in ecosystem, landscape and global ecology, an energetics reading of ecological systems is an expression of a cybernetic, systemic and holistic approach. In ecosystem ecology, the Odumian paradigm emphasizes the concept of emergence, but it has not been accompanied by the creation of a method that fully respects the complexity of the objects studied. In landscape ecology, although the emergentist, multi-level, triadic methodology of J.K. Feibleman and D.T. Campbell has gained acceptance, the importance of emergent properties is still (...) undervalued. In global ecology, the Gaia hypothesis is an expression of an organicist metaphor, while the emergentist terminology used is incongruent with the underlying physicalist cybernetics. More generally, an analytico-additional methodology and the reduction of the properties of ecosystems to the laws of physical chemistry render purely formal any assertion about the emergentist and holistic nature of the ecological systems studied. (shrink)

The central focus of this paper is the disjunction between the findings of climate science in revealing the threat of global warming and the failure to act appropriately to these warnings. The development of climate science can be illuminated through the perspective provided by Peircian semiotics, but efforts to account for its success as a science and its failure to convince people to act accordingly indicate the need to supplement Peirce’s ideas. The more significant gaps, it is argued, call for (...) the integration of major new ideas. It will be argued that Peirce should be viewed as a Schellingian philosopher, and it will then be shown how this facilitates integration into his philosophy of concepts developed by other philosophers and theorists within this tradition. In particular, Bourdieu’s concepts of the ‘habitus’ and ‘field’ will be integrated with Peirce’s semiotics and used to analyse the achievements and failures of climate science. It will be suggested that the resulting synthesis can augment Peirce’s evolutionary cosmology and so provide a better basis for comprehending and responding to the situation within which we find ourselves. (shrink)