what you get here

This is not a blog which opines on current events. It rather uses incidents, books (old and new), links and papers to muse about our social endeavours.
So old posts are as good as new! And lots of useful links!

The Bucegi mountains - the range I see from the front balcony of my mountain house - are almost 120 kms from Bucharest and cannot normally be seen from the capital but some extraordinary weather conditions allowed this pic to be taken from the top of the Intercontinental Hotel in late Feb 2020

Friday, September 29, 2023

A Change from my usual technocratic reading

My normal reading tends to be on technical matters – about, for example, the dangers facing democracy; clinate change; development; or reform – in which a problem and possible causes are identified and solutions floated. I often get bored and impatient with the dryness with which an important tale is told – so it came as a great delight when I stumbled on At Work in the Ruins – finding our place in a time of science, climate change, pandemics and other emergencies by Dougald Hine (2023). Instead of the usual dryness, I find an almost poetic originality – a baring of the soul. Let Hine introduce his work

When we start to talk about climate change, we enter into a conversation that is framed 
by science. How could it be otherwise? Climate change is a scientific term. It refers to a 
set of processes that are described by the natural sciences. Yet climate change also asks
 questions that science cannot answer. Some lie downstream of the work of science. When 
it comes to what to do about climate change, responsibility passes from the scientists to the 
engineers and the economists, while psychologists and marketing experts are brought in to 
figure out how to ‘deliver the message’ and ‘drive behaviour change’. 
In the rooms where I was brought together with religious leaders and artists and Indigenous 
elders, it mostly felt as though we were being enlisted in this downstream effort. The hope 
was that we had some wisdom or experience or practice that might help the news from the 
climate scientists to reach the wider public imagination. But the point that I would make in 
those rooms – and that often seemed to land and lead to fruitful conversations with the scientists 
present – is that there are also questions that lie upstream of the work of science and take 
us beyond the frame it draws. These are not about what needs doing and how, but about 
how we got here in the first place, the nature and the implications of the trouble we are in. 
Such questions might sound abstract compared to the practical concerns of those who want 
to find solutions, but how we answer them has consequences. It shapes our understanding of 
the situation, what kind of problem we think we’re dealing with and, therefore, what kind of 
solutions we go looking for.

You could hear this vulnerability in the voices of those at the heart of the climate movements 
that erupted in 2018 and in the quieter conversations going on within the local groups that 
formed during that moment. Yet all this talk was still taking place within the vessel of science,
 and this produced strange contortions and contradictions. The language of science is 
understated by design. It is hardly suited to speaking in prophetic tones, but this was the 
signature of these movements. The strangeness of the shift in register applied as much to 
Greta Thunberg, who was fiercely careful to keep her statements within the bounds of the 
scientific consensus, as it did to Extinction Rebellion’s Roger Hallam or to Jem Bendell, the 
Cumbria University professor whose self-published paper ‘Deep Adaptation: A Map for 
Navigating Climate Tragedy’ – based on his alternative interpretation of the scientific data 
– went viral that autumn. Whether in alliance with or antagonism to the actual climate scientists
, the calls to action were increasingly framed in the name of something called ‘the science’. 
An understandable shorthand for the consensus over the key processes of climate change 
built up over decades of research by thousands of teams around the world, this way of talking 
also had the effect of invoking a singular authority whose implications remained to be seen. ‘
Unite Behind the Science’ read the placards and the hashtags, and the more this message 
was repeated, the stronger the frame of science around our climate conversations became 
and the less room there would be for looking beyond that frame.
It may seem odd to be calling a book premised on the world ending
shortly “delightful” but it is one of these rare ones which makes
you look at the world differently.There’s an excellent video discussion here for 
those of you who prefer to see the interaction and how people deal with difficult 
questions
Two things happened next to change the context of anything that any of us 
might have to say about climate change. First, in the time of Covid, the political 
invocation of science took on a new colour. Faced with a novel threat about which 
there was far less scientific understanding or consensus than climate change, politicians 
nonetheless discovered the effectiveness of introducing radical policies in the name of 
‘following the science’. Meanwhile, the implications of the demand to ‘Unite Behind the 
Science’ became clearer. I saw the people who had taught me to think carefully about 
science and the questions that it cannot answer on its own, when they attempted to 
address the questions raised by the pandemic, being told by angry, frightened readers 
to ‘Just shut up and take the fucking vaccine!’ Or being scolded by their peers for drifting 
towards ‘conspiracy theory’. In the name of ‘the science’, it is possible to decree what 
should be done and to close off the possibility of further public conversation.

And I particularly liked his image of a fork in the road

Here is what I’m seeing, then: the political contours emerging from the pandemic 
foreshadow a fork in the road for the politics of climate change. We would always have 
come to this fork, one way or another. As long as the goal was to have climate change 
taken seriously, this could unite us, however different our understandings of what taking 
climate change seriously might mean. As we near that goal, though, the differences in 
understanding come more sharply into focus. But we have reached that point, or something 
like it, under conditions in which the authority of ‘the science’ has been supercharged.
Two paths lead from here: one big, one small. The big path is a brightly lit 
highway on which many lanes converge. It unites elements of left and right, 
from Silicon Valley visionaries and Wall Street investors, through a broad 
swathe of liberal opinion and in some form it will constitute the political orthodoxy 
\of the 2020s. It sets out to limit the damage of climate change through large-scale 
efforts of management, control, surveillance and innovation, oriented to sustaining a 
version of existing trajectories of technological progress, economic growth and development.
The small path is a trail that branches off into many paths. It is made by those 
who seek to build resilience closer to the ground, nurturing capacities and relationships,
oriented to a future in which existing trajectories of technological progress, economic
growth and development will not be sustained, but where the possibility of a ‘world 
worth living for’ nonetheless remains. Humble as it looks, as your eyes adjust, you may
recognise just how many feet have walked this way and how many continue to do so, even now.
Which of these paths I would have us take is clear enough. The big path is a fast track to 
nowhere. We will not arrive at the world of fossil-free jumbo jets promised by the airport 
adverts. The entitlements of late modernity are not compatible with the realities of 
life on a finite planet and they do not even make us happy. But we may well follow that 
path for a while longer, as it leads us deeper into dystopia and leaves us more dependent
on fragile technological systems that few of us understand or can imagine living without. 
And what I think I can see now is that the very language of climate change will be owned, 
from here on out, by the engineers and marketeers of the big path. Any conversation about 
the trouble we are in, so long as it starts within the newly politicised frame of science, 
will lead inexorably to their solutions.
A critical review of the book can be found here  

Further video discussions about the book

https://www.youtube.com/@dougald

Feb Leeds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iCzlw9e2hM&ab_channel=DougaldHine better sound

April 2023 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B42sHf9p80&ab_channel=JohnGIClarke

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaCatcin7n8&ab_channel=DougaldHine

No comments:

Post a Comment