I wasn¹t being dismissive of a particular manifesto. I was being critical of all manifesto¹s. However, my critique was double edged. The reference to Sartre evoked his statement that ³other people are hell². That statement needs to be interpreted within the larger context in which he wrote it, which was a text about how we only know ourselves through our interactions with others and that we therefore see others as ourselves (or ourselves in others). As such, when he said ³other people are hell² he was effectively saying ³we (as in ourselves) are hell². We are all part of the problem.
>From what I understand of the Dark Mountain manifesto its places responsibility for our current situation at everyone¹s door. I would agree with that. I would also agree that we will only develop effective responses to developments if they involve everybody. However, it is unlikely that the solution will come from a manifesto or, if it does, the price attached to it will be too high for most to pay (until it is too late). One could argue that the single gravest cause of the degradation of our planet is the increase in human population; that our need for energy, food, resources and trade are too great because there are too many of us. If that is the case then there is a clear solution - reduce the number of people. Next problem; how are we going to do that? We could take the gradualist approach (like the Chinese) and introduce controls on reproduction. We could employ more dramatic solutions (eg: a bit of targeted genocide or refusing populations access to resources). As we have seen, even the relatively gentle gradualist approach China adopted has proven too much to swallow for many and their current policy is starting to come apart at the seams, with regional Chinese governments now over-riding it. There would seem to be little likelihood that a top down solution to our problems will work. Such imposed solutions have not worked in previous situations. It is probable that our governments will arrive at various agreements that will lead to some tinkering around the edges of the problem, but nothing effective will come out of it. They do not have the political will to challenge the people to the degree that would be required. The more likely scenario is that we will eventually be overwhelmed by natural forces we can longer manage and our civilisation, as we know it, will collapse. The natural and cultural world will be severely diminished and human populations will decrease, as they did in Europe during the centuries after the collapse of the Roman Empire. OK, that¹s a dystopian vision. Perhaps my distrust of anything that even begins to smell of utopian thought only evidences my dystopian inclinations. That may be so. I sure hope I am wrong. I just can¹t believe I might be wrong because it makes me feel good and human beings have never done anything to raise one¹s hopes they might redeem themselves and pull their collective finger out. They will not even agree on which finger. But you are WELCOME to try, of course. Best Simon Simon Biggs Research Professor edinburgh college of art [email protected] www.eca.ac.uk Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments CIRCLE research group www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ [email protected] www.littlepig.org.uk AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk From: james morris <[email protected]> Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <[email protected]> Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:03:13 +0000 (GMT) To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] DIWO solar powered (un)civilisation Hi Olga, Thanks for addressing Simon's dismissive. I'm easily lead. The manifesto did it, then Edward, Micheal and Simon. Now you've done it. I'm all for trying to find someway to encapsulate all these different opinions and attitudes in a way of seeing life or whatever you want to call it. The fact we're all human is as good a starting point as any, but only so helpful as to make the odd person or two smile :) :) James. On 30/10/2009, "Olga" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hello, > >Lots of discussion on Netbehaviour, time to say hi. It looks like DIWO >at the Dark Mountain has definitely managed to bring people together >to collaborate. There are a few things of the discussion that I'd like >to comment on. > > >ABOUT UTOPIA > >Simon Biggs: "I'd rather live in a fucked up world that in somebody >else's utopia. What often fucks us up is other people's solutions." > >Instead of dismissing the utopian impulse altogether I still find more >interesting the idea of utopia as a driving force, as the possibility >of imagining the alternative, and as a pre-requisite of bringing it >into being. But Utopia should not anymore be considered as a master >plan or totalising idea, but rather as the possibility of multiple >Others to what we have now, that can be inspiring for our lives today. > >Many authors have written of the colonisation of the future by >capital. Frederic Jameson talks about the discourse of progress as "an >attempt to colonize the future, to draw the unforeseeable back into >tangible realities in which one can invest..." Then discussing Tafuri >and Cacciari (Frankfurt School) Jameson goes on to say: "It is thus >not merely to deprive the future of its explosiveness that is wanted, >but also to annex the future as a new area for investment and for >colonisation by capitalism". > >Our role as participants in this world is to regain the power of >future as disruption. Now, I completely agree with Edward Picot in >that "Principles are one thing, but implementation is another." So a >great deal of modesty is important to balance the words above and >that's why I tend to define my work as mini-interventions, >mini-troops... > > >ABOUT BEING CIVILISED > >I would not entirely agree with Michael on 'I don't accept that one >should moderate one's opinions'. Definitely this is not about >censuring each other but it is about collaboration, and in as much as >the main goal is to establish creative links among us I think we need >to deal with each other with great respect. Of course criticism is >important, and it's been proved these days that the most critical >voices have sparked discussion. I think, however, that if we get to >the point that each of the words is scrutinised to such an extent, one >- at least I do - starts feeling like she needs to be extremely >careful. I don't find that particularly helpful when it comes to >creativity. > > >AN IDEA... > >I thought I might be able to bring here some of my personal >explorations of the potential of fiction to intervene reality. I would >like to build this fictional world, parallel universe, (im)possible >future of a solar powered (un)civilisation. Like others on this list, >I also feel uncomfortable with the word uncivilisation. > >My plan is to focus on the leaks of that fictional world to see how >they might affect our reality. I wanted to start by deploying a small >troop of solar bugs... they are small and highly contagious. Perhaps >even capable of effecting a genetic mutation in humans that will allow >us to extract energy from the sun... > > >-- >Olga P Massanet >-------------------------- >www.ungravitational.net >virtualfirefly.wordpress.com >www.vimeo.com/ungravitational >_______________________________________________ >NetBehaviour mailing list >[email protected] >http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
