
'A reckoning for our species': the philosopher prophet of the Anthropocene - diodorus
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/15/timothy-morton-anthropocene-philosopher
======
penland
Alan Jacobs has a pithy overview of Morton, and the following is taken from a
recent post on Morton by him:

This strategy of employing familiar language in unfamiliar contexts gives the
appearance of being radical but may not be quite that. It strikes me as being
largely a reversal of Skinnerian behaviorism: the behaviorists said that human
beings are nothing special because they're just like animals and plants,
responding to stimuli in law-governed ways; now the object-oriented
ontologists say that human beings are nothing special because animals and
plants (and hammers and black holes) all possess the traits of consciousness
and desire that we have traditionally believed to be distinctive to us. The
goal of the philosophical redescription seems to be the same: to dethrone
humanity, to get us to stop thinking of ourselves as sitting at the pinnacle
of the Great Chain of Being.

It's hard for me to take Morton too seriously because our ( by which I mean
his and mine ) Metaphysics are so diametrically opposed. Hyperobjects are so
ontologically complex as to give the feeling they have been invented solely to
justify the philosopher's pre-existing beliefs ( though in fairness, you can
write that about a lot of things ).

~~~
patcon
I'm going to write a thing that I'm not sure I totally believe, but I'm going
to try it on for size. Pls feel free to push back on any part, or give
feedback on whether anything resonates with you:

I don't think you give enough credit to the potential importance of eloquent
memes and the building of new religions of sorts, in pursuit of making the
more complex truths about our world and humanity (which hopefully can inform
desired common futures) more palletable to a sizeable majority. (My underlying
assumption is that we are emotional machines that sometimes engage in rational
thought, and not vice versa.)

Pure rationalism won't get us to the future we deserve. We need to treat our
packages of beliefs almost as we do the most widely-used open source projects
-- shiny surfaces, perhaps built collaboratively, that package up a more
meticulously considered core, rooted in something that tends toward a more
just world -- a surface thing that is perhaps a little more superficial and
concealing of it's unique working, but can be interrogated and dissected by
those who care to dive in. The rest can just consume it and have a shallow
affinity for the beautiful packaging, and that's ok. The point is that we
together build the core carefully, we can all interrogate it to understand why
it does what it does, and why it points us in certain directions without
asking us to go all the way down the rabbit hole, and that those who care to
question its tenets can dig deeper into them.

So in this analogy, might Morton just we working on the pretty UI, that's
trying to package up the underlying architecture in a way (if not with 100%
fidelity) that can at least be more socially transformative ? It's this line
of thinking that makes me feel your criticism to be, while not untrue, then at
least somewhat counterproductive to the sorts of action/memes that I believe
will be most effective in the world.

~~~
dimaggiosghost
It depends on values.

Someone who values the best version of the currently knowable truth would have
one perspective.

Someone who values human life over freedom has another.

Others value believing in something palatable for a majority of others
(clothes, social status, etc.)

Most of what we look at is our projection. Parents believe in things like the
future. Others are content for their moment, without wishing for that.

It's impossible to escape our initial and very personal biases to describe
these things.

IMO the best we can do is to reveal consistencies we can act upon. For me that
is enough.

------
EGreg
I think that Malthus may have identified the major first-order reason for the
anthopocene. Even though he, like the Luddites, were too early in their
predictions.

David Harvey speaks about us being able to stave off the inequality wreaked by
automation and outsourcing of work by the expansion of consumer credit in the
80s. Now, household debt AND public debt are at all-time highs, the borrowing
spree has ended.

Similarly we have been able to stave off the malthusian trap for decades,
we've been destroying biodiversity and turning the world into monoculture and
farms. We've had a population explosion and have been releasing entropy and
heat on the earth even faster than that.

Will the bill come due? Or will we find ways to capture the carbon and put it
underground?

This is one of the scariest reads:

[https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-
physicist...](https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/)

------
biofox
Without knowing anything about Tim Morton, other than what's in this article,
I'm struggling to see what's novel here. It sounds like the exact same stuff
that came out of the environmental movement of the 60s.

What am I missing?

~~~
VLM
From a "Two Cultures" analysis the original 60s/70s stuff was discovered by
Team Science, think of DDT and Carson and "Silent Spring". That all got co
opted away from Team Science and run by Team Humanities which is in charge of
propaganda, so as a kid I got to sit in school thru videos and coloring books
about Condor birds with no thought beyond playground diplomacy of whos now
cool (Condors, apparently) and whos now not cool anymore (Some chemical
acronym with Ds and Ts). The new stuff is pure "Team Humanities" from the
start, a compelling narrative untainted by science or logic, and it shows.
From a distance they do look the same. Its like the difference between a good
"Inspired by a true story" cable TV psuedo-documentary movie and a purely
fictional movie.

~~~
philipkglass
Morton's better stuff seems cribbed from Team Science. There's already a
serviceable, perfectly-compatible-with-Team-Science philosophy that reminds
humans that we are part of, made of, and embedded within nature: physicalism.

I don't understand the appeal/utility/whatever of Morton's odd original
contributions (hyperobjects, conscious boulders). It doesn't refute popular
misconceptions of a nature-human gulf any better than plain physicalism. It's
also not a very appealing basis for Team Humanities propaganda (as you style
it) -- who's going to make a Hyperobjects Coloring Book?

Morton's philosophy reminds me of those old herbal remedies that turned out to
contain one active herb plus a bunch of superfluous materials and preparation
rituals. There's a bit of something valuable in what he says but you can find
it purer and simpler elsewhere. Of course even today some people _deliberately
seek out_ remedies made with a bunch of superfluous ritual and inactive
ingredients, because they like complication for its own sake. Maybe that
personality type forms the core of Morton's fans.

------
rwnspace
I have a sense this person is popular not for the gravity of his thinking...
But the attractor function of philosophical-ecological critique for lefties.
Particularly those that have a high verbal IQ.

If you don't have a good map for the different levels on which kinds of things
can be said to operate, then it's intellectually trivial to lay your noodly
appendage across a few, and name whatever comes out some combination of latin-
greek roots.

I'm all for redirecting and expanding perceptions of what is meaningful and
what is moral, but it seems that there are a lot of different flavours for the
same thing: 'x category definition leads to y outcome'. What determines the
momentum of this claim relates to timing and status, fools gold for
prescience.

If we are to take any insight from whatever thing that 'hyperobjects' points
to, then it should be the notion that the material consequences of our actions
are entwined with our state of mind at the point of consequence. Every
experience I have of action informs the kind and timing of future actions.
Whatever is held to be more essential of these (action|conception) to some
phenomena prescribes what kind 'really matters'. In Morton's world this is
hyper-objects - in my world, evolutionary essentialism.

Non-departmental 'philosophy' (edit: I mean 'non-canonical') unfortunately
often seems to lead to, 'we started with these popular categories and their
features, applied some functions, now we have something different, guess we
didn't need those other categories since we retained features. We promise this
is unique and cool. And that we definitely retained those features. We fail to
mention possibility of knock-down responses, or look for analogues in other
fields since we want some money and fame. We hope you get the experience of
intellectualism without the effort. Buy my book.'

It's not impressive to take strands of popular rationality and make knots.

------
neolefty
This is a discussion that I've encountered a lot lately -- it seems to boil
down to:

 _Is civilization different from nature? Is it doomed to be destructive, or
can it create something new and better?_

Many people I've met lately are intellectual materialists, and they are pretty
pessimistic about the future.

I have to say though that I'm on the side of civilization. We've got problems,
but I think we'll get our act together over the next few centuries.

------
sillyquiet
This doesn't sound like philosophy so much as a quasi-Gaianistic religion.

------
pier25
Reminded me of this essay by the biologist Eric R. Pianka.

[http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/VanishingBook.html](http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/VanishingBook.html)

------
aeorgnoieang
> This means changing our relationship with the other entities in the universe
> – whether animal, vegetable or mineral – from one of exploitation through
> science to one of solidarity in ignorance. If we fail to do this, we will
> continue to wreak havoc on the planet, threatening the ways of life we hold
> dear, and even our very existence.

If we discover another epoch-making asteroid on a trajectory that intersects
with Earth, I'd prefer that someone exploit the hell out of it with science
instead of standing in solidarity in "ignorance" with the minerals.

------
cubano
Firstly, isn't labeling this epoch "Anthropocene" somewhat premature and
mostly political in nature?

According to data surrounding the channeled scablands[0] in Washington state,
the earth has been through at least 19 severe cooling periods in the past 2
million years, the approximate time _homo sapian_ and our very close
evolutionary ancestors have survived and, in our case at least, thrived beyond
all possible expectation.

All this with mostly just the barest bits of technology...fire, sharpened
flints etc etc. These cooling events have been _massive_ in scope; Manhattan
Island was under 2 miles of ice and glaciers came all the way down to north
Georgia.

In other words, we are _really good_ at dealing with a changing environment no
matter what the cause could be.

As I read the article, this "philosopher prophet" seems to be nothing of the
kind, unless you consider a religious-type zeal for a silly and pretentious
prediction of the total destruction of the earth's ecosystem some sort of deep
insight.

That's utterly preposterous. Ice core samples[1] of greenhouse gases (you
know, actual data points not so-far-very-inaccurate computer models) show we
seem to be right on cycle basically and show little _scientific_ basis for the
hysterics that this man is being genuflected for in the article.

Of course we should all be concerned about keeping a cleaner environment...
_who the fuck_ is for dirty water and air?

    
    
       Others say the blame for the despoliation of the Earth 
       should be laid at the feet not of humanity in general, but 
       of (predominantly white, western and male) capitalism. 
    

Oh now we are getting at the meat of things. Sure of course blame "white men"
for all the worlds ills. Predictable...and for the record I am not a "white"
male.

Aren't these the same "white men" who basically gave us the industrial
revolution, anti-biotics and vaccines that have saved 100's of millions, and a
global economy tied to the WWW that is lifting 100's of thousands out of
poverty daily?

More to the point...would this be the same capitalism that is responsible in
the US for an over 12% reduction in CO2 over the past 10 years?[2]

Yes I know..all this just becomes political in nature and I certainly am not
going to change any minds here or anywhere, really. I just can't for the life
of my understand why so many people feel the need to underestimate humanity's
abilities to fix and deal with pretty much anything the environment throws at
us.

Besides a huge meteor impact of course.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channeled_Scablands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channeled_Scablands)
[1]
[http://cdiac.ornl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg](http://cdiac.ornl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg)
[2]
[https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8714#results](https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8714#results)

~~~
simonh
Well it seems obvious it's Capitalism's fault, because when you look at the
environmental record of the major non-capitalist states such as the USSR and
Communist China, you see that... er... um... never mind.

~~~
bjl
Except that both the USSR and China are capitalist in the Marxist sense.

~~~
simonh
A fair point, but they were also the two biggest, most concerted efforts to
have an industrial civilisation while not being capitalist. They also heavily
marketed themselves as being anti-capitalist. Their utter and abject,
miserably destructive failure to do so don't endear me overly much to the
'capitalism is the root of all evil' position.

After all it is also Capitalism that is giving us the tools to fight global
warming and pollution - solar and battery technology, wind, tidal,
hydroelectricity, biodegradable plastics, highly efficient self-driving
electric vehicles - getting rid of Capitalism isn't going to make all our
problems go away with it. Capitalism is at it's core about individual
ownership, freedom and responsibility. These are not bad things.

------
pavement

      Timothy Morton wants humanity to give up some 
      of its core beliefs, from the fantasy that we 
      can control the planet to the notion that we 
      are ‘above’ other beings.
    

So... you're telling me there are too many chiefs, not enough Indians?

------
golemotron
Ecological movements like this along with social theories like
intersectionality make me wonder about the difference between groups organized
around particular sets of values and religious groups. There doesn't seem to
be any real difference.

