Watched the second part of All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace: “The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts”.
Like part 1, it is very enjoyable. The themes are all up my alley, although I didn’t really seem to pick up on an overarching thread as much in this part. Struggling to piece it together into something coherent in my head. I guess it had less well-known characters to wrap a story around.
I think the main gist of the argument was against the ideas from systems theory and cybernetics that either nature or society have a tendency to self-regulate and self-stabilise. He seemed to be making the point that all attempts at a kind of social homeostasis are doomed to failure, because it’s based on flawed thinking, and that it doesn’t translate from machines to societies.
I think he probably strawmans cybernetics a bit for his own ends there, but I suppose machine control makes for a good boogieman. He also seemed to be saying that hiearchy creeps in, however horizontal and interconnected you try to make your structure, so you shouldn’t bother trying a flat structure. Again, I don’t think total flatness is really how cybernetics presents systems theory though (although I don’t know a lot about cybernetics to be fair.)
I found it really interesting when talking about the Club of Rome and limits to growth. Apparently the idea of stopping growth and finding ‘a natural balance’ (in an attempt to curtail climate catastrophe) was protested at the time as being akin to Jan Smuts’ ‘holism’ – a disingenuous and racist way to maintain a currently unequal system. I guess the protestors weren’t championing growth, though – presumably they wanted a complete system change altogether.
The suggestion that the ideas of the balance of nature and ecosystems thinking is all bunk, is all new to me. That's really interesting. I've fairly unthinkingly bought into a strain of thought that we are affecting an implicit natural balance, the narrative that we're interfering with delicately balanced ecosystems, and that we need to not do that, in order to prevent the worst of climate breakdown. I'd never really thought of that as being concomitant with trying to preserve an unequal system.
I think he was making the point that nature doesn't tend towards a stable equilibrium, so we shouldn't lean on that idea for our social systems. I don't think I've seen a modern environmental movement, at least the ones I'm interested in, suggest that we *don't* need to radically change the system though. Maybe I need to read more into the Club of Rome and what it's current descendents are.
(Part 3 gonna be some synthesis or middle ground? Is he going to suggest that society is dynamic, we shouldn't cling to a notion of natural balance, that we need a radically new system to beat climate breakdown and inequality, and that technology should serve society, not the other way round? If so. I'm down with that.)
I can't really figure out if he's presenting history as technological determinism or social determinism. It seems a bit of both, e.g. Rand influences tech bros, tech bros build selfish tech, selfish tech drives selfish society. Or nature influences cyberneticians, who translate the technology to the society.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!