The fact is that the planet is already massively geo-engineered. There is no cyclical ecology from which we could withdraw in order to allow it to go back to its homeostatic balance and order. The problem is thus not whether to refuse to geo-engineer. It is rather to choose how to geo-engineer. Are there ways in which the vast global infrastructure already in place can be qualitatively transformed in order to make something else? Could there be a geophysics rather than a geopolitics of hibernation?
The expanse of possible alliances lost in the scoping singularity of our current apocalypse is unknowable in an unusual way. Each lost alliance or form of life means a future that can no longer come about. The global advance of homogenization is killing the futures as it strangles the present.
After writing that post, I started to think about other examples of this phenomenon, and about variations on this kind of fantasy-driven argumentation. The concept of being “reality-based” became a meme among liberals after a political appointee in the George W. Bush administration brazenly brushed off people who care about evidence by saying: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.” This accompanied his claim that “the reality-based community” is made up of people who foolishly “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” Where are we now, more than a decade into post-reality politics?
Does the aerial view afford new insights into how distant neighborhoods are connected, for example, or how criminals might attempt to hide—or flee—from police oversight? Where are these other, illicit routes and refuges?