Planetary negative commons | Cairn International Edition
https://www.cairn-int.info/journal-multitudes-2021-4-page-117.htm

While reflections on the Anthropocene tend to evoke new “spatial” divisions, other schools of thought, centered on the concepts of collapse or the threat of extinction, prefer temporal paradigms. Whether Bruno Latour’s Terrestrial attractor or the contemporary reworking of concepts like “the time of the end” or the idea that it is “too late” to act, the coordinates used to think about the future from either perspective seem to be thoroughly orthogonal. Nevertheless, in recent years another attractor has emerged to complicate the picture. Authors as diverse as Dipesh Chakrabarty, Benjamin Bratton, and Lukáš Likavčan are now emphasizing the specifically “planetary” dimension of current problems.

This short text is an attempt to investigate this claim through the prism of our work on negative commons. As Chakrabarty—one of the first to explore the idea—himself admits, one of the challenges of Planetarity is the extreme difficulty of politicizing the issues at stake on the spatial and temporal scales with which the concept confronts us. In our view, the notion of negative commons opens up a line of thought that reveals new levers of political action situated right in the interstices between the Globe (manifestation of the classic figures of empire, capital, etc., on which criticism usually exerts its grip) and the Planet.

The questions posed by these categories, and the horizons they look to, differ considerably. We will start with the Globe, the more or less spatial translation of the concept of Modernity, itself an era or a temporal structure supposedly characterized by new sciences and, more broadly, a relationship to the world, a novel way of inhabiting and conceptualizing it

planetarni pece

2019 From the human to the planetary: Speculative futures of care
http://concept.lib.ed.ac.uk/index.php/mat/article/view/4960

This is largely a theoretical, speculative essay that takes on the question of what ‘care’looks like at a moment when climate change is increasingly taking center stage in public and political discussions. Starting with two new practices, namely, humanitarian care for nonhumans and One Health collaborations, I seek to determine what forms of political care can incorporate the well-being of future generations and future iterations of the earth. After an exploration of One Health as an approach to planetary care, I ask what its parts enable us to think, despite its limitations; I focus on the new human-nonhuman assemblages connected through different biosocial models, such as neuroscience or immunology, to see how these scientific theories might enable new possibilities. I argue that a focus on biological ecologies at different scales–as opposed to ethicomoral categories like humanity–can open the way to a larger imaginary of human and nonhuman flourishing and a space for nonmoralistic politics.

2020 Astrobiology and Society: An Overview at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century
Astrobiology and Society: An Overview at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century | SpringerLink
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-41614-0_16

What are the implications of astrobiology for society? When one considers that astrobiology encompasses research on the origin and evolution of life, the existence of life beyond Earth, and the future of life on Earth and beyond, the scope of that deceptively simple question becomes clear. It embraces not only the religious, ethical, legal, and cultural concerns inherent in those subjects, but also the meaning of life and even human destiny in a universe where humans are unique—or not. Particularly in the area of extraterrestrial life, which has been a focus for astrobiology and society concerns in terms of implications, the issues have been global and contentious. The consequences have long been vividly played out in science fiction by classic authors such as Arthur C. Clarke in Childhood’s End or 2001: A Space Odyssey, and by more recent writers like Ted Chiang in “Story of Your Life” and its film adaption Arrival.

How can we even approach such questions as the impact of discovering life beyond Earth, whether microbial or intelligent? How can we transcend anthropocentrism when we address concepts such as life and intelligence, culture and civilization, technology and communication? And in what areas is humanity most likely to be transformed by such a discovery? We cannot fully answer these questions in this chapter, but there is now a surprisingly substantial literature that does address them. As with astrobiology, it is prudent for current researchers in the subject to be aware of this much shorter history, whether to contest or expand it. In this chapter we provide an overview of this literature on astrobiology and society. Substantial as it may seem, it is only the leading edge of what is sure to become an entire discipline of its own, especially if life is actually discovered out there among the stars

agency-dominated biosphere -> hypercivilizator/hyperpredator

2017 Earth as a Hybrid Planet: The Anthropocene in an Evolutionary Astrobiological Context
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213305417300425

We develop a classification scheme for the evolutionary state of planets based on the non-equilibrium thermodynamics of their coupled systems, including the presence of a biosphere and the possibility of what we call an “agency-dominated biosphere” (i.e. an energy-intensive technological species). The premise is that Earth’s entry into the “Anthropocene” represents what might be, from an astrobiological perspective, a predictable planetary transition. We explore this problem from the perspective of the solar system and exoplanet studies. Our classification discriminates planets by the forms of free energy generation driven from stellar forcing. We then explore how timescales for global evolutionary processes on Earth might be synchronized with ecological transformations driven by increases in energy harvesting and its consequences (which might have reached a turning point with global urbanization). Finally, we describe quantitatively the classification scheme based on the maintenance of chemical disequilibrium in the past and current Earth systems and on other worlds in the solar system. In this perspective, the beginning of the Anthropocene can be seen as the onset of the hybridization of the planet – a transitional stage from one class of planetary systems interaction to another. For Earth, this stage occurs as the effects of human civilization yield not just new evolutionary pressures, but new selected directions for novel planetary ecosystem functions and their capacity to generate disequilibrium and enhance planetary dissipation.

paliativni proces

Hospicing Modernity by Vanessa Machado de Oliveira: 9781623176242 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/675703/hospicing-modernity-by-vanessa-machado-de-oliveira/

Driven by expansion, colonialism, and resource extraction and propelled by neoliberalism and rabid consumption, our world is profoundly out of balance. We take more than we give; we inoculate ourselves in positive self-regard while continuing to make harmful choices; we wreak irreparable havoc on the ecosystems, habitats, and beings with whom we share our planet. But instead of drowning in hopelessness, how can we learn to face our reality with humility and accountability?

Machado de Oliveira breaks down archetypes of cognitive dissonance–the do-gooder who does “good enough,” then retreats to business as usual; the incognito capitalist who, at first glance, may seem like a radical change-maker–and asks us to dig deeper and exist differently. She explains how our habits, behaviors, and belief systems hold us back…and why it’s time now to gradually disinvest. Including exercises used with teachers, NGO practitioners, and global changemakers, she offers us thought experiments that ask us to:

• Reimagine how we learn, unlearn, and respond to crisis
• Better assess our surroundings and interact with difference, uncertainty, complexity, and failure
• Expand our capacity to hold personal and collective space for difficult and painful things
• Understand the “5 modern-colonial e’s”: Entitlements, Exceptionalism, Exaltation, Emancipation, and Enmeshment in low-intensity struggle activism
• Interrupt our satisfaction with modern-colonial desires that cause harm
• Create space for change driven neither by desperate hope nor a fear of desolate hopelessness

Hospicing modernity readings and Q&A session 1/6 (Prep Work)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIgO3tVr_m0


EP.11 Vanessa Andreotti: The World as a Living Metabolism
https://youtu.be/N7MX1UBUS1M

každý náš nádech je darem rostlin, každá kapka vody zrovna tak
is the land the source of belongings or source of belonging?
bioneers interviewing the vegetable mind, btw every organism have a song - scientificlly approved :))
Spotify
https://open.spotify.com/episode/1NI2JtT27Puvco3oJgYQ9P?si=cwXOuj6-Swmd7sdWYITD2A

TADEAS: aneb planetarni kontext psychedelicke kultury

interplanetarita, antropocentricka moc

2008 Sovereignty and the UFO
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0090591708317902

Modern sovereignty is anthropocentric, constituted and organized by reference to human beings alone. Although a metaphysical assumption, anthropocentrism is of immense practical import, enabling modern states to command loyalty and resources from their subjects in pursuit of political projects. It has limits, however, which are brought clearly into view by the authoritative taboo on taking UFOs seriously. UFOs have never been systematically investigated by science or the state, because it is assumed to be known that none are extraterrestrial. Yet in fact this is not known, which makes the UFO taboo puzzling given the ET possibility. Drawing on the work of Giorgio Agamben, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida, the puzzle is explained by the functional imperatives of anthropocentric sovereignty, which cannot decide a UFO exception to anthropocentrism while preserving the ability to make such a decision. The UFO can be “known” only by not asking what it is.

(PDF) Planetary Futures, Planetary History | Zoltán Boldizsár Simon - Academia.edu
https://www.academia.edu/42626908/Planetary_Futures_Planetary_History

Simon, Z.B. 2022. Planetary Futures, Planetary History. In: Simon, Z.B. and Deile, L. (eds.), Historical Understanding: Past, Present and Future. London: Bloomsbury, 119-129.


utopian or dystopian, human futures are inextricably bound with larger planetary futures. They are constitutive of one another in mutual interactions instead of the planet being simply the frame or background of human activities. The recognition of the systemic entanglement of human and planetary futures is based on two fundamental and inseparable insights: the realization that the human being has become a primary drive behind ongoing transformations in the Earth System; and the very idea that the Earth is an integrated system. Earth System science (ESS), a knowledge formation that was formalized in the 1980s (Steffen et al. 2020), developed both insights into their most popular shapes—the ones we see today. It may be possible to look for earlier inspirations and/or alternatives, such as the Gaia framework (Lenton, Dutreuil, and Latour 2020), but ESS has arguably been the most instrumental and successful in grasping together physical and social processes into a single larger picture of the Earth as a complex interacting and integrated system.For one thing, the notion of the Anthropocene (Crutzen and Stoermer 2000) started its career as an ESS effort to name the systemic collision of the human and the natural worlds by referring to anthropogenic changes in the Earth System as testified by stratigraphic evidence (Zalasiewicz et al. 2017). Yet it quickly became clear that the social components of the Anthropocene may not be as profoundly addressed by ESS as by scholars of the human world. No wonder that Eva Lövbrand and her co-authors (2015) asked the question “Who speaks for the future of Earth?” and argued for a more prominent role for social scientific knowledge in coping with planetary futures. A distribution of work may indeed yield important results, while there is an equally compelling extent to which the systemic entanglement of physical and social processes is actually no one’s expertise in the modern disciplinary distribution of knowledge, which demands a new knowledge regime that is yet to be developed (Renn 2020; Simon 2020).

...

Drawing on Hartog, Dipesh Chakrabarty (2019: 1) thinks that “planetary or Anthropocenic regime of historicity” may be the term that best captures our current condition. In transferring Hartog’s notion from the framework of referring to inner relations of temporal dimensions (past, present, future) to the framework of referring to time scales (the history of the planet, of life on the planet, of the globe), Chakrabarty suggests that ESS has already begun to write a new kind of history in a planetary regime of historicity.

...

the planetary intends to capture the collision of physical and social processes from a humanities point of view, the task of planetary history is to relate the global and its differentiated human world to the extra-human dimensions that the category of the planetary entails on a level where the human acts as a species. This, however, may not be the end of the story. We can do better than looking at the new from old humanities viewpoints; we can develop a wholly new viewpoint. Planetary history can potentially be an experimental pool for nurturing new knowledges that spring out of the encounter of old and new (in which, perhaps, even the planetary turns out to be a bit narrow, ... )