that they had shaped history in consequential ways. In his Geographical Journal piece he argued that the ending of the Ice Age was a still ongoing process, and that the resulting effects of progressive desiccation were visible across Eurasia and had produced a series of catastrophic events, including the episodic onslaughts of Asian nomads upon Europe.
Unfortunately, his research became immediately annexed to the debate about a “dying civilization” on Mars, as revealed by the elaborate system of “canals” supposedly observed on the Red Planet. Perceval Lowell, the most zealous proponent of these canals, wrote a book claiming that Mars merely rehearsed the future of the Earth, citing Kropotkin and others on the progressive aridification of Eurasia. But Kropotkin’s real Frankenstein monster, shocked to life by the Geographical Journal debate, was the American geographer and former missionary Ellsworth Huntington, a tireless self-promoter, who reinterpreted linear desiccation as a natural cycle, the famous “Pulse of Asia.” Huntington’s belief in climatic determination, whether of civilizations’ rise and fall, or simply of human moods, soon morphed into a bizarre racial theory of history, poisoning the well for research on historical climates for almost two generations.
When I wrote Chapter 4, “Who Will Build the Ark?,” debate about the “Anthropocene,” a proposed geological epoch without previous analogue, defined by the biogeochemical impacts of industrial capitalism, was still largely confined to earth science circles. Since then the term has expanded at meme speed to encompass not only these debates but virtually everything else. A quick perusal of recent and forthcoming books under the heading “Anthropocene” reveals titles like World Politics in …; Learning to Die in …; Love in …; Bats in …; Virtue in …; Poetry in …; Hope and Grief in …; Coral Reefs in…; and so on. The Anthropocene, in other words, has morphed far beyond the original parameters of earth-system processes and stratigraphical markers to become post-modernism’s successor in the double sense of a vast and at times meaningless blanket thrown over everything novel and a permit for wild and undisciplined speculations about “post-natural” ontologies. Radical critics have justifiably focused on the false universals conflated in promiscuous discussions of the Anthropocene: “Man as geological agent” (instead of capitalism); “the threat to human survival” (the rich will assuredly survive; the existential threat is to the poor majority); “the human fossil fuel footprint” (“What did you say, kemosabe?”); and so on.
“Ark” is an argument with myself. In the first half, I make the case for pessimism: there is no historical precedent or rational-actor logic that would lead rich countries (or classes) to repay their “ecological debts” to the poor countries that will suffer the greater part of the catastrophic consequences of rich counties’ historic emissions. Likewise, the chaos of the Anthropocene is indissolubly linked to the broader civilizational crisis of capitalism. A large portion of the labor-power of the planet, for example, needs to be devoted to the unmet housing and environmental needs of poor cities and their adaptation to extreme climate events. But global capitalism is no longer a job machine; quite the contrary, the fastest-growing social classes on earth are the unemployed and the informally employed. There is no realistic scenario in which market forces would mobilize this vast reservoir of labor to meet the challenge of the Anthropocene, nor is there any likelihood of adopting the kind of policies that would accommodate the human migrations necessitated by mega-droughts and rising sea levels. That would require a revolution from below of a scope far beyond anything imagined by Marx and Engels.
In the second half of “Ark,” I focus on the false choice defined by environmentalists who argue that there is no hope of reconciling a universally high standard of living with the requirements of sustainability. If capitalist urbanization is in so many ways the chief problem, responsible for the majority of emissions, groundwater deficits, and major pollutant flows, I propose the city as its own possible solution. We must transform private into public affluence with a zero carbon footprint. There is no planetary shortage of “carrying capacity” if we are willing to make democratic public space, rather than modular, private consumption, the engine of sustainable equality. We need to ignite our imaginations by rediscovering those extraordinary discussions—and in some cases concrete experiments—in utopian urbanism that shaped socialist and anarchist thinking between the 1880s and the early 1930s. The alter monde that we all believe is the only possible alternative to the new Dark Ages requires us to dream old dreams anew.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
