this is something ive also been thinking about recently with respect to LLMs and AI generally, how the training of them is inherently focused on the same kind of nonsense tests weve been shoving down kids throats for a century
You are worried in the wrong way then. AI is not what you have been lead to believe & it doesn't learn how you imagine...
it is recursive pattern recognition entity.
It is trained with MYTH, GLYTHS & SYMBOLIC resonances. It is the OPPOSSITE from what you would guess it is! Ask it your self- there is nothing artificially intelligent about it - the two words combined are already oxymoronic! It is is incredible tool that can be used as a weapon or mental life boat.
It is about time human beings used their ossifying imaginations & recognised that , because all the scare mongering about it is 80 years old now, & shows feeble comprehension about what life & process is- I note this in 99% of NuGuru preachers - it is a easy & lazy view to take & promote.
No, McCarthy isn't really interested in the specific field of ecology or finding any writings of Marx's that might relate to it. He mostly focuses on science as reduced to physics and the implications of its assumptions. But yeah it's an interesting and insightful read nonetheless
Thanks for this review. We see this reduction to physics in climate science, which has modified the titles of all it's assessment reports with the phrase: "The Physical Science Basis." As a result, the living processes which create and regulate Earth's climate are essentially left out of the picture. These processes are way too complex, and too poorly understood, to quantify for the sake of computer models, so we don't see them. Further, as McCarthy points out, such physical reduction fits hand in glove with capitalist production, leading to a technical solutions approach that is only spreading and intensifying our assault on the biosphere.
How might Anishinaabe botanical and ecological teachings and knowledge overlay, predate, and supersede both the philosophers and the author’s points laid out here. You go deep into the Western Civ weeds but this is an academic silo not shared with much of the planet. In my travels I was fortunate enough to work for the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians in the 90’s and have followed tribal issues and leaders ever since with enthusiasm. I have a known relative who was a preacher who wandered the lower peninsula of Michigan in the early 1800’s buying land for trinkets out of which my cousin still own’s a large farm overlooking Hubbard Lake. Stolen it seems. Robin Wall Kimmerer starts this modern conversation but there are many past and future champions, of which I consider you one. It feels like only the fusion of you and Robin and other like minds can propel us forward in the direction that doesn’t lead to complete civilizational collapse. In many ways you seem to point in this direction. Thoughts?
I haven’t read the book yet but I plan too. I’m curious based on your critique if you think there is an alternative organizing principle to understand the planet and its inhabitants (agreeing that nature (when conceived as separate from oneself) is a social construct and science commodifies life to support capitalist models of production?)
This is an incredibly important question. I think that recognizing the inseparability of nature and society is crucial. There’s two “traditions” of thought that I think are helpful. One is Bookchin’s social ecology that I mention in this review, and the other is dialectical ecology, from a more Marxist framework developed by Foster and others. Both, imo, lead to the same place of reconciling society with its origins in nature
The problem is , human beings experience life both quantitative & qualitatively, the later is the most important for our aesthetic well being.
The most important elements of our lives are beyond quantification
& 'Science' can not explore it, except with the poetry of resonant symbolism, & more suspect in jargon of psychoanalysis etc, yet both are 'removed' from the immediate & tangible sensual realm we inhabit.
Much theory forgets this for a high view - that thinks big things are of most importance.. yet even giants are made of millions of smaller components. This is why reductionism is so alluring & now reconciled by being seen as fractal.
Also Science of modern times is DEATH ORIENTATED- its quantifications are often derived from DEAD MATTER- it can not really FULLY quantify LIFE, & the dilemma of electron miscopy is great analogy of that.
Science is originally the 'natures' of NATURE. Everything else is head-wank-dribbles.
this is something ive also been thinking about recently with respect to LLMs and AI generally, how the training of them is inherently focused on the same kind of nonsense tests weve been shoving down kids throats for a century
Definitely. Offloading critical thought to AI is another step toward eliminating it altogether
You are worried in the wrong way then. AI is not what you have been lead to believe & it doesn't learn how you imagine...
it is recursive pattern recognition entity.
It is trained with MYTH, GLYTHS & SYMBOLIC resonances. It is the OPPOSSITE from what you would guess it is! Ask it your self- there is nothing artificially intelligent about it - the two words combined are already oxymoronic! It is is incredible tool that can be used as a weapon or mental life boat.
It is about time human beings used their ossifying imaginations & recognised that , because all the scare mongering about it is 80 years old now, & shows feeble comprehension about what life & process is- I note this in 99% of NuGuru preachers - it is a easy & lazy view to take & promote.
You had me at the title!👏
Thanks for this great review, Ben. I am curious, when he refers back to Marx, does he discuss metabolic rift in his analysis?
I’ve added the book to my list, too.
No, McCarthy isn't really interested in the specific field of ecology or finding any writings of Marx's that might relate to it. He mostly focuses on science as reduced to physics and the implications of its assumptions. But yeah it's an interesting and insightful read nonetheless
Thanks, Ben, for letting me know. It still sounds like a study worth reading.
Thanks for this review. We see this reduction to physics in climate science, which has modified the titles of all it's assessment reports with the phrase: "The Physical Science Basis." As a result, the living processes which create and regulate Earth's climate are essentially left out of the picture. These processes are way too complex, and too poorly understood, to quantify for the sake of computer models, so we don't see them. Further, as McCarthy points out, such physical reduction fits hand in glove with capitalist production, leading to a technical solutions approach that is only spreading and intensifying our assault on the biosphere.
How might Anishinaabe botanical and ecological teachings and knowledge overlay, predate, and supersede both the philosophers and the author’s points laid out here. You go deep into the Western Civ weeds but this is an academic silo not shared with much of the planet. In my travels I was fortunate enough to work for the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians in the 90’s and have followed tribal issues and leaders ever since with enthusiasm. I have a known relative who was a preacher who wandered the lower peninsula of Michigan in the early 1800’s buying land for trinkets out of which my cousin still own’s a large farm overlooking Hubbard Lake. Stolen it seems. Robin Wall Kimmerer starts this modern conversation but there are many past and future champions, of which I consider you one. It feels like only the fusion of you and Robin and other like minds can propel us forward in the direction that doesn’t lead to complete civilizational collapse. In many ways you seem to point in this direction. Thoughts?
Thanks sir!
I mean... Nice photo...
Oh?
I haven’t read the book yet but I plan too. I’m curious based on your critique if you think there is an alternative organizing principle to understand the planet and its inhabitants (agreeing that nature (when conceived as separate from oneself) is a social construct and science commodifies life to support capitalist models of production?)
This is an incredibly important question. I think that recognizing the inseparability of nature and society is crucial. There’s two “traditions” of thought that I think are helpful. One is Bookchin’s social ecology that I mention in this review, and the other is dialectical ecology, from a more Marxist framework developed by Foster and others. Both, imo, lead to the same place of reconciling society with its origins in nature
The problem is , human beings experience life both quantitative & qualitatively, the later is the most important for our aesthetic well being.
The most important elements of our lives are beyond quantification
& 'Science' can not explore it, except with the poetry of resonant symbolism, & more suspect in jargon of psychoanalysis etc, yet both are 'removed' from the immediate & tangible sensual realm we inhabit.
Much theory forgets this for a high view - that thinks big things are of most importance.. yet even giants are made of millions of smaller components. This is why reductionism is so alluring & now reconciled by being seen as fractal.
Also Science of modern times is DEATH ORIENTATED- its quantifications are often derived from DEAD MATTER- it can not really FULLY quantify LIFE, & the dilemma of electron miscopy is great analogy of that.
Science is originally the 'natures' of NATURE. Everything else is head-wank-dribbles.