Ecomanagerialism K - DDI 2014 MS

Eco-Managerialism K
Simon Dalby, Professor at Carleton University, PhD from Simon Fraser

University, 2007, Anthropocene geopolitics: globalisation, empire,
environment and critique, Geography Compass 1 10318
TIMOTHY W. LUKE 2003, Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg. Eco-Managerialism:
Environmental Studies as a Power/Knowledge Formation.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030802005346/http://aurora.icaap.org/2003Inte
rviews/luke.html
James, Simon Paul (2001) Heidegger and Environmental Ethics, Durham
theses, Durham Univeristy. Available at Durham E-Theses Online:
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3958/
1NC Shell
Eco-Mangerialism K
The affirmative is a fish out of water it displaces agency
in favor of ecological managerialism
Wilberg 4 MA in Philosophy and Politics from Oxford University
(Peter, The Dialectical Phenomenology of Michael Kosok,
http://www.heidegger.org.uk/uniting_hhh.htm)//krishnik
A fish is a part of the oceanic field in which it lives and at the same
time an individualised self-expression of that field a fishly form of
the ocean as a whole. The fish is also distinct from the oceanic environment around it and from
the other fishes within it. All oceanic life forms perceive both the ocean as a
whole and other organisms within it in their own unique way , for their
own unique organising field-patterns of awareness each create a uniquely patterned field of sensoryperceptual awareness their ocean. Sharks, for example, perceive electrical fields of other organisms and
The
ocean , in this analogy, can be compared to the universal ground
experience the ocean itself as an electrical field and not merely a tactile, visual or auditory one.
state of awareness or Being which gives rise to a multiplicity of

foreground figures in the shape of fish and other life forms. Yet each of
these figures in turn shapes its own background field constitutes its own patterned environment field of
The ocean as such, as a ground state of awareness, is

not reducible to a singular environmental or background field
common to all the life forms that figure within it, but is a field of
fields or ocean of oceans. What the ocean as such or any other oceanic life form within
it essentially is, cannot be reduced to the way it is perceived as
foreground figure or background field by other life form s each of
which perceives both the ocean as a whole and all the life forms
within it in a way configured by their own organising field-patterns
of awareness. If Being is a ground state of awareness then the relation of Being and beings can be
awareness or ocean.
compared to the oceans awareness of itself as ocean, and its awareness of itself in the individualised form
The self-awareness of these life forms is

their awareness of themselves and each other as a part of the ocean
as a whole and as self-expressions of it - both distinct but
inseparable from it. Only a fish with a human-like ego awareness
would experience itself as a being separate and apart from the
of each of the life-forms that it gives rise to.
ocean as a whole and other life forms within it, and regard its own uniquely
patterned perception of the ocean and its life forms as more real or objective than those of a fish or
shark.
This tecne of ocean management turns the world into the

standing reserve controlling people and environments
which profligates the panopticon mentality
Luke 95 University Distinguished Professor of Political Science in the
College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences as well as Program Chair of the
Government and International Affairs Program, School of Public and
International Affairs at Virginia Polytechnic Institute
(Timothy, On Environmentality: Geo-Power and Eco-Knowledge in the Discourses of Contemporary
Environmentalism, JSTOR, Cultural Critique 31, Autumn 1995)//krishnik
the various power/knowledge systems of instituting a

Worldwatch environmentality appear to be a practi-cal
materialization of panoptic power. The Worldwatch Institute continually
couches its narratives in visual terms, alluding to its mission as
outlining "an ecologically defined vision" of "how an environmentally
sustainable society would look" in a new "vision of a global
economy." As Foucault claims, "whenever one is dealing with a multiplicity of individuals on whom a
particular form of behavior must be imposed, the panoptic schema may be used" (Discipline
and Punish 205) because it enables a knowing center to reorganize the
disposition of things and redirect the convenient ends of individuals
in environmentalized spaces. As organisms op-erating in the energy exchanges of
Not surprisingly, then,
photosynthesis, human beings can become environed on all sides by the cybernetic system of bio-physical
Worldwatching, in turn, refixes the moral specification

of human roles and responsibilities in the enclosed spaces and segmented places of ecosystemic niches. And, in generating this knowledge of
environmental impact by applying such powers of ecological observation, the institutions of
Worldwatch operate as a green panopticon, enclosing Nature in
rings of centered normaliz-ing super-vision where an eco-knowledge
system identifies Nature as "the environment." The notational
calculus of bioeconomic ac-counting not only can, but in fact must
reequilibrate individuals and species, energy and matter,
inefficiencies and inequities in an integrated panel of globalized
observation. The supervisory gaze of normalizing control, embedded in the Worldwatch
Institute's panoptic practices, adduces "the environmental," or enclosed, segmented spaces, "observed at every point, in which the individuals
are inserted in a fixed place, in which the slightest movements are
supervised, in which all events are recorded, in which an uninterrupted work of writing links the centre and periphery, in which
power is exercised without division, according to a continuous hierarchical figure, in which each individual is constantly located,
examined, and distributed among the living beings, the sick and the
dead" (Foucault, Discipline and Punish 197). To save the planet, it becomes
necessary to environmentalize it, enveloping its system of systems
in new disciplinary discourses to regulate population growth,
economic development, and resource exploitation on a global scale
with continual managerial intervention.
systems composing Nature.
The alternative is a reconceptualization of international

politics in terms of interenvironmental relations only
this can investigate the questions of inequality and
control that are at the root cause of our environmental
and political problems
(Timothy, International or Interenvironmental Relations: Reassessing Nations
and Niches in Global Ecosystems, Sage Journals, Alternatives: Global, Local,
Political, 28:3, 7/2013)//krishnik
one decisively
significant way in which our fossil-fuel-burning, automobile-building,
commodity-buying culture has become "a veritable second nature " in
the Group of Eight can be traced through the planet's atmosphere, oceans,
soils, and climate. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in Shanghai in
January 2001, "most of the global warming of the last 50 years is
attributable to human activities."37 Not surprisingly, the people most
involved in such activity reside in niches occupied by Group of Eight
states: the effluence of their affluence is the major destructive
influence on Earth's atmosphere (though it may be noted that in 2002 China was
Such sociotechnical formations have real, material significance. For example,
recognized as the world's fastest-growing automobile market) . First nature, or the planet's environments
before or apart from human activities, has not seen our current levels of CO2 concentration (increases that
Second
nature, or the planet's environments with all of their current human
activities, is putting that first nature away for good and creating an
entirely new ecological order with its own energy flows, material
exchanges, and habitat niches. The United States, for example, with not
quite 5 percent of the world's population, produces one-quarter of
the greenhouse gases. While the United States is the most powerful nation in the
international system, this national power simultaneously reveals and
occludes something more profound about its occupation of the prime
niche in the global ecosystems of fossilfuel use , which is much more expansive
and destructive than that found in its bordered national space. On the one hand, many
collectives (people and things) in the United States are powerful enough
and wealthy enough to generate tremendous production and use of
oil, gas, and coal; on the other hand, the production-andconsumption inequalities registered in the ledgers of other nations
permit the United States to off-load its greenhouse-gas byproduction onto terrains, spaces, and niches worldwide. Second
nature now has so many builtenvironmental niches nested within it that the
modernization process has mostly ended: nature has gone for good.
Much of what appears to be international relations is, in fact, also an
elaborate network of interenvironmental relations as the occupants
and beneficiaries of one small cluster of niches occupied by very
successful political economies (like the Group of Eight and other major OECD countries)
compete with the residents and refugees of other, much-less-hightech blocs of humans and nonhumans (like those occupying the Group of Seventyseven countries) . We cannot understand inequality in the so-called new
world order without reexamining how international relations express
complex interenvironmental relations between divergent, differing
assemblies of humanity and nonhumanity, recognizing that these
relations are largely omnipolitan in their depth and direction. Who
controls the creation of new environmental conditions? Who and
what suffers from this capability of control? How do such inequalities
express themselves? These are essential questions that must be
explored more fully.
have occurred over the 250 years of the ' industrial revolution) in 420,000 years.
Links
Link Arctic
The affirmative is a reductionist denomination of the
Arctic to geographic numeration the alternative is a
precondition to exploration
Graham and Wilson 97 - *Professor of English at the Univerity of
Ottawa AND **PhD of English Literature from University of Ottawa; English
Professor at the University of Ottawa
(Lorrie and Tim, Questions of Being: An Exploration of Enduring Dreams,
Echoing Silence: Essays on Arctic Narrative)//krishnik
Just as, for Heidegger, in the culmination of modern metaphysics in
the will to power, existence becomes defined as a function of forces
or perspectives (for example, the definition of the willing self as a function of perspectives posited
by that self), so, too, Moss argues the culmination of the geographical
relation to existence means the revealing of being as a function of
forces or "conditions." For instance, he writes, "Geography is a
discipline, of course; and locationin a proscriptive sense, patterns
deter- mined by rule." Moss continues, "Geography is conditions, meant
almost as metaphor. Arctic geography; conditions of climate, of will
To endure, be endured" [our emphasis] (2). In a like manner, Moss notes, The Arctic,
[is] reduced by geographic explication to ciphers, digits, points that
occupy no space, lines with no dimension; words shatter, become
facts" (9); finally, he states, "Perception and notation are functions of
experience; not being itself [our emphasis] (17). For Heidegger, then, the
metaphysical relation to beings means their functionalization and
the loss of the things themselves; that is, the culmination of this
metaphysical relation to beings means the withdrawal of Being itself .
Simply put, things arise within modern metaphysics without limits ; for
Heidegger, beings only are within certain limits; in this way, in as much
as modern metaphysics dissolves the things themselves into forces,
the things themselves lack Being or the limits of what is proper to
them. Similarly, Moss argues that geography forces the landscape to arise as a
functional set of relationsthat is, as a function of "ciphers,"
"digits," or "lines with no dimension." To the extent that geography
abstracts the landscape into lines without dimension, geography
loses the landscape by erasing the horizons of landscape as the
limits of what is proper to it. In this way, then, just as Being has withdrawn
for Heidegger, so too, for Moss, geography subsumes landscape. Moss
refers to landscape as "the antithesis of geography" (5); in addition, he states that "[g]eography
has displaced the landscape; misplaced it perhaps ..." (17).
Link Aquaculture
The aff polarizes the relationship between marine
ecosystems and human interest, abandoning our
responsibility for oceanic relationality
Heine 90 Professor of Religion and History & Director of the Institute for
Asian Studies
(Steven, "Philosophy for an 'Age of Death': The Critique of Science and
Technology in Heidegger and Nishitani," JSTOR,
http://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/stable/pdfplus/1399227.pdf?
acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true)//krishnik
It is important to go back and see the methodological importance of
discussing marine ecology and the introduction of fish as party to
the problem beyond the considerations of stock management . This
will constitute a way of concluding in terms of the empirical study
while demonstrating the limits of its approach . It is also a gesture to the fact that
empirical/existential questioning, a question about being, is a necessary condition of thinking, thinking
The conventional analysis of the South

Pacific fisheries regime has shown that the institutional innovations
and the efficiency of cooperation among member states reliect a
success story. In this success story, however, the ecological context (that is, the
relationship between what is considered to be the stocks and
between stocks and human beings beyond their market value for the
party states) remains hidden. The indifference to ecological relations
creates another aspect of the problem, but this aspect goes beyond
the concerns articulated as efficiency and sustainability of resources
for global markets under the label of environmental concerns , hence
politics. In intemational environmental politics the natural components of the
ecological equation are political considerations insofar as human
interest can be established in terms of resources. The "political' of
international environmental politics is more about human beings and
the way they incorporate nature as resources than the political that may be seen
in the larger context oft he ecological." It rather represents a large depoliticisation
of ecological relations where the components of the system are
transformed into things without rights, existential relations and
prospects. The methodological style of the study may be seen as a
way of questioning, thinking, wondering about an existential
relationality implied in the initial question about the ecological call
and responsibility. The structure of questioning represents a transgressive7 methodological
differently from what is given as the norm.
move. The limits to understanding what the environmental issues involve in oceans and how they may be
thought of are reached, in the empirical study, by introducing those beings/ "agents' that are excluded
from the formal method of thinking in IR, Emilio Urunnus, mare .... This move disrupts the limits of
understanding the environment within the given framework of IR. The discussion may he considered as a
process of unconcealment which recovers those identities -fish, Thunnus alolunga, ecological human
being . . _ and spaces, oceans, ecosystems, habitats - which are disqualified from being the subject of
ethical consideration, even that of "ethics of exclusion' (Walker 1 993 ). The impact of this study on nature
in general and the ocean ecology in particular may he seen in its politicisation of the members of an
ecosystem as they become party to the political contestation in which their rights to life should be
the domain of the

political is expanded from IW as the social life of human beings
considered as worthwhile as those of human beings. Furthermore,
abstracted from nature, where the codes of moral relationality are

located, to an existential space where life means existence and
moral relations are based on ecological ethics of existential
responsibility. In discussing the aspects of marine ecology as a salient location
of environmental politics, fish are transformed from merely a
material resource to a IW which exists in a system of relations.
Elaboration ofthe ecological context and exposition of it from the perspective of ocean life reveals that the
fish are not necessarily or merely a

material source for human sustenance. By introducing the perspective of marine
life of fish is interactive and dynamic. Besides,
ecology in which individual fish species and their larger ecological relations are considered, (1) the
constitution of fish (nature) as IW, and (2) the reversal of depoliticisation are accomplished. As I argued in
relation to IW/mere IW as the representation of the political, the ecological context of nature first has to be
conceptualised as a form of IW hefore it appears as a political agency. The way I approach this may be
observed in the introduction of ash and its ecological location. The claim for IW is represented in the
existential condition of species by the fact of their living. This step is a political one, both on a
methodological level as it disrupts the conventional analysis, and on a practical level as the aspects of an
ecological system become political agents with claims deriving from their existential position in the
This politicisation is furthered by discussion of the

specific ecological condition of different species, Thunnus in
particular. It has revealed that the ocean ecosystems present
interactive and Huid relations. Each species has a different way of
life and these lives present many different dimensions.
ecological system.
Link Biodiversity
Preserving biodiversity leads to eco-colonialism wherein
we declare ourselves to be managers of the entire world,
reimagined as an ecological investment fund the aff
views biodiversity solely in terms of its benefit to
humanity turns the case
(Timothy, The (Un)Wise (Ab)Use of Nature: Environmentalism as Globalized
Consumerism?, International Studies Association Meeting, 3/22/1997,
http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim528.PDF)//krishnik
The WWF-US chapter in league with the WWF's global offices in Switzerland are intent upon
preserving some segments of the Earth's biodiversity through
planned giving and high-powered finance, which aim to reconstruct
certain natural environments around the world as a green
endowment from the past to provide sustainable income streams of
natural resources to present and future generations. As an endowment
system, the WWF-US is generating its own unique discourses of green
governmentality for managing Nature and its resources, as if its
many campaigns to protect the rainforest, save tigers, preserve
rhinos were an interdependent family of mutual funds poised to
capture continuously the charitable dollars of green investors . Like most
preservationist-minded ecology groups first inspired by IUCN habitat protection agendas, then, the
WWF essentially is devoted to "Nature preservation," or creating
small reservations of select real estate populated by rare wildlife
species in expanses of undeveloped habitat. The ethos of its aristocratic founders
with their experiences as hunters of trophy animals on game preserves remains alive in the WWF's
approach to Africa, Asia and Latin America as the best sites to preserve big game animals. As WWF-US
President Kathryn S. Fuller indicates, the WWF has helped "establish, fund or manage nearly 450 parks and
reserves world wide, from the Wolong Panda Reserve in China to Peru's spectacular Manu National Park.
The protected areas WWF-US has supported cover more than 260 million acres of wildlife habitat--an area
twice the size of California."92 This achievement is highly touted in WWF literature, underscoring how
the organization has reimagined Nature as a bioresources

trust, an ecomutual fund, or an environmental endowment to be
kept under its diligent surveillance as loosely held inventories of
land. The work of the WWF as a result is often ironically seen by its American
managers as a kind of "green man's burden" spreading the advances
made by conservationists in the United States abroad because, as
Train notes, "there has been almost total neglect of the problems
outside our borders until the WWF came along." 93 Under the presidencies of
thoroughly
Russell E. Train, Bill Reilly and Kathryn Fuller, the WWF grew from 25,000 members with an annual budget
of about $2 million in 1978 to a membership of 1.2 million and an annual budget of $79 million in the mid-
The WWF has specialized in

propagating its peculiar global vision in which experts from
advanced industrial regions, like the United States, Great Britain, or
Switzerland, take gentle custody of biological diversity in less
1990s by pushing this ecocolonialist agenda.94
advanced regions, like Third World nations, as benevolent scientific

guardians by retraining the locals to be reliable trustees of Earth's
common endowments in their weak Third World nation-states. In many
ways, the WWF is one of the world's most systematic practitioners of
eco-colonialism to reshape Nature consumption. From its initial efforts to protect
Africa's big fame trophy animals in the 1960s to the ivory ban campaigns of the 1990s, WWF
wildlife protection programs have been concocted by small
committees composed mostly of white, Western experts, using
insights culled from analyses conducted by white, Western scientists
that were paid for by affluent, white, Western suburbanites. At the end of
the day, many Africans and Asians, living near those WWF parks where the endangered wildlife actually
Third World
peoples see the WWF quite clearly for what it is: "white people are
making rules to protect animals that white people want to see in
parks that white people visit."95 At some sites, the WWF also promotes sustainably
roam wild, are not entirely pleased by such ecological solitude. Indeed, these
harvesting animals for hides, meat, or other byproducts, but then again these goods are mostly for
markets in affluent, white, Western countries. As Train argues, these ecocolonial practices are an
unavoidable imperative. The WWF came to understand that "the great conservation challenges of today
and of the future mostly lie in the tropics where the overwhelming preponderance of the Earth's biological
diversity is found, particularly in the moist tropical forests and primarily in the developing world. Although
the problems may often seem distance from our own shores and our own circumstances, we increasingly
understand that the biological riches of this planet are part of a seamless web of life where a threat to any
the
WWF has empowered itself over the past thirty-five years to act as a
transnational Environmental Protection Agency for Wildlife
Consumption to safeguard "the Earth's biological diversity,"
internationalizing its management of "the biological riches of this
planet" where they are threatened in territorialities with very weak
sovereignty to protect their sustainable productivity for territories
with quite strong sovereignty as parts of "a seamless web of life
where a threat to any part threatens the whole."97 On one level, the
American WWF frets over biodiversity, but many of its high Madison
Avenue activities actually aim at developing systems of
"biocelebrity." From the adoption of the panda bear as its official
logo to its ceaseless fascination with high-profile, heavily symbolic
animals, or those which are most commonly on display in zoos or hunter's trophy rooms, the WWFUS has turned a small handful of mediagenic mammals, sea
creatures, and birds into zoological celebrities as part and parcel of
defending Nature. Whether it is giraffes, elephants, rhinos or kangaroos, ostriches, koalas or
part threatens the whole."96 In mobilizing such discursive understandings to legitimize its actions,
dolphins, humpbacks, seals, only a select cross-section of wild animals with potent mediagenic properties
anchor its defense of Nature. Special campaigns are always aimed at saving the whales, rhinos or
elephants, and not more obscure, but equally endangered fish, rodents, or insects. This mobilization of
biodiversity, then, all too often comes off like a stalking horse for its more entrenched vocations of
the WWF is
increasingly devoted to defending biodiversity, because it is, as
Edward O. Wilson asserts, "a priceless product of millions of years of
evolution, and it should be cherished and protected for its own
sake."98 Even though it should be saved for its own sake, it is not .
Wilson provides the key additional justification, indicating implicitly how the World Wildlife
Fund actually presumes to be the long-term worldwide fund of
Nature as the unassayed stock of biodiversity is saved "for other
reasons," including "we need the genetic diversity of wild plants to
make our crops grow better and to provide new foods for the future.
defining, supplying, and defending biocelebrity. On a second level, however,
We also need biodiversity to develop new medicines....a newly

discovered insect or plant might hold the cure for cancer or AIDS." 99
Wilson argues, "you can think of biodiversity as a safety net that keeps ecosystems functioning and
maintaining life on Earth."100 But, as the organization operating as the green bank with the biggest
deposits from a worldwide fund of Nature, the WWF aspires to hold many of these bioplasmic assets in
ecological banks as an enduring trust for all mankind. Fuller, is quite explicit on this critical side of the
association's mission. Because "the biological riches of the planet are part of a seamless web of life in
which a threat to any part weakens the whole," the WWF must ensure the integrity and well-being of the
Earth's "web of life," giving it a most vital mission: Because so much of the current biodiversity crisis is
rooted in human need and desire for economic advancement, it is essential that we work to bring human
enterprise into greater harmony with nature. Short-sighted efforts at economic development that come at
the expense of biodiversity will impoverish everyone in the long run. That is why, in addition to
establishing protected areas and preserving critical wildlife populations, WWF uses field and policy work to
Faced by an
extinction wave of greater pervasiveness than any confronted
during recorded history, the WWF-US mobilizes the assets of
biocelebrity to leverage its limited guardianship over the planet's
biodiversity, because we may see as much as one quarter of the
Earth's biodiversity going extinct in twenty or thirty years. Even so,
the WWF fails to realize how closely its defense of the rational,
efficient use of precious natural resources as third wave
environmentalism may contribute to the extinction of biodiversity .
promote more rational, efficient use of the world's precious natural resources."101
And, the conspicuous consternation of the WWF permits a focused fixation upon biocelebrities to occlude
this fact for those who truly care about Nature--as long as it is equated with rhinos, tigers, and elephants.
Link Energy
Energy production refines the will to master and control
the earth this renders people and places as standing,
making all forms of violence inevitable
Callister 7 JD from Cornell University; MSLIS from the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign; UMKCs Law Library Director; Professor of Cyberlaw
and Infosphere and Advanced Legal Research
(Paul,Law and Heideggers Question Concerning Technology: Prolegomenon
to Future Law Librarianship, Fall 2007)//krishnik
Following World War II, the German philosopher Martin Heidegger offered one of the most potent criticisms
His nightmare is a world whose essence has

been reduced to the functional equivalent of a giant gasoline
station, an energy source for modern technology and industry. This
of technology and modern life.
relation of man to the world [is] in principle a technical one. . . . [It is] altogether alien to former ages and
the problem is not technology itself, but the

technical mode of thinking that has accompanied it. Such a
viewpoint of the world is a useful paradigm to consider humanitys
relationship to law in the current information environment, which is
increasingly technical in Heideggers sense of the term. 2
Heideggers warning that a technical approach to thinking about the
world obscures its true essence is directly applicable to the effects
of the current (as well as former) information technologies that
provide access to law. The thesis of this article is that Heidegger provides an
escape, not only for libraries threatened by obsolescence by emerging technologies, but for the law
histories.2 For Heidegger,
itself, which is under the same risk of subjugation. This article explains the nature of Heideggers
criticisms of technology and modern life, and explores the threat specifically identified by such criticism,
including an illustration based upon systematic revision of law in Nazi Germany. It applies Heideggers
criticisms to the current legal information environment and contrasts developing technologies and current
attitudes and practices with earlier Anglo-American traditions. Finally, the article considers the
implications for law librarianship in the current information environment. Heideggers Nightmare:
Understanding the Beast Calculative Thinking and the Danger of Subjugation to a Single Will 3 The threat
is not technology itself; it is rather a danger based in the essence of thinking, which Heidegger describes
the problem is that mankind

misconstrues the nature of technology as simply a means to an
end.5 4 Heideggers articulation of the common conception of technology as a means applies
as enframing3 or calculative thinking.4 For Heidegger,
equally well to information technologies, including legal databases. True, it is hard to think of technology
failure to consider the essence

of technology is a threat to humanity.6 5 He defines the threat in
two ways. First, humans become incapable of seeing anything
around them as but things to be brought into readiness to serve
some end (a concept he refers to as standing reserve).7 They are
thereby cut off from understanding the essence of things and,
consequently, their surrounding world.8 Second, man is reduced to
the role of order-er of things, specifically to some purpose or end,
and, as a result, risks becoming something to be ordered as well. 9
in any other way, but what Heidegger argues is that this
Heidegger illustrates these concerns as follows: The forester who, in the wood, measures the felled timber
and to all appearances walks the same forest path in the same way as did his grandfather is today
commanded by profitmaking in the lumber industry, whether he knows it or not. He is made subordinate
to the orderability of cellulose, which for its part is challenged forth by the need for paper, which is then
delivered to newspapers and illustrated magazines. The latter, in their turn, set public opinion to
swallowing what is printed, so that a set configuration of opinion becomes available on demand.10 In
other words, the trees, the wood, the paper, and even the forester (whose ancestors once understood the
The
forester, in proverbial fashion, cannot see the forest for the trees.
Instead of appreciating the majesty and mystery of the living forest,
he sees only fodder for the paper mill, which will pay for his next
meal. 6 The same cynicism might be applied to legal publishing. Whole forests have given
their lives to the publication of legal information in order to provide
a stable basis for societyafter all, the law must be stable and yet
it cannot stand still,11 or as our comrades from Critical Legal Studies might put it, law is
sanctity of the woods) are ultimately subordinated to the will to establish orderly public opinion.
simply a tool to perpetuate the existing socioeconomic status quo.12 Cadres of West editors (commonly
referred to in generic fashion as human resources, ironically making them all the less human)13 work
feverishly to digest points of law and assign 55,000 cases into a taxonomy with more than 100,000 class
distinctions,14 all for the sake of a predictable legal system and stable society. 7 Fo r
Heidegger,
the threat is revealed in mankinds perpetual quest to gain mastery
over technology. Everything depends on our manipulating
technology in the proper manner as a means. We will, as we say,
get technology spiritually in hand. We will master it. The will to
mastery becomes all the more urgent the more technology threatens
to slip from human control.15 When Heidegger published these words (first in 1962, but
based on lectures from 1949 and 1950),16 the implications of nuclear energy and
atomic warfare occupied much academic discussion. Heidegger
points out that the popular question of this period did not concern
how to find sufficient energy resources, but [i]n what way can we
tame and direct the unimaginably vast amounts of atomic energies,
and so secure mankind against the danger that these gigantic
energies suddenlyeven without military actions break out
somewhere, run away and destroy everything?17 The modern question is
about our mastery over technology, not about sufficiency of resources. 8 Similar concerns are apparent
with respect to information technologies, where the primary problem is not lack of access, but too much
access: for example, illegal music file swapping,18 the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA),19 and trends to use licensing to control and preserve the economic
value of information (and to prohibit otherwise lawfully competitive practices, such as reverse
engineering).20 With respect to law and government, we see such examples as retraction of government
documents,21 the Patriot Act,22 the furor over unpublished electronic precedent,23 and the recent frenzy
of e-discovery.24 Some stakeholders seem to have liked things better when information resources were
scarce.25 Universal access is destabilizinghence, the considerable interest in getting a handle on
technology through legal sanction and yet additional technological innovation (the so-called access
control technologies). 26 9 Heideggers genius is in recognizing that all the fuss about mastering
technologies, although close to the mark, concerns the wrong issue.
The more insidious
threat is not nuclear fallout or economic devaluation of intellectual

property, but the worldview of calculative thinking
that accompanies
rapid technological change: The world now appears as an object open to attacks of calculative thought,
attacks that nothing is believed able any longer to resist.27 For Heidegger, calculative thought is not
limited to the manipulation of machine code or numbers. Rather, the concept is grounded in
Machiavellian scheming and the pursuit of power. Calculative thinking computes. It computes ever
new, ever more promising and at the same time more economical possibilities. Calculative thinking races
from one prospect to the next.28 The threat Heidegger envisions to human thought is even more
dangerous than nuclear warfare.29 10 Heideggers threat is based on the separation of man from his or
man is cut off from the transformative

powers of his or her environment. In such a world, law does not have
the capacity to educate or to provide the basis for social
harmony;30 rather, like any resource, law must be employed to
more economic ends. The implication is that calculative thinking
mandates that everything (including law) be subjected to a single
will. While Heidegger recognized the danger of subjecting everything to a single will, the issue of
her nature. By pursuing economic calculation,
whether, and when, he equated the danger with Nazi totalitarianism, which he had originally supported,
would require a line of historical inquiry far beyond the scope of this article.31 Regardless of Heideggers
Nazism effectively illustrates Heideggers

philosophical fearthat technological thinking risks the ordering
of all the world, including humanity, as resources subject to a
singular will.
own political and moral journey,
Link Environment
Ocean policy inherently separates humans from nature
through artificial borders only the alternative can break
down this dualism
sgeirsdttir 7 Associate Professor of Politics at the University of
Missouri
(slaug, The Environment and International Politics. International Fisheries,
Heidegger and Social Method (review), Project Muse,
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/gep/summary/v007/7.3asgeirsdottir.html)//krishn
ik
The Environment and International Politics seeks to challenge the
prevailing dichotomy that separates humans from animals, in a quest to
encourage us to enter a new era of ecological thinking . The theoretical part of the
book situates the debate about the human-animal dichotomy in the teachings of Kant and Descartes. It
proposes Heideggers discussion of Dasein or 'Being' as a way to
overcome this dichotomy and move humankind toward a more
encompassing view of nature and its complexity. Seckinelgin argues that in
order to take an ecological approach to managing the environment
we must move away both from viewing humans as separate from
nature and also from our reliance on the sovereign nation-state as
the key institution to tackle environmental crises . But Seckinelgin stops short of
advocating a solution to foster global approaches to ecological problems; his goal is primarily to challenge
He defines
ecology as "an awareness of the interrelation and
interconnectedness among the species in nature themselves
(including human beings); and between species and the physical components of nature
us to think about nature as a whole rather than as humans versus the environment.
where species are located and on which their existence depends" (p. 5). This understanding of ecology
presents an important discursive problem for international relations. When ecological challenges arise, the
response within international relations is always through the nation-state and its interest, not from the
perspective of how the ecological challenge can best be solved from the perspective of the entire planet
Seckinelgin uses the Third United Nations

Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS III) as an empirical study to illustrate his
argument, with a concentrated focus on the shortcomings of the
Convention to adequately protect highly-migratory tuna fisheries in
the South Pacific. UNCLOS III allowed states to create 200-mil e Exclusive Economic
Zones ( EEZs ), which created artificial borders in the ocean that violate
and its people. In developing his theoretical argument,
the ecological realities of the complex ecosystem the tuna inhabit. Tuna, and
other migratory stocks, present an interesting challenge to the system of sovereign states in that they do
not respect the artificial 200-mile boundary imposed by states and hence the only way to manage the
stock is through international cooperation.
Link Fisheries/MPA
Fisheries and MPAs posit fish as a resource to satiate
human ends this places marine life in standing reserve,
shattering our intimate ontology with the ocean
Kennedy 7 PhD in philosophy from Murdoch University
(Deborah, Ocean Views: An investigation into human-ocean relations,
http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/123/2/02Whole.pdf)//krishnik
two influential scientific conceptions of oceans: the
production model view of oceans championed by conventional
fisheries science and. second, an enclosed sanctuary, or reserve
view, promulgated in marine protected area science (hereafter MPA science).
Conventional fisheries science receives considerable attention because it
has dominated the more general developments in the ocean sciences
and management in the twentieth century (Norse & Crowder 2005a; Preikshot &
Pauly 2005; Rozwadowski 2002). I argue that the production model view of ocean
dwelling life in conventional fisheries science pursues a narrow and
highly instrumental agenda for the development and production of
fish for consumption. In this model, fish are conceptualised as resources
In Chapter 5 I discuss
with the sole purpose of meeting human ends ; ocean dwellers and
their ecosystems are without needs and agency of their own. The
intimate relationship between human and ocean wellbeing is denied
in the production model. The production model conception of the relationship between
ocean dwelling life and humans is often posited by fisheries science as the result of objective inquiries. My
observation is. however, that the theories and practices of fisheries science are tied up with industry
That fisheries science is tied up with

specific values and beliefs is an important matter to address in this
dissertation because of the great store attached to the widely held
conviction that science produces objective knowledge. The influence
of fisheries science in determining actual and possible human-ocean
relations is a compelling reason to scrutinise its main cultural
characteristics. In undertaking this task I draw on Plumwood's (1993) analysis of dualistic
values and specific cultural beliefs and attitudes.
conceptual frameworks that structure thinking and relations with non-human nature in Western societies.
This analysis discloses that
nature is conceived in instrumental terms , as a
resource or a standing reserve . My focus on the instrumentalist mind-set helps to

demonstrate that enterprises such as conventional fisheries science are
predisposed to collaboration and capture by industry and the
rationalist economy. I illustrate this point with a discussion of the types of research models used
in conventional fisheries science. Conventional fisheries science is widely contested from within the
scientific community and from without. Following my discussion of fisheries science. MPA science is
contextualised as being, in part, a strategic response to the over- exploitation of oceans that the theories
and practices of conventional fisheries science have legitimated throughout the twentieth century. MPA
science is far more inclusive than fisheries science in the range of factors utilised in its approach to the
production of knowledge about oceans and ocean dwellers. MPA science is not delimited by so close a
connection to industry and resource management agendas but is fashioned from a different set of
there is reason to be wary at the present

time of attempts to define oceans through the frameworks of MPA
science. My discussion demonstrates that MPA science tends towards a
protective and authoritarian scientific approachwith the effect of
concerns and values. Having said this,
excluding certain 'others'and that this approach has been

gathering momentum . I argue that understandings of oceans and
resulting oceans policies should properly consider and act in concert
with understanding of a range of cultural, social, political and
economic dimensions. Chapter 5 continues to focus on that part of my thesis concerned with
some of the major Western discourses that structure contemporary human-ocean relations. Fisheries
science and MPA science demonstrate how the most widely accepted
variants of ocean-related science constrain our understandings and
possibilities for interacting with oceans in Western societies. The
shortfalls of science point to the need to open up assessment and
debate through processes that allow a broader range of
communities, human and non-human, to contribute to questions
related to the use, protection and well being of ocean environments.
Link Geoengineering
Geoengineering is the final calculative solution
abdicates individual being in the face of a technological
demand for control
Hamilton 13 Professor of Public Ethics at the Centre for Applied
Philosophy
(Clive, What Would Heidegger Say About Geoengineering?, 11/7/2013,
http://clivehamilton.com/what-would-heidegger-say-aboutgeoengineering/)//krishnik
Proposals to respond to climate change by geoengineering the Earths climate system, such as by
regulating the amount of sunlight reaching the planet, may be seen as a radical fulfillment of Heideggers
Before geoengineering was conceivable,

the Earth as a whole had to be representable as a total object, an
object captured in climate models that form the epistemological
basis for climate engineering. Geoengineering is thinkable because of the evertightening grip of Enframing, Heideggers term for the modern epoch of Being. Yet, by
objectifying the world as a whole, geoengineering goes beyond the
mere representation of nature as standing reserve; it requires us to
think Heidegger further, to see technology as a response to disorder breaking
through. If in the climate crisis nature reveals itself to be a sovereign force then we need a
understanding of technology as destiny.
phenomenology from natures point
of view. If world grounds itself on earth, and earth juts through
the climate crisis is the jutting through, and

geoengineering is a last attempt to deny it, a vain attempt to take
control of destiny rather than enter a free relation with technology. In
world, then
that lies the danger. I. Introduction The question of technology dominated Heideggers thinking after
his turn in the 1930s, although it has been argued that the sequence of his works can be read as the
gradual emergence of the problem of technology.1 Grasping the role of technology in the history of
the
modern world is technological, but not in the way commonly imagined. Technology
does not simply transform the physical world; it reveals the world in
a particular way, and thereby defines what is. So technologization is the key to Heideggers
ontology, at least the later development of it. I would like to suggest that geoengineering or
climate engineering represents a radical fulfillment of Heideggers
understanding of technology as destiny and that, because it takes
technological thinking to its most extreme point, climate
engineering also contains the seeds of a rupture with that destiny and so
represents what might be called the last technology. Geoengineering is a catch-all
Being was the path to his most penetrating insights into the modern condition. For
him,
term for technologies aimed at countering or offsetting the effects of global warming.2 They are being
developed because, for a number of reasons, the world has failed to respond to scientific warnings by
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.3 Here I focus on those geoengineering technologies that seek to
regulate the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth. The cheapest and most likely intervention is
a proposal to shroud the Earth with a layer of sulphate aerosols in the upper atmosphere. A fleet of highflying aircraft or a 20 kilometre hose held aloft by balloons could be used to inject the aerosols to achieve
more-or-less permanent dimming of the globe. Sulphate aerosol spraying aims to regulate the climate of
the planet as a whole by manipulating the chemical composition of the atmosphere. It would require
elaborate control mechanisms operated from some kind of central office for climate management.
Heidegger would probably view geoengineering as the final surge of

the will-to-power and a desperate gambit to defend modern
subjectivity. The will to mastery, he wrote, becomes all the more
urgent the more technology threatens to slip from human control .4
To foreshadow a later discussion, he would perhaps also see within the extreme danger of
climate
engineering and the peril it seeks to forestall, the gleam of a saving power. In the spirit of Heidegger my
focus is not on the technologies themselves but on what their proposed deployment reveals about the
world and human destiny. Echoing Heidegger, we might say: The essence of geoengineering is nothing
Geoengineering represents a qualitative leap in human
use of technology not because it reaches a new level of
sophistication (indeed, spraying sulphuric acid into the upper atmosphere or spreading
iron filings on the oceans are crude methods), but because it
comprises the first technology of intentional planetary control . It may be
technological.
viewed as a desperate response to human failing or as monstrous hubris, but beneath all emotional and
ethical judgments lies an unexamined conception of the Earth that makes geoengineering imaginable.
Geoengineering is domination of both nature and society

in order to try to undo our own exploitation of Nature
this means-ends solution will only end in more destruction
(Timothy, An Emergent Mangle of Practice: Global Climate Change as
Vernacular Geoengineering, 9/2009, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=1450783)//krishnik
To discuss more expert/formal/ordered geoengineering in some

future conditional sense, however, expresses a disturbing ideological
blindness (Cascio, 2009). The technofixes being discussed in that
geoengineering schema are responses to a concerted, distributed,
and intensive use of fossil fuels to advance economic development .
Perhaps it would be more correct to regard vernacular geoengineering as ecotinkering, or
vernacular geoengineering effort has

been at work, and understood as having the effects it is creating since the
nineteenth century, the sixteenth century or even the Neolithic Age,
depending upon who one relies upon for scientific support. This ongoing DIY experiment in terraformative change should neither be
dismissed nor ignored. Nevertheless, todays would-be expert
geoengineers ignore what is, in fact, at stake. It is not to
geoengineer the Earth or not; it is instead how it could, should or
would be moved out of its current unfocused vernacular registers of
execution into some more formal mode of planned implementation?
All of the elaborate discussion of implementing this or that
technological approach at some unknown moment of ecological crisis
or emergency consensus is a ruse for the rationalization of either
continued inaction or immediate intervention . Yet, there is little consideration of
the actual politics of such action. Instead one is too often left dangling in these
debates about geoengineering with the usual default settings in
policymaking more commonly drive by ordinary technological
momentum: a)it might need to be done, b) it can be done, so at
some point, c) it probably will be done. In view of todays ominous climate change
geoputtering, or enviromeddling, but this
trends, however, there now are many experts and interests at work trying to build some consensus around
what must be done. Much of the conflict here is no longer over whether or not, but rather what must
be done by whom, where, when, what, and how? Individuals and/or groups; states and/or societies;
bureaucratic regulators and/or market mechanisms, manufacturers plus networks of consumers, designers,
users, scientific experts and/or ordinary laypersons: the complexity of the players to be invited to address
the ruse of rationality still

positions the policy problematic as one of pure geoengineering in
order to occlude, as capitalist systems of exchange as well as
authoritarian modes of governance always have, the degree to which
geoengineering implicitly but also inescapably, is much more,
namely, socioengineering, ethnoengineering or archiengineering (Luke,
2005a). That is, any new twists in the modes of dominating nature
necessarily imply fresh approaches to dominating men and women
by reorganizing society, reconfiguring culture or reconstituting
rulership. These two dynamics cannot be divided, and each presumes
the other. Whether one looks at Rousseau, Smith, Marx or Polanyi, one insight about social power
the problems further complicates the solutions. Yet,
seems constant: a few men and women do tend to dominate most other human and nonhuman beings by
perfecting the domination of nature (Luke, forthcoming 2010).
Geoengineering is a techno-fix that ensures the problem

will be recreated in the future and causes
socioengineering along with it dominates both Nature
and humanity
The problem with the techno-fix is that it rarely fixes what it was
meant to improve and the technological systems deployed as the fix
bring their own values, practices, and dynamics into the situation to
be corrected without being always corrective (Bala, 2009). As Hughes
(2004: 14) notes, consequently, the problems are usually not solved,
but often made more intractable. Recalling Robocks thoughts about these realities
should be quite sobering. Petroski (1992: 62) notes that no one wants to learn by mistakes, but we cannot
learn enough from successes to go beyond the state of the art. This insight is fruitful with regard to
vernacular geoengineering inasmuch as its conduct has entailed a rich heritage of mistakes from which
much can be learned. Indeed, the banal ecologism of green design, industrial ecology or cradle-2-cradle
production are all efforts that systematically seek out inefficiencies, irrationalities, and inefficacies of
As early as the 1970s,

and clearly since the 1990s, the adverse impact of misengineering in
causing climate change has been a growing concern. With regard to
formal geoengineering, however, this insight from Petroski provides
a stern warning. Since there are no successes yet from such
experiments, there should be considerable apprehension about the
mistakes that could be made. What could be learned by a formal geoengineering failure
conventional engineering and design on many levels of reevaluation.
might come too late for any successes to ever be realized. Hence, enthusiasms for the state of art in the
barely emergent fields of formal geoengineering must be contrasted to its the on-going forms of unplanned
learning from its vernacular varieties, which still proceed apace in many different realms and regions of
The human-built world is an old established fact, and todays

touts of formal geoengineering are proposing little that is new,
promising or trustworthy as such, even as they assume their project
would be a wholly de novo affair. Nothing could be further from the
truth, and the tacit socioengineering agenda at the play in the
endeavor.
details of geoengineering are in nuce the most immediate

ideological threat as well as the least progressive political promise
for making any effective advances in combating adverse climate
changes. Conditional speculations in elite policy outlets and more mass
market, lay reader publications about geoengineering: could or should we do it?, the incredible
are, in fact, all intentional

programs that imply bigger agenda, like could or should we do
socioengineering?, socioengineerings incredible economics, and
could or should we do socioengineering? while moving ahead to
operate under a green state of emergency.
economics of geoengineering, or re-engineering the Earth,
Impacts
Dehumanization
Environmental development is a guise for technological
denaturing and dehumanization
Luke 96 (Timothy W., University Distinguished Professor of Political Science in the College of Liberal
Arts and Human Sciences as well as Program Chair of the Government and International Affairs Program,
School of Public and International Affairs at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Liberal Society and Cyborg
Subjectivity: The Politics of Environments, Bodies, and Nature, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 21:1,
1996, Sage)
Never entirely convincing, these myths of the natural condition may become utterly surrealistic at this
juncture of history. Right here, right now, as Jameson argues, constitutes a place and time at which the
we now face
the end of Nature, because, as Merchant claims, we have caused
the death of Nature.*4 After two centuries of industrial
revolutionization and three decades of informational
revolutionization, nature, as vast expanses of untamed wildness, has
vanished. For the sake of argument here, nature rarely is regarded any longer as God-created
(theogenic) or self-created (autogenic); instead, human-caused (anthropogenic)
features, tendencies, and events now preoccupy individuals in civil
society as transnational corporate capitalism recontours the planet
to generate the endless growth of commodities. Becoming enmeshed
in complex networks of scientific rationalization and commercial
exploitation, nature becomes denature(d) . The entire planet now is
increasingly either a built environment, a planned habitat, a
wilderness preserve, an economic development, or an
ecological disaster. If nature is mostly now denature, then
perhaps one must begin thinking about a state of denature -a process that
becomes helpful, ironically, in understanding the cyborgs that evolve there. So, too, might the
figure of humanity, once seen as the crowning center of nature,
become more rightly regarded as dehumanity, as the death of
the human unfolds along with the death of nature.
Dehumanization coevolves with denaturalization; "dehumanized"
beings inhabit the modernized global ecologies of mechanized,
polluted, bioengineered denature as fragments and fusions of the
machinic systems that define today's environments, bodies, and
politics. Here we might jettison the traditional, moralistic baggage of anthropocentric regret about
modernization process is complete and Nature is gone for good.l3 McKibben agrees,
"dehumanization," which begins with Rousseau and continues into many humanistic discourses of the
present, by seeing dehumanization, ironically, as an ontological constant rather than a technological
aberration.
Environmental Justice [Capitalism

Their pretended environmentalism is a guise for the
extension of capitalism drives environmental destruction
and worldwide inequality
(Timothy, The (Un)Wise (Ab)Use of Nature: Environmentalism as Globalized
Consumerism?, International Studies Association Meeting, 3/22/1997,
http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim528.PDF)//krishnik
these environmentalizing initiatives reveal different aspects of
Nature's infrastructuralization in the disorganized and incomplete
transnational campaigns of environmentalized capital's terraforming
programs. The actions of the Worldwatch Institute, the Nature Conservancy, or the World Wildlife
All of
Fund, or the Sierra Club are frameworks within which a new habitus with its own environmentalized social
relations of production and consumption can come alive by guarding habitat as the supremely perfect site
of habitus. As Baudrillard observes, "the great signified, the great referent Nature is dead, replaced by
environment, which simultaneously designates and designs its death and the restoration of nature as
simulation model....we enter a social environment of synthesis in which a total abstract communication
Rendering
wildlife, air, water, habitat, or Nature into complex new systems of
rare goods in the name of environmental protection, and then
regulating the social consumption of them through ecological
activism shows how mainstream environmentalists are serving as
agents of social control or factors in political economy to reintegrate
the intractable equations of (un)wise (ab)use along consummational
rather than consumptive lines. Putting earth first only establishes
ecological capital as the ultimate basis of life . Infrastructuralizing
Nature renders everything on Earth, or "humanity's home," into
capital--land, labor, animals, plants, air, water, genes, ecosystems .
and an immanent manipulation no longer leave any point exterior to the system."115
And, mainstream environmentalism often becomes a very special kind of "home eco nomics" to manage
humanity's indoors and outdoors household accounts. Household consumption is always home
the roots of
ecology and economics intertwine through "sustainable
development," revealing its truest double significance: sustainably
managing the planet is the same thing as reproducing terrestrial
stocks of infrastructorialized green capital. Whether or not
environmentalists prevent the unwise abuse or promote wise use of
natural resources is immaterial; everything they do optimizes the
sign value of green goods and serves to reproduce global capital as
environmentalized sites, stocks or spaces--an outcome that every Worldwatch
consumption, because human economics rests upon terrestrial ecologics. Here
Institute State of the World report or Club Sierra ecotour easily confirms. Likewise, the scarcity measures of
scare campaigns show how everything

now has a price, including wildlife preservation or ecological
degradation, which global markets will mark and meet in their
(un)wise (ab)use of environmentalized resources. Newer ecological discourses
Nature Conservancy or World Wildlife Fund
about total cost accounting, lifecycle management, or environmental justice may simply articulate more
refined efforts to sustainably develop these bigger global processes of universal capitalization by accepting
Admitting that poor people have

been treated unjustly in siting decisions for environmental bads lets
rich people redistribute these ecological costs across more sites so
that they might benefit from the material and symbolic goods
created by being just so environmental. Environmental justice
movements perhaps are not so much about attaining environmental
justice as they are about moving injustices more freely around in the
environment, assuring the birth of new consumerisms for increased
efficiency at risk management and broader participation ecological
degradation in our terraformed Nature.
small correctives against particular capitalist interests.
Poverty [Capitalism]
Eco-managerialism drives reduction of nature to mere
resource its the root cause of environmental
exploitation and worldwide wage inequality
(Timothy, Eco-Managerialism: Environmental Studies as a Power/Knowledge
Formation, Aurora Online, 2003,
http://aurora.icaap.org/index.php/aurora/article/view/79/91)
each of these wrinkles in the record of eco-managerialism
should give its supporters pause. The more adaptive and collaborative dimensions of
So to conclude,
eco-managerial practice suggest its advocates truly are seeking to develop some post extractive approach
to ecosystem management that might respect the worth and value of the survival of non-human life in its
commitments of
eco-managerialism to sustainability maybe are not that far removed
from older programs for sustained yield, espoused under classical
industrial regimes. Even rehabilitation and restoration managerialism may not be as much post
environments, and indeed some are. Nonetheless, it would appear that the
extractive in their managerial stance, as much as they are instead proving to be a more attractive form of
the newer iterations of eco-managerialism

may only kick into a new register, one in which a concern for
environmental renewability or ecological restoration just opens new
domains for the eco-managerialists to operate within. To even
construct the problem in this fashion, however, nature still must be
reduced to the encirclement of space and matter in national as well
as global economies to a system of systems, where flows of material
and energy can be dismantled, redesigned, and assembled anew to
produce resources efficiently, when and where needed, in the
modern marketplace. As an essentially self contained system of biophysical systems, nature
seen this way is energies, materials, in sites that are repositioned by
eco-managerialism as stocks of manageable resources. Human beings,
ecological exploitation. Therefore,
supposedly all human beings, can realize great material goods for sizeable numbers of people if the eco-
eco-managerialism fails miserably with

regard to the political. Instead, its work ensures that greater
material and immaterial bads will also be inflicted upon even larger
numbers of other people, who do not reside in or benefit from the
advanced national economies that basically have monopolized the
use of the world's resources. This continues because eco-managerialism lets those
managerialists succeed. Nonetheless,
remarkable material benefits accrue at only a handful of highly developed regional municipal and national
Those who do not benefit, in turn are left living on one dollar or
two dollars a day, not able, of course, at that rate of pay, to pay for
eco-managerialism. So I'll stop there.
sites.
Warming
The alternative solves warming large-scale technological
solutions exacerbate human damage micro-scale
solutions solve
The best path out of this crisis at this juncture, therefore, would appear
more modest, namely, sticking with the messy praxis of mangling . The
negative path dependencies in the technological momentum behind
fossil fueled civilization might well be only strengthened if formal
geoengineering schema were put into place. In addition to not amending the
mistakes already made in fabricating the technoculture of the world since the eighteenth century, new
grander ecological messes with less hope of reversal or remediation
very well might arise out of emergency geoengineering measures. Finding multiple,
resilient, micro-scale, and reversible solutions to greenhouse
gassing is already happening apace, and these efforts should not be
derailed. Holding out the hopes of some singular, brittle, macroscale, and possibly irreversible geoengineering projects being prototyped,
and then rapidly deployed, is vain. Most are still only in the talking stage, but their
apparent certainty of success might well aggravate the already
widespread foot dragging one sees in the struggle against global
climate change.
Violence
The managerial view of the environment endlessly creates
new environments for humans to control leads to
hierarchies of dominance that maintain both the
environment and other people in a state of subjugation
I want to assess the implications of this rising inequality by concentrating upon its environmental
but I also want to approach what is regarded as "the

environment" quite differently by mobilizing ideas from science and
technology studies. These alternative notions can help frame the
outlines of this new inequality as both an object of knowledge and
subject of struggle. Such moves must be made because most
analytical tools in the disciplines of both international relations and
environmental studies are not adequate for the tasks of interpreting
what is now developing around the world in the realms of
technoscience and the environment. In fact, our existing tools often
occlude what needs to be analyzed, who needs to be criticized, and
what must be done to oppose powerlessness and inequality . To anchor my
dimensions,
claims, I take Fredric Jameson's point about the postmodern condition as a point of departure. That is, it is
what remains "when the modernization process is complete and nature is gone for good." It is a more fully
human world than the older one, but one in which "culture" has become a veritable "second nature."1
this more fully human world is one that also

rests upon the creation, maintenance, and suppression of a more
fully nonhuman world. As Bruno Latour suggests, Modernity is often
defined in terms of humanism, either as a way of saluting the birth of "man," or as a way
of announcing his death. But this habit itself is modern, because it remains
asymmetrical. It overlooks the simultaneous birth of "nonhumanity"
things, or objects, or beasts and the equally strange beginning of a
crossed-out God, relegated to the sidelines. This realm of
nonhumanity is, in large part, what we know as "the environment,"
but it increasingly is occupied by things and systems as well as
plants and animals. Sitting on the sidelines, hiding amid the action, and working behind the
Ironically, as Jameson suggests,
scenes with "modern man," there are all the objects and subjects or plants, things, beasts, places,
systems, and spaces that sustain modernity and its inequalities as they now surround everybody and
The Enlightenment's national progressive order of

human actors male and female seeking liberty, equality, and
fraternity persists. Yet it unfolds amid many other asymmetrical
transnational networks and unbalanced national niches for
nonhumanity that materially advance or retard human struggles for
national progress. In many ways, the modern world system for commodity production and
consumption generates its own artificial and natural environments . An environment is what
surrounds something, and the sweep of global exchange now is
everything in their workings.
"environizing" itself a terraformative power at the most fundamental

level of operation by putting everything that exists in built and
unbuilt environments under human control. The idea is to put life itself into
conformity with commodification, subjecting objects and subjects to exchange and forcing everyone and
Whether it is bioengineering new

life forms, remixing the composition of the planet's atmosphere, or
crowding out most other organisms within Earth's carrying capacity,
human economic exchanges are now a key environizing power that
encircles, contains, and envelopes living and nonliving things in the
human nations and environmental niches that now constitute the
world's ecosystems. The domination of "Nature" by "Society" creates
a second nature, a processed world, or a postmodern condition in
which those who own and control the material and mental means of
enforcing asymmetries between different populations of humanity
and aggregations of nonhumanity are continuously forced to
concretize new inequalities on this environmental scale . Far too
many people and their things, in turn, become relegated to second,
third, fourth, fifth, or other developing worlds, while only a few
people and their things in the developed "first world" benefit from
the costs incurred elsewhere by these world-making, or
"terraformative," powers.
everything to perform within the ways of the market.
Alternative
Interenvironmental Pedadogy
This reconceptualization of the international sphere as
interenvironmental relations is critical to address
ecological devastation current IR theories are doomed to
further exploitation and extinction
The omnipolitan subpolis evolves in the reified dictates of industrial

ecologies, whose machinic metabolisms, in turn, entail the planned
and unintended destruction of nonhuman and human lives in many
different national environments. Those interenvironmental relations then become a new
means to organize "the conduct of conduct" for citizens and consumers.105 International
relations as a discipline is unlikely to critically and comprehensively
address how all of the contradictions in the subpolis bring their
disruptive influence into our public life. These concerns have not been present in its
discursive DNA for reasons going back to the ancient Greek city-states . An interenvironmental
approach, however, begins to disclose how deep technology
predetermines collective ends without much, if any, ethical
discussion or political deliberation. This occurs because those who "know
how," as well as those who "own how" in the subpolis are permitted
to prejudge everyone's actions in the polis. Their expert knowledge
and private ownership give them some capability to decide for all.
Democracy, in turn, finds dictatorial administrative rationalities turned
into collective ends in themselves without much, if any, ethical
debate or political discussion. Environmentalism is one of the last
remaining discourses available for us to provide some ethical
consideration or political reflection about the effects of the subpolis
on the overall civic life of society as privileged millions still benefit
environmentally from the international misery of billions .106 As we stand
perhaps at the end of nature in the first years of the twenty-first century, we cannot continue
on this track if Earth's ecologies are ever to be mended .107 To conclude, my
analysis has developed two major points. First, I have argued broadly about how human nations and
nonhuman niches are fabricated, but then fit into what "the environment" is by positioning this
understanding in the twenty-first century a time, for many, coming at "the end" of nature by raising the
specter of new environized agencies and structures: cyborgs, hybrids, machinations, the subpolis. Second,
thinking about international relations does not

reexamine how the uneven globalization of technoscience has
created a now all-pervasive subpolitical domain beneath, beyond,
and beside the sphere of politics. The imperatives of subpolitics give
a broader perspective on the environmental crisis than thinking
simply about how the incomplete globalization of civic activism in
the political sphere, as many others have claimed, limits ecological
improvements. Ultimately, international relations cannot come to
I have indicated why most
complete closure with "the environment," and what are now

environized inequalities in many human societies, until or unless its
practitioners carefully reconsider how the subpolitical domain
constrains and confounds initiatives for change in the political
sphere by running them down the box canyons of property rights
and the dead ends of expertise.
The alternative is a reconceptualization of international

politics in terms of interenvironmental relations only
this can investigate the questions of inequality and
control that are the root cause of our environmental and
political problems
one decisively
significant way in which our fossil-fuel-burning, automobile-building,
commodity-buying culture has become "a veritable second nature " in
the Group of Eight can be traced through the planet's atmosphere, oceans,
soils, and climate. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in Shanghai in
January 2001, "most of the global warming of the last 50 years is
attributable to human activities."37 Not surprisingly, the people most
involved in such activity reside in niches occupied by Group of Eight
states: the effluence of their affluence is the major destructive
influence on Earth's atmosphere (though it may be noted that in 2002 China was
Such sociotechnical formations have real, material significance. For example,
recognized as the world's fastest-growing automobile market) . First nature, or the planet's environments
before or apart from human activities, has not seen our current levels of CO2 concentration (increases that
Second
nature, or the planet's environments with all of their current human
activities, is putting that first nature away for good and creating an
entirely new ecological order with its own energy flows, material
exchanges, and habitat niches. The United States, for example, with not
quite 5 percent of the world's population, produces one-quarter of
the greenhouse gases. While the United States is the most powerful nation in the
international system, this national power simultaneously reveals and
occludes something more profound about its occupation of the prime
niche in the global ecosystems of fossilfuel use , which is much more expansive
and destructive than that found in its bordered national space. On the one hand, many
collectives (people and things) in the United States are powerful enough
and wealthy enough to generate tremendous production and use of
oil, gas, and coal; on the other hand, the production-andconsumption inequalities registered in the ledgers of other nations
permit the United States to off-load its greenhouse-gas byproduction onto terrains, spaces, and niches worldwide. Second
nature now has so many builtenvironmental niches nested within it that the
have occurred over the 250 years of the ' industrial revolution) in 420,000 years.
modernization process has mostly ended: nature has gone for good.
Much of what appears to be international relations is, in fact, also an
elaborate network of interenvironmental relations as the occupants
and beneficiaries of one small cluster of niches occupied by very
successful political economies (like the Group of Eight and other major OECD countries)
compete with the residents and refugees of other, much-less-hightech blocs of humans and nonhumans (like those occupying the Group of Seventyseven countries) . We cannot understand inequality in the so-called new
world order without reexamining how international relations express
complex interenvironmental relations between divergent, differing
assemblies of humanity and nonhumanity, recognizing that these
relations are largely omnipolitan in their depth and direction. Who
controls the creation of new environmental conditions? Who and
what suffers from this capability of control? How do such inequalities
express themselves? These are essential questions that must be
explored more fully.
Meditative Thought
The alternative is to embrace meditative thought to break
open new ways of relating to the world
McWhorter 9 (Ladelle McWhorter, Heidegger and the Earth: Essays in Environmental Philosophy
2nd, expanded edition, Guilt as Management Technology: A Call to Heideggerian Reflection, p. 8-9)
Heidegger's work is a call to reflect, to think in some way other

than calculatively, technologically, pragmatically. Once we begin to
move with and into Heidegger's call and begin to see our trying to
seize control and solve problems as itself a problematic approach, if
we still believe that thinking's only real purpose is to function as a
prelude to action, in attempting to think we will only twist within
the agonizing grip of paradox, feeling pure frustration, unable to
conceive of ourselves as anything but paralysed.
However, as so many
peoples before us have known, paradox is not only a trap; it is also a scattering point and a passageway.
Paradox invites examination of its own constitution (hence of the

patterns of thinking within which it occurs) and thereby breaks a
way of thinking open, revealing the configurations of power that
propel it and hold it on track. And thus it sometimes makes possible
the dissipation of that power and the deflection of thinking into new
paths and new possibilities. If we read him seriously and listen genuinely, Heidegger
frustrates us. At a time when the stakes are so very high and decisive
action is so loudly and urgently called for, when the ice caps are
melting and the bird flu is spreading and the president is selling off
our national wilderness reserves to private contractors for quick
private gain, Heidegger apparently calls us to do nothing. When things
that matter so much are hanging in the balance, this frustration quickly turns to anger and disgust and
even furor. How dare this man, who might legitimately be accused of having done nothing right himself at
a crucial time in his own nation's history, elevate quietism to a philosophical principle? Responsible people
have to act, surely, and to suggest anything else is to side with the forces of destruction and short-sighted
greed. If we get beyond the revulsion and anger that Heidegger's call may initially inspire and actually
we may move past the mere frustration of

our moral desires and begin to undergo frustration of another kind,
the philosophical frustration that is attendant on paradox. How is it
examine the feasibility of response,
possible, we ask, to choose, to will, to do nothing? Heidegger is not

consecrating quietism. His call places in question the bimodal logic
of activity and passivity; it points out the paradoxical nature of our
passion for action, our passion for maintaining control.
What is the origin of

that drive? Is that drive itself really under our control? Is it something we choose and will, or it is something
The call itself suggests that our drive for

acting decisively and forcefully is part of what must be thought
whose origins and meanings transcend us?
through, that the narrow option of will versus surrender is one of the
power configurations of current thinking that must be allowed to
dissipate.
The alt opens us up to rethink managerialism solves the

case
Mcwhorter and Stenstad 9 (Ladelle McWhorter and Gail Stenstad, Heidegger and the
Earth: Essays in Environmental Philosophy 2nd, expanded edition, Editors Introduction ix-x)
When we attempt to think ecological concerns within the field of

thinking opened for us by Martin Heidegger, the paradoxical unfolds
at the site of the question of human action. Thinking ecologically
that is, thinking the earth in our time means thinking death; it
means thinking catastrophe; it means thinking the possibility of
utter annihilation not just for human being but for all that lives on
this planet and for the living planet itself. Thinking the earth in our
time means thinking what presents itself as that which must not be
allowed to go on, as that which must be controlled, as that which
must be stopped. Such thinking seems to call for immediate action.
There is no time to lose. We must work for change, seek solutions, curb appetites, reduce expectations,
find cures now, before the problems become greater than anyone's ability to solve them if they have not
already done so.
However, in the midst of this urgency, thinking
ecologically, thinking Heideggerly, means rethinking the very

notion of human action. It means placing in question the typical
Western managerial approach to problems, our propensity for
technological intervention, our belief in human cognitive power, our
commitment to a metaphysics that places active human being over
and against passive nature. For it is the thoughtless deployment of
these approaches and notions that has brought us to the point of
ecological catastrophe in the first place.
thinking
Thinking with and after Heidegger,
Heideggerly and ecologically, means, paradoxically, acting

to place in question the acting subject, willing a displacement of our
will to action; it means calling ourselves as selves to rethink our
very selves, insofar as selfhood in the West is constituted as agent, as actor, as calculatively
controlling ego, as knowing consciousness. Heidegger's work calls us not to rush in
with quick solutions, not to act decisively to put an end to
deliberation, but rather to think, to tarry with thinking unfolding
itself, to release ourselves to thinking without provision or
predetermined aim. Such thinking moves paradoxically, within and
at the edge of the tension and the play of calculation and reflection,
logos and poesis, and urgency that can yet abide in stillness.
Meditative thought is key understanding of the everchanging and unknowable nature of Earth is a
prerequisite to solving
Earth: Essays in Environmental Philosophy 2nd, expanded edition, Editors Introduction xi)
ways in which Heideggerian

reflection on the fact of our being earth-dwellers can be
transformative of our thinking at its very core and therefore
transformative of our world. Maly believes that our cultures insistence on a
divorce between rationality and other ways of thinking and knowing
In 'Earth-Thinking and Transformation,' Kenneth Maly shows
has resulted in an impoverishment of our being and a destructive

distancing from the earth that gives rise to, shelters, and sustains
us. When we take ourselves and the earth as fixed entities to be
comprehended by rational observation and theoretical constructs ,
we lose sight of the earth and being-human as process, as forever
un-fixed, as changing, growing, outgrowing, as living and therefore
dying. It is only when we begin to think human being and earth as
unfixed, as always undergoing transformation in a living unfolding of
our/ being, that a new, less destructive understanding of humanityin/on-earth can come into being, with the possibility of a way of
living that unfolds within the dynamic paradox of relatedness-assuch . And such understanding, Maly would argue, is absolutely
necessary if we are avoid destroying the earth.
Meditative thought solves opens itself up to infinite

possibilities and the chance of being wrong
Earth: Essays in Environmental Philosophy 2nd, expanded edition, Editors Introduction xvi-xvii)
how we can be
empowered in a situation in which our thinking and actions seem
futile, compelling us to witness helplessly the destruction of earth
and world. Coming to grips with the ungrounding of thinking opened up in Heidegger's Contributions
to Philosophy brings an awareness of the an-archic character of thinking, in
which all the traditional dualistic touchstones and fixations (such as
objectivity, territoriality, and in general all theoretical aims) fall
aside. This is a way to begin to open up the depths of what
Heidegger means by releasement towards things, enabling the
openness to mystery that embodies in us the groundless grounding
from which we are then empowered to respond to the situation in
which we actually find ourselves. This is no abstraction, nor yet wordplay. It is this
In 'Down-to-Earth Mystery,' Gail Stenstad takes up the question of
an-archic thinking that can, for example, enable environmental

philosophers and other concerned people to work or play with the
best insights of any theory, fostering action without the hindrance of
the useless expectation of uniform agreement . So there is the
possibility of practical empowerment.
But even if we see no clearly apparent results
of that kind, going deeper yet into the matter awakens us to the magnetic quality of genuine thinking. 'We
Releasing the old expectations, opening to

mystery without aiming to resolve it, responding to things in the
ongoing ungrounded dance of dynamic relationality, enables us first
of all to be who we are. Only then may we begin to imagine what it is
to dwell on this earth, and act accordingly
are the pointers,' Heidegger says.
Framework
Ontology 1st
Ontology comes firstaffects every mode of policymaking
Dillon 99 [Michael Dillon; Moral Spaces: Rethinking Ethics and World
Politics; 97-99]
As Heideggerhimself an especially revealing figure of the deep and mutual implication of the
never tired of pointing out, the relevance of
ontology to all other kinds of thinking is fundamental and
inescapable. For one cannot say anything about anything that is,
without always already having made assumptions about the is as
such. Any mode of thought, in short, always already carries an
ontology sequestered within it. What this ontological turn does to
otherregionalmodes of thought is to challenge the ontology
within which they operate. The implications of that review
reverberate throughout the entire mode of thought, demanding a
reappraisal as fundamental as the reappraisal ontology has
demanded of philosophy. With ontology at issue, the entire
foundations or underpinnings of any mode of thought are rendered
problematic. This applies as much to any modern discipline of thought as it does to the question of
modernity as such, with the exception, it seems, of science, which, having long ago
given up the ontological questioning of when it called itself natural
philosophy, appears now, in its industrialized and corporatized form,
to be invulnerable to ontological perturbation. With its foundations
at issue, the very authority of a mode of thought and the ways in
which it characterizes the critical issues of freedom and judgment
(of what kind of universe human beings inhabit, how they inhabit it,
and what counts as reliable knowledge for them in it) is also put in
question. The very ways in which Nietzsche, Heidegger, and other continental philosophers
philosophical and the political4
challenged Western ontology, simultaneously, therefore reposed the fundamental and inescapable
In other words, whatever

ontology you subscribe to, knowingly or unknowingly, as a human
being you still have to act. Whether or not you know or acknowledge
it, the ontology you subscribe to will con strue the problem of action
for you in one way rather than another. You may think ontology is
some arcane question of philosophy, but Nietzsche and Heidegger
showed that it intimately shapes not only a way of thinking, but a
way of being, a form of life. Decision, a fortiori political decision, in
short, is no mere technique. It is instead a way of being that bears
an understanding of Being, and of the fundaments of the human way
of being within it. This applies, indeed applies most, to those
mockinnocent political slaves who claim only to be technocrats of
decision making. While certain continental thinkers like Blumenberg and Lowith, for example,
difficulty, or aporia, for human being of decision and judgment.
were prompted to interrogate or challenge the modern s claim to being distinctively modern, and others
such as Adorno questioned its enlightened credentials, philosophers like Derrida and Levinas pursued the
metaphysical implications (or rather the implications for metaphysics) of the thinking initiated by
Kierkegaard, as well as by Nietzsche and Heidegger. The violence of metaphysics, together with another
way of thinking about the question of the ethical, emerged as the defining theme of their work. 5 Others,
notably Foucault, Deleuze, Lyotard, Baudrillard, and Bataille turned the thinking of Nietzsche and
Heidegger into a novel kind of social and political critique of both the regimes and the effects of power that
have come to distinguish late modern times; they concentrated, in detail, upon how the violence identified
by these other thinkers manifested itself not only in the mundane practices of modern life, but also in
those areas that claimed to be most free of it, especially the freedom and security of the subject as well as
Questioning the appeal to the secure

selfgrounding common to both its epistemic structures and its
political imagination, and in the course of reinterrogating both the
political character of the modern and the modern character of the
political, this problematization of modernity has begun to prompt an
ontopolitically driven reappraisal of modern political thought. This
means that the ontological constitution of politics itselfits
legislating categories of time, space, understanding, and action, and
of what it is to be prompted by the politics of the specific
(ontological) constitutional order of political modernity, has begun
to come under sustained scrutiny.
its allied will to truth and knowledge.
Discourse 1st
It is necessary to consider environmental discourse in
international relations failure to rethink the ocean turns
case through endless environmental destruction
Seckinelgin 6 Lecturer in International Social Policy at the Department
of Social Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science
(Hakan, The Environment and International Politics International Fisheries,
Heidegger, and Social Method, Routledge)//krishnik
This book challenges the way International Relations (IR) engages
with issues of ecological nature. This is in fact a challenge to the
politics towards nature justified by post-Cartesian epistemology
and metaphysics. The book concentrates on the oceans, their problems and the solution to those
problems prescribed by the discourse of IR. This choice of the oceans is not an arbitrary choice of an
The oceans and the way IR conceptualises oceans

presents the disciplinary rupture very interestingly as shown over
and over again through the debates around depleted fish stocks or
at times of major shipping accidents. In addition, the attempt to find solutions to the
ecological disaster.
problems of the oceans has dominated traditional International Relations that is, international diplomacy,
negotiations bargaining, strategy, economic development, regime building over a large part of the past
fifty years. The final result of all this activity was/is the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea UNCLOS III that came into force in November 1994, the effect of which is demonstrated in the
Rockall case. The then UN Secretary- General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali in his speech to the inaugural session
of the Seabed Authority, described the Convention as one of the greatest achievements of this century,
one of the most definitive contributions of our era and one of our most enduring legacies. The SecretaryGeneral is not alone in his enthusiasm. The literature of institutions and regimes, as well as the literature
In order to
substantiate the nature of the challenge I will look at two events
revealing the structure of environmental politics. The presidential
elections in 2000 not only installed a new President, George W.
Bush, but also ushered in a new environmental politics. 3 This is reflected
on environmental problems, is very positive and probably overemphasises its role. 2
both in the USA domestically and in the changing attitudes of the new administration towards the global
environmental initiatives. As the President-elect took office in January 2001, a new energy policy
The administration
initiated a simultaneous policy process whereby, domestically, the
new agenda used a self-reliance rhetoric in advocating exploration
and the extraction of oil from Alaskan natural reserves while, internationally, the Bush administration turned its uneasiness about the
potential outcomes of the Kyoto protocol of the Climate Change
Treaty into a concrete policy by withdrawing from the Treaty and
actively negotiating against it. The administrations new policy in relation to the Kyoto
framework for the USA reflecting Bushs concerns was initiated.
protocol is based on Bushs feeling that the agreement is fatally flawed (BBC News 2001) and that it
would harm our economy and hurt our workers, since it failed to hold developing nations to strict
emissions limits (Bush on CNN 2001). The emerging argument for withdrawing from the process is based
primarily on protecting the USAs economic interests, supported by claims that the process would be
unfair. While strictly limiting industrialised countries productivity, it would give undue competi- tiveness to
the developing countries that rely on the existing non-environmental energy consumption. In other words,
in order to be able to keep its economic structures, the USA would

need to change its technology and alter its energy consumption to
address climate change; a challenge, since some 25 per cent of all
global emissions are produced by the USA . This would indeed suggest a need to
initiate a process to change certain components of the American lifestyle that rely heavily on
hydrocarbons. The Bush administration was not prepared to do this, since securing a particular American
way of life included advocating hydrocarbon exploration and extraction from the Alaskan National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR). This policy change to intervene in what is widely considered to be an ecologically pristine
and protected environment is promoted by the President himself. In his weekly radio address on 26
February 2002, Bush argued that America
is already using more energy than our

domestic resources can provide, and unless we act to increase our
energy inde- pendence, our reliance on foreign sources of energy
will only increase (Planetark (2002) at http://www.planetark.com). This is seen as a
crisis in energy production threatening the US economy and
implicitly the American way of life. From this perspective the earlier reaction to the
Kyoto protocol becomes more meaningful, as it is clear that in the face of such perceived threat the
administration is not interested in participating in a process which would limit its ability to deal with the
The only solution to this crisis is

seen in terms of a reduction in Americas dependence on foreign
sources of oil by encouraging safe and clean exploration at home
(ibid.). Looking at both statements makes it clear that the
international obligations are trumped by the perception of
impact of such a crisis on the domestic economy.
national security based on sustainable energy resources . Domestically,

this perception also trumps the environmental concerns that are expressed for ANWR. Environmentalists
expressed strong reservations in relation to this policy. They argued that the scheme would damage the
fragile and well-balanced ecosystems in the region as well as the lives of the natives, who are dependent
on local wildlife such as caribou, musk ox and wolves. It is argued that the native Gwichin people would
lose their way of life if caribou herds abandoned ANWR. They argued that our people as a whole ...are
united in our position to protect the Arctic refuge, our way of life and caribou herds (BBC 2002). In
addition, there were Greenpeace occupations of two American-owned oil rigs in the North Sea and
demonstrations in Texas near to the Presidents ranch. Some energy experts argued that there was no
energy crisis, that the problem is rather related to ineffi- cient energy consumption within the USA. All of
these environmental arguments based on the interests of natives and their ecological context were
exploration and extraction of oil are presented

as imperative to the maintenance of the American way of life and
national security. Although certain acknowledge- ment is granted to the environmentalists in the
discounted, as 2 Introduction the
shape of trying to initiate the process through environmentally conscious technologies, it is clear that
conservation and protection are not central to the agenda in the

times of this important energy crisis in the USA. All of these new steps
positioned the US administration in opposition to the prevailing environmentalist lobby both domestically
and internationally. This position is further compounded by President Bushs attitude towards the
Johannesburg-2002 World Summit for Sustainable Development in the summer of 2002. His insistence on
not attending the conference combined with his continued refusal to participate in climate change
debates influenced the outcomes of the Summit. The refusal of Bush to attend the Summit was arguably a
demonstration of a particular lack of concern for the environment within the US administration. However, if
we consider the trajectory of the administration it is clear that rather than having no concern for the
environment, the administration seems to occupy a particular position in relation to environmental politics.
In this concern environmental priorities are set at a different level from the expectations of environmental
activists around the world. The dilemmas of environmental politics have surfaced in many other contexts,
another important example of which is observed in the following. On Thursday, 12 June 1997, most British
national newspapers carried coverage of the Greenpeace occupation of Rockall, accompanied by
photographic images of the barren rock, which lies 289 miles off the northwest of Scotland. 4 A
Greenpeace spokesman announced that [w]e have asked the Government to stop oil exploration in the
Atlantic Frontier region and when they do they can have their rock back ( The Times ); one of the
protesters added that [b]y seizing Rockall we claim her seas for the planet and all its peoples. No one has
the right to unleash this oil into our threatened climate ( Independent ). The follow-up to this coverage
came on Thursday, 24 July 1997, when the Guardian reported that [t]oday in London, Greenpeace moves
from a symbolic to a legal challenge, and will take the Government to the High Court, arguing that Britain
has acted unlawfully by issuing licences while not applying two European directives, in place since 1988.
The newspaper also reported that the Government is being supported by 15 of the worlds largest oil
companies. Both the Bush administrations attitude and the Rockall cases are examples of environmental
politics. I use these cases to locate the question of the present study by the conceptual incision which they
open up in international politics, in the politics of environmental politics. The following questions are the
means for this incision. What is the issue at stake here? Are these important examples, or are these
confrontations just examples of those radical Greenpeace actions? If they are important, why are they so?
What do they say about the way the environment is brought into politics? Although in two cases the
courses of action taken by the environmentalist opposition differ (for example, in the former the policy was
voted out by the Introduction 3 lobbying efforts in the US Senate), the implicit arguments put forward by
both parties have close similarities. The situation created by the Greenpeace protest and the claims of the
ANWR natives may be analysed on the basis of two different positions. The first is the claim of the natives
and Greenpeace against the government decision, and the second is the governments response and the
grounds of legitimation used in this response. I will look first at the Rockall case and then point out its
relevance for the ANWR situation. The reason for the occupation of Rockall as described above carries a
very important challenge. The idea that Greenpeace was working for the benefit of the planet and all its
people indicates a relationship of a different kind between those who take the decision and the rest. Its
call on the British government to stop licensing oil exploration is

also a call for responsibility. In this call, a national government is
asked to consider the impact of its sovereign decision on the planet
and on other people living on the planet. Crucially, in this move,
connections between people are not considered on the basis of their
divided state identities. Furthermore, the identities of people living
on the planet are linked with the identity of the planet; a link with
other species living therein is also implied.
5 The response of the British
government may be discerned from two different sources. The first is the direct official response to the
protest and occupation of Rockall by Greenpeace. It is reported that a spokesman from the Foreign Office
stated that Rockall is British territory. It is part of Scotland and anyone is free to go there and can stay as
long as they please. 6 It is clear that the government is acting on a territorial claim, which enables it to
Thus the concept of statehood is invoked to

evade the responsibility call and to divert attention from the ambit
of the call to the fact that that decision is within the states
territory, hence authority. The second source is the Prime Ministers declaration in relation to
legislate within its sovereign control.
the British commitment to the climate change politics in the United Nations. At the very same period,
Tony
Blair declared the wish of the United Kingdom to become a world
leader in climate change politics by promising a radical reduc- tions
programme in carbon emissions by the early twenty-first century. Although there is a sign
during the United Nations General Assembly session on environmental change assessment in 1997,
of responsibility in relation to a global issue area in this statement, it seems to be based on an interesting
How is it that the British government is

allowing further hydrocarbon extraction while, at the same time,
committing itself to climate change politics? The area under discussion, according
differentiation. It is a curious question:
to a British Petroleum (BP) spokesman, is supposed to replace declining production in the North Sea, and
It may be
true to argue that the commitment to climate change is located in a
different dimension than that of domestic political discourse . Both
discussions are fundamentally related, but are dealt with through
contradictory moves. The disjuncture between the ANWR natives, environmentalists and the
the first of these sites in the area is expected to produce up to 95,000 barrels of oil a day. 7
Bush administration may be located in a similar context. The claims to the livelihood and survival of native
species are based on an understanding of environment where 4 Introduction people, animals and the
physical aspects of nature contribute to each others survival in a balanced manner. In addition, the
Greenpeace occupation of two American-owned oil rigs in the North Sea was pointing to the international
ramifications of the Bush administrations decision. The administrations response to this in justifying its
position is by pointing out an understanding of national livelihood for all Americans, represented by the
economy and workers as suggested by the President. The well-being of a bounded community is given
precedence over all other concerns expressed for other species domestically, and other environmental
impacts internationally. The claim is asking for everyone to put national interest and a certain level of
Although the responses and the grounds

of these responses by the US administration and the British
government seem to be valid, the challenge by the natives, and
environmentalists such as Greenpeace, target a deeper dimension . It
is clear that the language used in the governments defence is based on
concepts of state, territory, interest, the international and
international law. 8 What is being challenged is the relevance of these concepts in
patriotism over other possible concerns.
understanding the ecological situation. Through the claims of ecological balance in ANWR and calls to
represent the ecosystem around Rockall and the rest of the human population who would be influenced by
hydrocarbon extraction, these groups allow us to attempt to think of moral relations, ethics and politics in
terms of ecology, where ecology
may be defined, tentatively, at this stage

as an awareness of the interrelation and interconnectedness
among the species in nature themselves (including human beings);
and between species and the physical components of nature where
species are located and on which their existence depends. Hence,
ecological understanding involves considering issues at stake with the awareness of existential
the politics of
environmental politics becomes the call for responsibility, which is
about an ecological call for a political contestation. On the one hand, the Bush
relationality among species, and between species and the Earth. Therefore,
administration refuses to agree on international obligations, as these do not allow the USA a justification
for the exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons. By using a domestic security argument the administration is able to put aside a set of international obligations and also to take measures to change its
environmental legislation, which would have international ramifications. On the other hand, in the context
of the ocean space claimed for species by Greenpeace, one needs to see the possibility of justification
provided to the British government in International Relations and conditions on which the governments
The authority of the government to use a section of

ocean space around Rockall derives from the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea III (UNCLOS III), concluded in 1982,
which established a new zone of sovereign rights for coastal states
and islands, i.e. an exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The UNCLOS III process was
action is justified.
initiated to formulate an ocean regime which would both deal with the environmental problems and benefit
coastal states. The most innovative and important change was the establishment of EEZs and the regime
UNCLOS III establishes on the basis of rights given to the coastal states. These rights were expressed in
relation to exploration, exploitation, conserving Introduction 5 and managing the natural resources (Art.
56, 1a) 9 of a certain area of the ocean adjacent to the coastal states territory. By relating these rights to
state sovereignty the convention has created national spaces out of a global common. As a conse- quence,
those national jurisdictions have become legally isolated from the larger context in which they are located.
The position of both governments is based on the possibility of

spatial differentiation between states and the international in the
way we try to understand international relations. By this move international law
also describes the content of these spaces. In the case of Rockall this means that the British government
can isolate the case within its internal, state systemic con- ceptualisation by making it part of Scotland,
and can thus respond by transforming the case into what may be discussed on the basis of national
In the US case, by articulating an energy crisis the

administration transforms the situation into a national problem
rather than its being related to an international issue. This possibility of a
interest.
sharp distinction between the two spaces also means that the assimilation of the call for responsibility into
national interest is mediated by international law. It may be argued that the relat ionality and
interconnectedness of human beings and nature suggested by the activists actions is not addressed in the
My intention, then, is to find an intellectual

orientation for the critical analysis of this juncture between the
activists and the government. The juncture may be spotted between
the official response and the ecological interconnectedness of
species that is, their relationality invoked in the protest as well
as in the meaning of the non-response to the ecological call for
responsibility beyond official understanding of responsibility in
terms of state interest. The critical in critical analysis means that the analysis will
attempt to reveal the limits of knowing 10 in terms of ecology within
the discourse that is framed by concepts of state, territory,
interest and the international as they are deployed by the
governments. It is therefore important to conceptualise the nature of
the problem between the call for responsibility and the location of
the official government response within International Relations. This
location between the two sides allows us to see what is at stake
governments responses.
politically that is different from environmental politics . In the context of this

book, the discourse that limits our understanding of politics is the study
of international relations under the discipline of International
Relations (IR). 11 The study of International Relations is taken to be a
discursive practice insofar as it produces and forms the knowledge
in relation to international relations. 12 In this productive mode it
applies discursive rules and categories such as sovereignty and
the international, without which the discipline of International
Relations cannot explain actual international relations; none the less, in the
statement of international relations these rules and categories are always already assumed. 13 The
responses of the US administration and the British government to their opponents reflect the
discourse of IR, which is based on territorial sovereignty claims

through the means of international law and claims of priority of
national interest over international responsibility in other words,
the discourse of International Relations through its rules and
categories enables spatial differentiation between international
and national. It creates two sides of political action 6 Introduction where the basis of action is
grounded on different ethical relations. Put differently, this spatial distinction also differentiates the mode
of political concerns and agents. Through this structure the state becomes the agent of political discourse
in the international under the assumption of representing its territorial unity and the unified will of its
citizens. In this enabling rests the question of how it is that concepts of sovereignty and the
The ecological call as expressed

in ANWR and by the Greenpeace attempt destabilises the
disciplinary moves that are based on the framework of sovereignty
and the international. As R.B.J. Walker suggests, the increasing importance of
the problems arising outside traditional sovereignty claims such as
those involving the law of the sea, space law and speculative claims
about a global commons or planetary habitat makes traditional
belief that here is indeed here and there is still there (Walker 1993: 174)
rather difficult to sustain. The politics based on ecological
relationality exposes the inner tensions of the concept of
sovereignty. The image of sovereignty as reflected in state action becomes unstable, since these
actions have larger consequences that cannot be assimilated within
the boundaries of sovereign decision-making. The ecological
understanding defined as a holistic relationality between species
and the Earth presents an important discursive problem to
International Relations. 15 Of course, there is an attempt to locate ecological problems as an
international create the conditions of the discourse. 14
environmental problem within the discourse, as demonstrated by the British governments response. This
prompts the question:
How is it possible, in the face of an invocation of
ecological responsibility, to manage the environment in terms of

sovereign spaces?
Stated differently by Michel Foucault in his attempt to locate the con-
ceptualisation of sex in relation to the general discourse of sexuality, [w]hat is at issue, briefly, is the overall discursive fact, the way in which sex is put into discourse (Foucault 1990: 11). It is important to
realise that the transformation of ecological problems into environmental issues is a discursive move.
International Relations may explain the issue of Rockall through environmental management terms based
on British sovereign rights and its international obligations and, by bringing this explanation, imposes its
own discursive structure over the issue. None the less, this precise juncture of transformation reveals the
anthropocentric prejudice of the discourse. Although there are those theories, or schools, of International
Relations that are receptive to the environmental problems, they remain within the anthropocentric
framework. 16 The ecological call raised by these cases discussed above allows us to see the inadequacy
of the rules and categories of the discourse. Or, from a Foucauldian perspective, this inadequacy
represents the internal unvoiced and unthought existential values and norms in the discourse. In other
to bring the concept of the ecological into perspective is an

attempt to uncover power 17 reflected in the possibility of the
words,
conditions of knowledge framed in the discourse of International

Relations. 18 This process also allows us to see what is political in environmental politics and how it
becomes subsumed under the discursive limits of politics created by these values and norms implicit in the
discourse. The relationship between power/knowledge and discourse is an extremely interesting and
In considering discourse as the reflection of deeper,

internal values and norms, and the relationship between them, it is
possible to dissect the knowledge claim of a discourse in relation to
the underlying conditions of its production. In the privileged norms and values,
important one.
those norms and values that are silenced may be observed as well. The silenced relations in the production
In terms of
the juncture between ecology and International Relations, the
location of this resistance can be the discussions of environmental
management within the discourse of International Relations (insofar
as this location allows us to see the power relations and ethical
values deployed in the disciplinary parameters of sovereignty and
the international). 19 Through this understanding one can analyse
the discursive production of environment as well as its inclusion in
politics. What are the power relations reflected in this knowledge? It does not mean that the challenge
is external to the discourse. The location of resistance is clearly within the
discourse as an oppositional power relation that is silenced, which
may be mobilised to reflect the contingent power relations
underpinning the possibility of discourse. By showing the contingency of the
of certain truth claims within a discourse represent where the resistance may be located.
discourse not only to what is being confidently expressed but also to the silenced power relations, the
knowledge claim becomes disrupted, and the possibility of a new space is opened up. With this move, the
explanatory power of the discourse of International Relations based on spatial differentiation between
sovereignty and the international and the very legitimacy of this explanation are questioned. 20 The
ecological call, of which ANWR and Rockall are only two manifestations, presents International Relations
with a fundamental challenge. What we see in these examples is very important. The governments
one
of the main arguments in the discussion, namely the ecological
claim, urges us to stretch our vision provided by the discourse. The
responses to these issues revolve around the disciplinary matrix of International Relations. However,
claim that the state, and hence the domestic government, has a responsibility to people beyond its
boundaries attempts to disintegrate the image of responsibility based only on state relations in the
by bringing in a
concern for species that are not able to vocalise their dissent from
the practices threatening their existential space, and therefore their
being, this ecological politics of contestation points to a discursive
anomaly in International Relations. The knowledge produced within the discourse in
international, which is not concerned necessarily about people. Moreover,
terms of the international does not reflect what it is that we perceive to be international, and the larger
context implicated in the concept becomes obscured. Its knowledge claim remains restricted through state
environmental politics becomes isolated from the

politics of ecological contexts and agents. This book claims that the discourse
of International Relations is paralysed by ecological problems . As it tries
behaviour and interests. Thus
to overcome this state of affairs through its traditional discourse, the situation becomes worse. In other
words, one can observe a rupture in the discipline through which power relations behind it may be
dissected. The internal constitution of the concept of sovereignty and the power relations implicit in it
create the rupture insofar as the ecological issues at hand are 8 Introduction always already discounted
internally in the discipline. Therefore, the allure of theories of regimes and institutions structured on the
basis of established concepts such as state, sovereignty and the international, used as analytical tools of
engage- ment, seems outdated. They obscure the possibility of understanding the ecological call and the
is: Can IR understand and

address the ecological call? This question will be expanded and located at a deeper
implied responsibility therein. The question of this study, then,
philosophical level as I present the way in which I engage with the question through this study. A reminder,
before I continue further, is required. The concept of international in this study will be used to present a
space of social relations that is not captured by International Relations. In other words, I will use the term
to mean a space which is beyond, and more dynamic/fluid than, what is indicated in the international as
relations among states. The definite article the will only be used to indicate the limitedness of this term
within IR. In this way, the attempt is to disrupt the natural- ness of the international space within
International Relations, and to always pose it in relation to a larger context of dynamic relations. 2

Ecomanagerialism K - DDI 2014 MS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ecomanagerialism K - DDI 2014 MS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eco-Managerialism K

Simon Dalby, Professor at Carleton University, PhD from Simon Fraser

state of awareness or Being which gives rise to a multiplicity of

The ocean as such, as a ground state of awareness, is

The self-awareness of these life forms is

This tecne of ocean management turns the world into the

the various power/knowledge systems of instituting a

Worldwatching, in turn, refixes the moral specification

The alternative is a reconceptualization of international

The conventional analysis of the South

the domain of the

abstracted from nature, where the codes of moral relationality are

fish are not necessarily or merely a

This politicisation is furthered by discussion of the

the organization has reimagined Nature as a bioresources

The WWF has specialized in

advanced regions, like Third World nations, as benevolent scientific

We also need biodiversity to develop new medicines....a newly

His nightmare is a world whose essence has

the problem is not technology itself, but the

the problem is that mankind

failure to consider the essence

The more insidious

threat is not nuclear fallout or economic devaluation of intellectual

man is cut off from the transformative

Nazism effectively illustrates Heideggers

Seckinelgin uses the Third United Nations

That fisheries science is tied up with

nature is conceived in instrumental terms , as a

resource or a standing reserve . My focus on the instrumentalist mind-set helps to

there is reason to be wary at the present

excluding certain 'others'and that this approach has been

Before geoengineering was conceivable,

phenomenology from natures point

of view. If world grounds itself on earth, and earth juts through

the climate crisis is the jutting through, and

Heidegger would probably view geoengineering as the final surge of

Geoengineering is domination of both nature and society

To discuss more expert/formal/ordered geoengineering in some

vernacular geoengineering effort has

the ruse of rationality still

Geoengineering is a techno-fix that ensures the problem

As early as the 1970s,

The human-built world is an old established fact, and todays

details of geoengineering are in nuce the most immediate

are, in fact, all intentional

Environmental Justice [Capitalism

scare campaigns show how everything

Admitting that poor people have

the newer iterations of eco-managerialism

eco-managerialism fails miserably with

but I also want to approach what is regarded as "the

this more fully human world is one that also

The Enlightenment's national progressive order of

"environizing" itself a terraformative power at the most fundamental

Whether it is bioengineering new

The omnipolitan subpolis evolves in the reified dictates of industrial

thinking about international relations does not

complete closure with "the environment," and what are now

The alternative is a reconceptualization of international

Heidegger's work is a call to reflect, to think in some way other

Paradox invites examination of its own constitution (hence of the

we may move past the mere frustration of

possible, we ask, to choose, to will, to do nothing? Heidegger is not