Monday, 30 May 2011

Finding disagreement with Adam Curtis

How the 'ecosystem' myth has been used for sinister means?


"Biosphere 2 was a giant sealed world. Eight humans were locked in with a mass of flora and other fauna, and a balanced ecosystem was supposed to naturally emerge. But from the start it was completely unbalanced. The CO2 levels started soaring, so the experimenters desperately planted more green plants, but the CO2 continued to rise, then dissolved in the "ocean" and ate their precious coral reef. Millions of tiny mites attacked the vegetables and there was less and less food to eat. The men lost 18% of their body weight. Then millions of cockroaches took over. The moment the lights were turned out in the kitchen, hordes of roaches covered every surface. And it got worse – the oxygen in the world started to disappear and no one knew where it was going. The "bionauts" began to suffocate. And they began to hate one another – furious rows erupted that often ended with them spitting in one another's faces. A psychiatrist was brought in to see if they had gone insane, but concluded simply that it was a struggle for power."


Curtis attempts uses this case, and the chaos theory of equilibrium, to essentially undermine or discredit the idea of a decentralized society, as I identify in political ideology with the conceived movements of anarcho-syndicalism or liberatarian socialism. In analogy, perhaps there is a certain dichotomy to the destruction caused by the biosphere's incests.  (Curtis may possibly include anarcho-capitalism or Ayn Rand's Objectivism impartially also, which I have addressed, but a comprehensive understanding is subversive to corporate as well as state control.) As intellectually insightful as Curtis's arguments may be, they generally compare to the kind of incredibly narrow and mainstream rhetoric that perceives its own meaning of protest movements, albeit compelling and articulate as it is in this article (I wouldn't consider amounting Curtis to the subservient propaganda and narrative of the majority). He refers to a UK Uncut activist engaging in direct action and civil disobedience against corporate tax evasion, and the government's budget cuts serving their agenda, who responded to a "journalist" seeking to fulfill propaganda line that those engaging in violence (violence I and the UK Uncut organization view as counterproductive) against banking establishments, can speak for themselves only without certain condemnation from their observers. Compared to this, the primary problem with Curtis's argument based upon this scientific case, is the inherent debilitation of the eight human guinea pigs. Of course disorientated social breakdown is inevitable in an intentionally manufactured environment of ecological breakdown and flux.


This doesn't inherently prove the supposed failure of a civilization without an authoritarian hierarchy, in humanity's modern world and condition. Democratic dissent stands for the mutualist empowerment of individualism and equality only. Society progressively develops according to always increasing adaptation of its knowledge. We may be components, but we are not purposes. The nature of modern economic systems Curtis refers to base themselves upon centralized power and conditioned prevention of the freethinking self-realization of individuals. We learn from each other as individuals to define the meaning and creation of our lives. Curtis does however provide some constructive criticism of the network-based political organization of the age. We must remind ourselves that the advent potential of the Internet is unprecedented, and proven by revolution, but only as a mechanism that affirms liberation founded through democratic dissent and understanding over generations.

No comments:

Post a Comment