Reading and Writing the Weather

Abstract

In this article I argue that an adequate response to climate change requires an overcoming of the metaphysics of presence that is structuring our relationship with the weather. I trace the links between this metaphysics and the dominant way that the topic of climate change is being narrated, which is structured around the transition from diagnosis to cure, from the scientific reading to the technological writing of the weather. Against this narrative I develop a rather different account of the current ecopolitical moment. I first argue that an understanding of anthropogenic climate change must be grounded in a biosemiotic analysis of the evolving metabolism between society and nature, one that is alert to the way that metabolism involves a folded relation between inside and outside, and that recognizes the constant deferral of biosemiotic meaning in ecological systems. I then use a deconstructive reading of climate technics to problematize the distinction between the diagnosis and solution of climate change, and expose modern scientific practices of reading the climate as already containing within themselves a notion of weather’s technological writability. Exploring the notion that previous transformations of the metabolic regime of society have always involved transformations of notions of the human, I conclude by sketching out a different way of reading and writing the weather, one that takes place in the ‘opening’ of climate change, that problematizes the idea of the human as the end of nature, and that thereby implies a more radical version of climate responsibility.

Rev Billy vs. the Market: a sane man in a world of omnipotent fantasies

“…The 'insides' of the spine of Being may be experienced via animist, Hindu, Buddhist, gnostic, existential, Jungian, integral, Gaian and 'other' modalities of investigation (Szerszynski, 2010;Wilber, 1995).…”

‘In case of emergency press here’: framing geoengineering as a response to dangerous climate change

“…Moreover, any interventions in complex earth systems that have positive (however measured) impacts would also bring unintended (both positive and negative) consequences. Any geoengineering intervention would make new climates in ways that would tend to exceed intention, 43,44 and these would need to be managed to avoid geoengineering causing its own cascade of potential future emergencies. This runs counter to the promise of control evoked by geoengineering as a climate management technique, instead creating a self-sustaining cycle of new emergency visions and interventions.…”

Between the frog and the eagle: claiming a ‘Scholarship of Presence’ for the Anthropocene

“…Yusoff sees in the concept a driver for searching/scripting a new history of human origin (Yusoff, 2016). The Anthropocene is also seen as a contingency to re-assess the dichotomy between social and human sciences (Rose, 2013) and to radically rethink the division of disciplines that can lead to a better understanding of the root-cause and proposed solutions to climate change (Szerszynski, 2010).…”