What do you think?
Rate this book
Der Kampf um Gaia. Acht Vorträge über das neue Klimaregime.
Delivered in 2013 in Edinburgh as part of the Gifford Lectures, these lectures attempt to decipher the face of Gaia in order to redistribute the notions that have been packed too tightly into the composite notion of "natural religion."
Unknown Binding
First published February 28, 2013
163 people are currently reading
1558 people want to read
About the author
Bruno Latour
163 books765 followersBruno Latour, a philosopher and anthropologist, is the author of Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory, Our Modern Cult of the Factish Gods, An Inquiry into Modes of Existence, and many other books. He curated the ZKM exhibits ICONOCLASH and Making Things Public and coedited the accompanying catalogs, both published by the MIT Press.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews
May 13, 2022
Tough and dense read but it contains a lot of treasures and mind-shifting ideas. Even when you feel like you have grasped the world roughly, this book manages to turn it upside down and enables you to approach things from unexpected viewpoints.
I was glad that I had to read to other works of Latour in advance (“We Have Never Been Modern” and “Politics of nature”). These works have helped me quite a lot while unraveling “Facing Gaia”. Without it, I’m sure I would have gotten a proper understanding of Gaia but never so deep and abiding.
I was glad that I had to read to other works of Latour in advance (“We Have Never Been Modern” and “Politics of nature”). These works have helped me quite a lot while unraveling “Facing Gaia”. Without it, I’m sure I would have gotten a proper understanding of Gaia but never so deep and abiding.
May 4, 2018
Much of this book revolves around Schmitt's work that "is devoted to the question of what makes a war become limitless. His answer is that it is always for want of a clear recognition of what characterizes the enemy. It is precisely this denial of a state of war and the dissimulations that leads, in Schmitt’s eyes, to the transformation of limited wars into wars of extermination. Any reader of the contemporary ecological conflicts can only agree with him on this point: the conflicts would never have gone so far toward radial extermination if they had been considered as wars in which the other side, in its turn, could endanger the existence of those who were attacking it. The possibility of extermination, of what has to be called a war of annihilation, came from the illusion that we were carrying out, in the name of civilization, only a simple operation of pacification!" (239).
Gaia, according to Latour, is not amused. Gaia is at war with a humankind that has become a geological force in itself. We are paralyzed by our religion of Modernism, unable to keep our feet on the ground, 'Earthbound': "How strange it is that, after having heard so many appeals in favor of materialism, we find ourselves totally unequipped to approach the material conditions of our atmospheric existence! After so much sarcasm toward those who preached to the masses that they had to escape into 'the world beyond' in order to flee from the harsh conditions of this world here below, we now find ourselves taken aback by the notion that there can be limits to our objectives; we are incapable of defining a behavior that would be down-to-earth, terrestrial, embodied" (244). And later: "To put is baldly: in the face of what is to come, we cannot continue to believe in the old future if we want to have a future at all. This is what I mean by 'facing Gaia.'"(249)
But what future do we have if we cannot 'recognize or characterize the enemy' and are engaged in a war of annihilation with Gaia? What revolution is required to end the Modernist religion of unlimited progress and bring us back down-to-earth, to our 'atmospheric condition'? "Every conception of the new geopolitics has to take into account the fact that the way the Earthbound are attached to Gaia is totally different from the way humans were attached to Nature. Gaia is no longer indifferent to our actions. […] The Earthbound and the Earth have grown up. Both parties share the same fragility, the same cruelty, the same uncertainty about their fate" (281).
Facing Gaia is an interesting book, long on reflecting on our present state and short on prescription.
Gaia, according to Latour, is not amused. Gaia is at war with a humankind that has become a geological force in itself. We are paralyzed by our religion of Modernism, unable to keep our feet on the ground, 'Earthbound': "How strange it is that, after having heard so many appeals in favor of materialism, we find ourselves totally unequipped to approach the material conditions of our atmospheric existence! After so much sarcasm toward those who preached to the masses that they had to escape into 'the world beyond' in order to flee from the harsh conditions of this world here below, we now find ourselves taken aback by the notion that there can be limits to our objectives; we are incapable of defining a behavior that would be down-to-earth, terrestrial, embodied" (244). And later: "To put is baldly: in the face of what is to come, we cannot continue to believe in the old future if we want to have a future at all. This is what I mean by 'facing Gaia.'"(249)
But what future do we have if we cannot 'recognize or characterize the enemy' and are engaged in a war of annihilation with Gaia? What revolution is required to end the Modernist religion of unlimited progress and bring us back down-to-earth, to our 'atmospheric condition'? "Every conception of the new geopolitics has to take into account the fact that the way the Earthbound are attached to Gaia is totally different from the way humans were attached to Nature. Gaia is no longer indifferent to our actions. […] The Earthbound and the Earth have grown up. Both parties share the same fragility, the same cruelty, the same uncertainty about their fate" (281).
Facing Gaia is an interesting book, long on reflecting on our present state and short on prescription.
August 9, 2020
Too clever by half!
That's my short take on this book. It's not an easy read, in part because of Latour's playful attitude. Don't get me wrong, it's a damn sight more pleasurable to slog through this erudite and lively playfulness than through a deadly serious (and deadening) writer like Marx. Nor would I want to give the impression that Latour is not serious; he writes here on matters of grave import to us all.
In fact, what I found most valuable is that Latour, a scholar of some reputation, takes Gaia seriously. He challenges a lot of my assumptions and gives me cause to think more carefully and precisely about my understanding of Gaia. He gives us some access to language for making the case for Gaia in a scholarly context; indeed, simply by publishing this work he perhaps rehabilitates Gaia (and James Lovelock) with a certain academic credibility -- for those who care about such things.
A fine passage of admirable clarity. If only it were all so on-point.
I mean dang bruh -- given what's at stake, I'd appreciate if you could dumb it down a little for us mere mortals. A little less convoluted, a little less in love with your own cleverness. Is that too much to ask?
Furthermore, I do have my reservations about what's on offer here. In particular, Latour spends a lot of energy arguing against what he perceives to be the Moderns and their worldview. Leaving aside the thorny question of who these people are, exactly, Latour seems oblivious or dismissive of what Federico Lusetti calls "internal critiques of Western concepts and indigenous knowledges." This seems weird, to say the least, and it makes me suspicious of Latour's project, both in this book and in the overall thrust of his career.
I also have to wonder: With all the attention Latour confers to James Lovelock, why doesn't Lynn Margulis get any love here?
Other problems, as noted by Philip Conway, include Latour's fascination with a prominent Nazi philosopher and his insistence that we are now in a state of war. I'm not saying he's wrong about the latter, but as mentioned previously my guard is up.
That's my short take on this book. It's not an easy read, in part because of Latour's playful attitude. Don't get me wrong, it's a damn sight more pleasurable to slog through this erudite and lively playfulness than through a deadly serious (and deadening) writer like Marx. Nor would I want to give the impression that Latour is not serious; he writes here on matters of grave import to us all.
In fact, what I found most valuable is that Latour, a scholar of some reputation, takes Gaia seriously. He challenges a lot of my assumptions and gives me cause to think more carefully and precisely about my understanding of Gaia. He gives us some access to language for making the case for Gaia in a scholarly context; indeed, simply by publishing this work he perhaps rehabilitates Gaia (and James Lovelock) with a certain academic credibility -- for those who care about such things.
With Gaia, Lovelock is asking us to believe not in a single Providence, but in as many Providences as there are organisms on Earth. By generalizing Providence to each agent, he insures that the interests and profits of each actor will be countered by numerous other programs. The very idea of Providence is blurred, pixelated, and finally fades away. The simple result of such a distribution of final causes is not the emergence of a supreme Final Cause, but a fine muddle. This muddle is Gaia.
A fine passage of admirable clarity. If only it were all so on-point.
I mean dang bruh -- given what's at stake, I'd appreciate if you could dumb it down a little for us mere mortals. A little less convoluted, a little less in love with your own cleverness. Is that too much to ask?
Furthermore, I do have my reservations about what's on offer here. In particular, Latour spends a lot of energy arguing against what he perceives to be the Moderns and their worldview. Leaving aside the thorny question of who these people are, exactly, Latour seems oblivious or dismissive of what Federico Lusetti calls "internal critiques of Western concepts and indigenous knowledges." This seems weird, to say the least, and it makes me suspicious of Latour's project, both in this book and in the overall thrust of his career.
I also have to wonder: With all the attention Latour confers to James Lovelock, why doesn't Lynn Margulis get any love here?
Other problems, as noted by Philip Conway, include Latour's fascination with a prominent Nazi philosopher and his insistence that we are now in a state of war. I'm not saying he's wrong about the latter, but as mentioned previously my guard is up.
February 3, 2021
An amazingly dense and at the same time insightful read. Networks of course play hugely as a structuring idea, but with the twist that nodes have become agents in the continuous living loops that also laso us ("the Earthbound" or in Harraway's term, "Terrans") and earth (in its transformed being as Gaia) at once. In the process Latour knocks over the cart of Capitalism's ignorant greed, Science's rigid and ego based definitions of self, Religion's confusion of immanence and transcendence. He goes back to Whitehead's observation of the catastrophic separation (executed by "the Moderns" (us)) of animate and inanimate in Nature and hence redefines the contradictions in the the term itself while offering what it might be that has taken it's place in this ongoing end of times.
My main quibble is the limitation he imposes on the animate. We warns against not only under-animating, but also over-animating, which strikes me as a kind of meek middle road. He acknowledges and holds to account the West's destruction of many of the "others" -- species and cultures -- in the rush of colonization, but does not seem to see how much we need to learn from Indigenous cultures now.
Some brilliant things here anyhow.
My main quibble is the limitation he imposes on the animate. We warns against not only under-animating, but also over-animating, which strikes me as a kind of meek middle road. He acknowledges and holds to account the West's destruction of many of the "others" -- species and cultures -- in the rush of colonization, but does not seem to see how much we need to learn from Indigenous cultures now.
Some brilliant things here anyhow.
December 22, 2020
Ho fatto una fatica bestiale a finirlo. L'argomento sarebbe anche molto affascinante, ma il modo in cui è scritto - Latour fatica a tenere a freno la sua voglia di citare e far vedere che conosce tante cose - non fa che appesantire una materia che già di suo leggerissima non è. Sarà anche che io non parto da chissà quali basi antropologiche o filosofiche (non a caso - avendo studiato storia - le parti per me più comprensibili si sono rivelate essere quelle storiche) ma nel complesso ho trovato questo tomo davvero pesante.
January 27, 2019
In de eerste lezingen lanceert Latour telkens een vraag waar hij dan een grote bocht omheen neemt om ze pas aan het einde, of soms zelfs pas in de laatste twee lezingen, te gaan beantwoorden. Het vergt dan ook tijd om een gevoel van vervulling te krijgen. Maar onderweg worden wel de (contra)religieuze wortels van onze hedendaagse maatschappij mooi blootgelegd en besef je dat we in een staat van oorlog leven en dat het belangrijk is om onze vijanden te benoemen hierin. Op zo'n momenten sta ik alleen maar nog meer achter onder andere de spijbelende leerlingen. We weten al lang genoeg dat het milieu helemaal uit evenwicht gebracht is, het wordt nu ook tijd om bang te zijn en naar wat een noodsituatie is, te leven.
Ik herken me helemaal in Latours blik op het aardse als een samenspel van krachten die niet tot een geünificeerde Globe terug te brengen zijn, maar ik zie nu beter de consequenties van die blik. Ik hoop dat er vannamiddag tijdens de Klimaatmars iemand meeloopt met op zijn bord: 'Geef stemrecht aan de zee (en het Amazoniëwoud, de dieren, de bomen, de rozen, de woestijnen, de steden, de rivieren, ...)'.
Ik herken me helemaal in Latours blik op het aardse als een samenspel van krachten die niet tot een geünificeerde Globe terug te brengen zijn, maar ik zie nu beter de consequenties van die blik. Ik hoop dat er vannamiddag tijdens de Klimaatmars iemand meeloopt met op zijn bord: 'Geef stemrecht aan de zee (en het Amazoniëwoud, de dieren, de bomen, de rozen, de woestijnen, de steden, de rivieren, ...)'.
April 1, 2023
One of the best books to come out in the 2010s. I am very on board with the majority Latour's points here.
January 16, 2021
I won’t get these three days of my life back. The only interesting thing about this text is the sedulous, sneaky way that Latour keeps bringing the human back in through the back door by speaking of “We” — of “our” relationship to the world. The unit idea is banal: that the alterity between humans and nature is conceptually incoherent, which renders the concept of the Anthropocene, which seems to place humans at the center of ecological causality if not agency. Likewise, appeals to nature or science cannot themselves be dispositive as political arguments — true, but banal. And of course he is correct that all the political demands and critiques associated with the advent of the Anthropocene correspond to critiques of industrial capitalist modernity that have been extant since the nineteenth and even eighteenth century — but so what, maybe that is because these critiques are correct?
In fact, we need a concept of the planetary precisely to sublate culture-nature dualism. Agency must be seen as distributed — there is no singular agent of geohistory, akin to what the Marxists claimed about the proletariat. No one can speak for all of humanity, much less the planetary.
In fact, we need a concept of the planetary precisely to sublate culture-nature dualism. Agency must be seen as distributed — there is no singular agent of geohistory, akin to what the Marxists claimed about the proletariat. No one can speak for all of humanity, much less the planetary.
April 20, 2020
Agree with others that this is more like 3.5 stars... Latour just gets a little caught up in playing with language sometimes. Which can be fun, but which can also create a maze of words that one needs to navigate more slowly than would otherwise be needed. My sense is his slimmer Down to Earth is a tighter reworking of some of these ideas, and I'm curious to re-read that having waded through Facing Gaia, as I think I'll have a better basis on which to take all these ideas and actually begin to use them.
February 15, 2018
Deconstructing the false distinction between Nature/Culture, Bruno Latour tries to look at what's happening (environmentally) as the product of actors (humans) and actants (non-human forces). E.g. The Corps of Engineers AND the Mississippi River are not Man v. Nature, but rather two ecological forces (in a 'metamorphic zone'). It was unclear to me how this philosophical nuance was going to save the planet (not that Latour suggests it will), but an interesting read.
September 13, 2018
Ugh. Heavy, heavy, prose, dripping with overladen metaphors. Could not finish.
Read
August 9, 2021Helaas te weinig van begrepen om een rating te geven. Ik vond het heel complex, ik zou de rode draad niet secuur kunnen navertellen.
August 24, 2022
Latour's basic argument is that the old nature/culture dichotomy has prevented us from facing the problem of climate change. He wants to replace it with Gaia, a somewhat reworked version of the proposal put forward in the 1970s by James Lovelock. Latour insists that unlike the unified global system some of Lovelock's acolytes and detractors have seen Gaia as, Gaia is rather a congeries of systems of agency operating in quasi-independence but nevertheless deeply affected by one another. Agency is key: all elements of Gaia have it, and exercise it on all the other components, including us human beings. Only by recognizing the existence of this Gaia and accepting that it is the context in which we operate will we be able to move forward.
Latour's case is, of course, much more complicated than this rather broad and simplistic synopsis. It's presented in prose that ranges widely from jokey to so dense as to be virtually impenetrable. Great patience--and stamina--are needed to get through the thickets. (The chapters were originally delivered as a series of lectures in Scotland; I marvel to imagine what it must have been like trying to follow!)
For most readers, probably, the basic question will be, is the Gaia concept helpful in dealing with the crises we face? The answer will no doubt depend on the reader. Latour's plea to understand that the systems of Gaia interact is certainly crucially important; too much of what we have done was carried out without much concern for its effects beyond the initial intention (the coal-fired power plant whose generation of electricity--and profit--were all that mattered). But for his ideas to be grasped by a wide audience, they will need to be brought down from the very high level of abstraction in which many are presented, otherwise they risk simply being dismissed as so much obfuscatory, French-intellectual nonsense, or as the tired (and tiresome) New Age pseudo-paganism favored by certain elements of the American elite.
Latour's case is, of course, much more complicated than this rather broad and simplistic synopsis. It's presented in prose that ranges widely from jokey to so dense as to be virtually impenetrable. Great patience--and stamina--are needed to get through the thickets. (The chapters were originally delivered as a series of lectures in Scotland; I marvel to imagine what it must have been like trying to follow!)
For most readers, probably, the basic question will be, is the Gaia concept helpful in dealing with the crises we face? The answer will no doubt depend on the reader. Latour's plea to understand that the systems of Gaia interact is certainly crucially important; too much of what we have done was carried out without much concern for its effects beyond the initial intention (the coal-fired power plant whose generation of electricity--and profit--were all that mattered). But for his ideas to be grasped by a wide audience, they will need to be brought down from the very high level of abstraction in which many are presented, otherwise they risk simply being dismissed as so much obfuscatory, French-intellectual nonsense, or as the tired (and tiresome) New Age pseudo-paganism favored by certain elements of the American elite.
March 21, 2018
a dismantling & rewiring of the relationships between theology, science, politics, nature. the beginnings of an attention to 'geostory', and a call to allow the 'time of the end' to galvanize us. merits multiple readings!
August 29, 2018
3.5 stars - provocative and enticing, though at times still bogged down by typical issues re: academic jargon.
January 26, 2023
Sehr mühsam zu lesen. Es brauchte wiederholtes Durchgehen meiner Markierungen und Anmerkungen im Text sowie online Sekundärliteratur um nun einigermassen verstanden zu haben, was der Autor kommunizieren möchte. Spannend!
Erster Vortrag: Die Beziehung des Menschen wandelt sich. Das "alte Klimaregime", also die bisherige Art und Weise wie über das Klima nachgedacht wurde, muss sich ändern. Sie ist gekennzeichnet dadurch zwischen Natur und Kultur zu unterscheiden, ein überschneidungsfreies und alles abdeckendes Konzept. Der Mensch beeinflusst die Natur. Im "neuen Klimaregime" gibt es diese Unterscheidung nicht mehr.
Zweiter Vortrag: Die Erde besteht aus Akteuren. Akteure haben Wirkungsmächte, sogenannte Agentien ("agencies"), sie verfolgen also etwas, sind dabei aber weder leblos noch beseelt. Man kann es als das Ausbreiten in die nächstopportune (ökologische) Nische betrachten, was ja seit Darwin nicht mehr als "willentlich" verstanden wird.
Dritter Vortrag: Lovelock, von dem das Konzept Gaia ursprünglich stammt, sagt, andere Planeten haben chemisches Gleichgewicht, sie sind also tot. Auf der Erde schwanken chemische Konzentrationen in Boden und Atmosphäre. Irgendeine Kraft muss sie also dennoch zusammenhalten bzw. einen Urzustand wiederherstellen. Diese heisst Gaia. Gaia ist nicht harmonisch aber auch nicht chaotisch. Sie ist das Ergebnis, der Prozess, das Zusammenspiel, aus den Wirkungsmächten aller Akteure. "Aus einer solchen Verteilung von Endzwecken geht kein oberster Endzweck hervor, sondern schlicht ein wüstes Gewirr. Dieses Gewirr ist Gaia." (p. 176) Es gibt also keine Umwelt mehr.
Vierter Vortrag: "Vom anthropischen Ursprung der globalen Klimaerwärmung zu sprechen hat keinen Sinn, wenn unter anthropisch so etwas wie Menschengattung verstanden wird. [...] Vielmehr muss der Mensch als einheitlicher Akteur, als bloß virtuelle politische Entität, als universelles Konzept in mehrere voneinander getrennte Völker aufgelöst werden, deren Interessen divergieren". (pp. 210f.)
Fünfter Vortrag: [Naturkonzepte verschiedener Völker und Religionen; ausschliesslich abstrakt, nie angewandt]
Sechster Vortrag: "Die Verschmelzung von Eschatologie und Ökologie ist kein Umkippen ins Irrationale [...] oder irgendein mystisches Bekenntnis zu einem überholten religiösen Mythos. Sie ist notwendig, wollen wir der Bedrohung entgegentreten und aufhören, die Kompromissler zu spielen, die Appeasement-Verfechter, die immer wieder den Moment hinauszögern, sich gefechtsklar zu machen. Die Apokalypse ist ein Aufruf, endlich rational zu sein, mit beiden Füßen auf der Erde zu stehen. [...] Gaia ist [...] eine Aufforderung, die Zugehörigkeit zur Welt zu rematerialisieren [...] Sie ist das einzige Mittel [...] endlich die Gegenwart ernst [zu] nehmen." (pp. 371f.)
Siebter Vortrag: Ökologie muss wieder politisiert werden. "[...] Es ist ein Krieg aller gegen alle entbrannt, in dem die Protagonisten nicht nur der Wolf und das Schaf sein können, sondern auch der Thunfisch und das CO2 [...]". (p.384) "Wollen wir eine politische Ökologie haben [das neue Klimaregime], müssen wir von der Gespaltenheit einer zu früh geeinigten Menschengattung ausgehen. Wir müssen für miteinander in Konflikt stehende Kollektive Raum schaffen und nicht nur für durch Anthropologie [...] bekannte Kulturen." (p. 417)
Achter Vortrag: Um allen Wirkungsmächten Gehör zu verschaffen, reicht eine Versammlung von Vertretern von 195 Nationalstaaten nicht mehr aus. Ihnen müssen "nichtstaatliche Organisationen beigestellt werden" (p. 441), Delegationen, die zum Beispiel Boden, Ozeane, Atmosphäre oder bedrohte Arten vertreten. Die Macht der Nationalstaaten wird zusehends abgelöst. Das ist das neue Klimaregime.
Erster Vortrag: Die Beziehung des Menschen wandelt sich. Das "alte Klimaregime", also die bisherige Art und Weise wie über das Klima nachgedacht wurde, muss sich ändern. Sie ist gekennzeichnet dadurch zwischen Natur und Kultur zu unterscheiden, ein überschneidungsfreies und alles abdeckendes Konzept. Der Mensch beeinflusst die Natur. Im "neuen Klimaregime" gibt es diese Unterscheidung nicht mehr.
Zweiter Vortrag: Die Erde besteht aus Akteuren. Akteure haben Wirkungsmächte, sogenannte Agentien ("agencies"), sie verfolgen also etwas, sind dabei aber weder leblos noch beseelt. Man kann es als das Ausbreiten in die nächstopportune (ökologische) Nische betrachten, was ja seit Darwin nicht mehr als "willentlich" verstanden wird.
Dritter Vortrag: Lovelock, von dem das Konzept Gaia ursprünglich stammt, sagt, andere Planeten haben chemisches Gleichgewicht, sie sind also tot. Auf der Erde schwanken chemische Konzentrationen in Boden und Atmosphäre. Irgendeine Kraft muss sie also dennoch zusammenhalten bzw. einen Urzustand wiederherstellen. Diese heisst Gaia. Gaia ist nicht harmonisch aber auch nicht chaotisch. Sie ist das Ergebnis, der Prozess, das Zusammenspiel, aus den Wirkungsmächten aller Akteure. "Aus einer solchen Verteilung von Endzwecken geht kein oberster Endzweck hervor, sondern schlicht ein wüstes Gewirr. Dieses Gewirr ist Gaia." (p. 176) Es gibt also keine Umwelt mehr.
Vierter Vortrag: "Vom anthropischen Ursprung der globalen Klimaerwärmung zu sprechen hat keinen Sinn, wenn unter anthropisch so etwas wie Menschengattung verstanden wird. [...] Vielmehr muss der Mensch als einheitlicher Akteur, als bloß virtuelle politische Entität, als universelles Konzept in mehrere voneinander getrennte Völker aufgelöst werden, deren Interessen divergieren". (pp. 210f.)
Fünfter Vortrag: [Naturkonzepte verschiedener Völker und Religionen; ausschliesslich abstrakt, nie angewandt]
Sechster Vortrag: "Die Verschmelzung von Eschatologie und Ökologie ist kein Umkippen ins Irrationale [...] oder irgendein mystisches Bekenntnis zu einem überholten religiösen Mythos. Sie ist notwendig, wollen wir der Bedrohung entgegentreten und aufhören, die Kompromissler zu spielen, die Appeasement-Verfechter, die immer wieder den Moment hinauszögern, sich gefechtsklar zu machen. Die Apokalypse ist ein Aufruf, endlich rational zu sein, mit beiden Füßen auf der Erde zu stehen. [...] Gaia ist [...] eine Aufforderung, die Zugehörigkeit zur Welt zu rematerialisieren [...] Sie ist das einzige Mittel [...] endlich die Gegenwart ernst [zu] nehmen." (pp. 371f.)
Siebter Vortrag: Ökologie muss wieder politisiert werden. "[...] Es ist ein Krieg aller gegen alle entbrannt, in dem die Protagonisten nicht nur der Wolf und das Schaf sein können, sondern auch der Thunfisch und das CO2 [...]". (p.384) "Wollen wir eine politische Ökologie haben [das neue Klimaregime], müssen wir von der Gespaltenheit einer zu früh geeinigten Menschengattung ausgehen. Wir müssen für miteinander in Konflikt stehende Kollektive Raum schaffen und nicht nur für durch Anthropologie [...] bekannte Kulturen." (p. 417)
Achter Vortrag: Um allen Wirkungsmächten Gehör zu verschaffen, reicht eine Versammlung von Vertretern von 195 Nationalstaaten nicht mehr aus. Ihnen müssen "nichtstaatliche Organisationen beigestellt werden" (p. 441), Delegationen, die zum Beispiel Boden, Ozeane, Atmosphäre oder bedrohte Arten vertreten. Die Macht der Nationalstaaten wird zusehends abgelöst. Das ist das neue Klimaregime.
January 12, 2021
Este libro contiene ocho conferencias de Latour sobre el calentamiento global. Si bien puede leerse cualquiera, sin seguir el orden, la lectura de las 8, en orden, ayuda mantener el desarrollo de la religión natural, tema sobre el cual gira, en últimas, el libro. Latour demuestra un vasto conocimiento sobre los temas que trata, dejando muchísima bibliografía para consultar, en caso de querer profundizar sobre los distintos subtemas de cada conferencia. El proceso de escritura, desde el comienzo, trata de desenmarañar la relación de la humanidad con la tierra, lo cual obliga una reformulación de conceptos para enfrentar los diversos problemas relacionados con el mundo. Así, naturaleza y cultura son puestos sobre el plano del mundo, trayendo la figura de Gaia, pasando por el Antropoceno, la religión y la falta de reacción de la humanidad ante el calentamiento global. Por supuesto, la postura climatoescéptica aparece también, de la mano con los intereses económicos y la necesidad de una ciencia prescriptiva, no sólo descriptiva.
Sin pasiones, pero con la convicción de que el papel de la ciencia no es meramente objetivo (que las ciencias exactas deben ajustarse a las humanas, a la luz del Antropoceno) y de que la humanidad es un factor geológico, el sociólogo francés desarrolla una tarea filosófica, en términos de Berardi, la cual busca sentar bases para una discusión sensata sobre el medio ambiente. A pesar de ir a tantas fuentes, de tomar conceptos de pensadores que van desde Lovelock, pasando por Stengers, hasta Sloterdijk, Latour es muy claro, hasta donde la misma Gaia lo permite.
Sin pasiones, pero con la convicción de que el papel de la ciencia no es meramente objetivo (que las ciencias exactas deben ajustarse a las humanas, a la luz del Antropoceno) y de que la humanidad es un factor geológico, el sociólogo francés desarrolla una tarea filosófica, en términos de Berardi, la cual busca sentar bases para una discusión sensata sobre el medio ambiente. A pesar de ir a tantas fuentes, de tomar conceptos de pensadores que van desde Lovelock, pasando por Stengers, hasta Sloterdijk, Latour es muy claro, hasta donde la misma Gaia lo permite.
October 27, 2023
To begin with, this is not an amazing book. If you're looking for the very best of Latour, go to We were never modern and her latest, Where am I? and Where to land?
Still, this is a remarkable book. I've heard quite a lot about Gaia now, so it didn't strike me as new. And his discourse changes quiet a bit, making a sudden appearance for religion. I really can't say I enjoyed much of the religious talk, even though I liked the link between Science and Monotheism as counter-religions. Well, the book is fine. I do get Latour, and the thrill he must have felt with the Parliament. I do think that sometimes he's a bit too European, so to say, trusting in politics that much. He clearly doesn't have much of the indigenous cosmologies in mind. Stengers suffers from the same. Anyway, these were valuable.
Still, this is a remarkable book. I've heard quite a lot about Gaia now, so it didn't strike me as new. And his discourse changes quiet a bit, making a sudden appearance for religion. I really can't say I enjoyed much of the religious talk, even though I liked the link between Science and Monotheism as counter-religions. Well, the book is fine. I do get Latour, and the thrill he must have felt with the Parliament. I do think that sometimes he's a bit too European, so to say, trusting in politics that much. He clearly doesn't have much of the indigenous cosmologies in mind. Stengers suffers from the same. Anyway, these were valuable.
October 29, 2021
In order to finishing my graduation essays this books preserves us a lot of interesting material to consider. Keep that in mind, if you are interested in climate, pop-sci materials like Carl Sagan's Cosmos stuff (but this is more concerning about life and earth as a whole body). An alternative view, if i can politely said.
Basically, be ready to stretched out your mind and raise your eyebrows a lot while eat this as a whole. If you have basic science, especially about biology, or geology, or evolutionary understanding, it will be interesting to follow the book through.
If it's not, i would prefer not to touch it a bit. Go with the basic one first before read this book
Basically, be ready to stretched out your mind and raise your eyebrows a lot while eat this as a whole. If you have basic science, especially about biology, or geology, or evolutionary understanding, it will be interesting to follow the book through.
If it's not, i would prefer not to touch it a bit. Go with the basic one first before read this book
November 18, 2023
idk what to think about this. i think latour was trying to mobilize his readers to take action towards the environment and the so-recent climate crisis we found ourselves in, but tbh, he just succeeded in confusing the hell out of me about the subject. especially because he went in so much directions to try and explain his point... i mean, in these 400 pages, he brushed big and broad subjects such as religion, politics, metaphysics, sociology, anthropology, environment, science, etc, etc. i feel like he was just too ambitious and it didn't go in his favor. but i must say, he has a way with words and it was kinda entertaining to read this, and also talk about it in class afterwards.
September 29, 2020
Serie di letture/conferenze in cui discute di come dovremmo ripensare la nostra relazione col mondo e con l’ambiente per poter finalmente incarnare un giusto atteggiamento comune nei confronti della natura. Sintetizza alcuni dei motivi alla base dell’attuale deriva negazionista e problemizza la calma con cui tale collezione di fenomeni viene affrontata dal mondo delle imprese e da quello politico-istituzionale.
August 7, 2024
Philosophy of political history in Europe can...
...help those of us in the West with scientific backgrounds understand some of the roots of the resistance our publics have to thinking about climate change/crises. Especially those trained in history and politics. I'd like to see a US version, incorporating necessarily what are called Black history and Native ways of thinking about lands, waters, and our more than human relatives.
...help those of us in the West with scientific backgrounds understand some of the roots of the resistance our publics have to thinking about climate change/crises. Especially those trained in history and politics. I'd like to see a US version, incorporating necessarily what are called Black history and Native ways of thinking about lands, waters, and our more than human relatives.
July 1, 2025
4+/5
Stile di scrittura (e di parlare, perché si tratta di una raccolta di conferenze) esageratamente e inutilmente arzigogolato per spiegare un concetto semplice: il pianeta Terra è un sistema complesso. Che novità! Se lo stile fosse stato un pochino più semplice sarebbe diventato un must-have in libreria per l'importanza dell'analisi.
Stile di scrittura (e di parlare, perché si tratta di una raccolta di conferenze) esageratamente e inutilmente arzigogolato per spiegare un concetto semplice: il pianeta Terra è un sistema complesso. Che novità! Se lo stile fosse stato un pochino più semplice sarebbe diventato un must-have in libreria per l'importanza dell'analisi.
September 13, 2021
Basically, environmentalism ought to get political. I think that’s what most of it was about. Also some stuff about getting a better definition of counter- religion. But mostly the idea of the nation- state being in the way of thinking about the environment.
April 14, 2025
Een mooie basis om te denken over natuur, cultuur, natuur/cultuur, maar de toon, de stijl is op zijn zachts gezegd arrogant. Wat een onnodig moeilijkdoenerij. Niet door te komen… na vierenhalve lezing gestopt met lezen.
March 25, 2021
Assoluta immondizia
March 19, 2023
li só a primeira conferência
May 25, 2023
Incredibly wise and insightful. Wish I had read this much earlier.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews