Why and How geology and geography play a key role in politics? Or The connections between the European Enlightenment and the Science of Geology and a discourse for the effects of geosciences on the future of the Homo-sapiens (Nationalism versus Internationalism) – The Scottish Enlightenment Part 1: How geology and society have co-evolved from the 18th century till the 2010s

In this section I shall continue the long list of geoscience topics I want to talk about, write about and think about. This section is more concerned with the philosophical meanings of geology and how they impact our thinking about a changing world.

Part 1:

Climate Change and its effects on Political Philosophy and International Relations

How a geological and ecological understanding of the world changes an average person’s perspective on the world. Does our understanding of nature in a scientific manner changes how the average person, the politician and the philosopher see the world? To quote Slavoj Žižek:

“The underlying message of this predominant ecological ideology is a deeply conservative one: any change can only be a change for the worse. So what is wrong here? What is wrong I think is the … principal position … that there is something like “nature,” which we humans, with our hubris, with our will to dominate, disturbed … [W]e know Jacques Lacan’s motto, “The big Other doesn’t exist.” I think we should extend this to nature. The first premise of a truly radical ecology should be, “Nature doesn’t exist.” … So again what we need is ecology without nature, ecology that accepts this open, imbalanced, denaturalized, if you want, character of nature itself. [I]t is … all too easy to attribute our disbelief in the catastrophe to the impregnation of our minds by scientific ideology. [The] standard thesis of the predominant ecology … says something like this: “The ultimate cause of our ecological problems is modern technology, Cartesian subjectivity, within which we are abstract beings somehow outside nature, who can manipulate nature, dominate nature … what we should rediscover is that nature is not out there, an object of our manipulation. Nature is our very background, we are wired to nature, embedded in nature. You should go out, feel, breathe nature. You should accept that your abstract scientific reification … is just an alienating effect of being embedded in the life world.” I think that far from offering a solution, this kind of refere.”

Slavoj Žižek has a very complicated view on how we see nature. Do we see it as a terrible father? Or a gentle mother? Is nature something good, that we tend to destroy, through our individual agency, or is nature something terrible that is on the verge of ripping civilization into pieces? Does nature even exist?

 

The Nation State, Climate Change and Political Perspectives

How does the idea of the Nation State influence the fight against climate change and how does it clash with an internationalist view of the world. The presentation takes a look at the founding concepts of the Nation State, discusses the origins of Nationalism, discusses the importance of perspectives when looking at the planet, looks at how maps evolved from ancient Rome till today, the different physical spheres that an Earth scientist sees and the cultural boundaries on the planet. Here I argue that scientists, politicians and the average public see the world differently. When all 3 groups look at a map of the world they see different concepts on its surface. The geologist will start thinking about tectonics, outcrops, continental movement. The politician/economist will see trade routes, a global chess board on which armies move and alliances are made. The average member of the public sees nations, divided by borders influenced by culture. The presentation discusses the disadvantages of nation states when it comes to dealing with Global problems.

Climate Change versus Nation State Politics

What is the connection between George Orwell’s Notes on Nationalism and The Climate Struggle between Nationalism and Internationalism? In this presentation I take a look at how nations react to climate change and whether they care about the individual advantage of their own nation as opposite to the collective good. I take a look at how the modern system of the UN formed from old colonialism, how nationalists and internationalists see climate change differently. The main premise of this part is to highlight how some nationalists see climate change as a good thing as it will put their nation at an advantage over the other.

Natural Climate Change

This section is for the general public, it goes through the basic elements of Earth’s climate system and explains how changes in these, effect long term climate change. This section exists to highlight that natural climate change does occur and put in contrast to human induced climate change.
The BGS has some wonderful resources on explaining how our planet works and what factors regulate the current temperatures of our planet.

How does Climate Change and Geology affect our Political Discourse?

How do politicians react to climate change and the science of geology when they try to win votes for power? Political systems are not just about getting power but also gaining legitimacy within the population so policy changes are trusted by the population. Geologists are scientists and are respected by the public, but only elected politicians have the legitimacy to carry out changing the laws. I also try to understand how our understanding of the geological world changes our view of the world, if we deconstruct ideas and objects, do we change their meaning? If we find out something’s origin does our relationship with it change? This presentation finishes with a reading of Carl Sagan Pale Blue Dot.

Summary of the whole lecture:

My aim is to get people to think about the deep questions brought up by geology in the context of politics and international relations. I worked both in politics and studied geology. While the two subjects are very different they have overlapping questions and concerns, especially when it comes to climate change. I also find interesting questions between mining and politics. Where would a mine be put and why? How does the product of a mine get from the pits into smelters then into factories, then to the consumer in a form of a finished product?

While I think about these questions, I am also grabbed by something deeper: does geology make us question our very selves? Does it bring up existentialist questions? Did the discovery of geology make us see the world not in the immediate present but helped us see into the far past (deep time), and in turn helped us look into the far future?

This is essentially the question of climate change? How far does our time go? Is it just a day? Is it a few centuries, or is it millions, if not billions of years? I study both human history and natural history. The idea of a “long time ago” is very different to the two subjects. To the people of the modern times, the past is the 1980s, to a historian it is the time of Trajan, him marching into Dacia, to a geologist, when Pangaea existed 200 million years ago. Time is very deep.