Re: <nettime> To Save the Worldâ Preface by B

[John Hopkins <jhopkins@neoscenes.net>]

A few comments on Bernard Stiegler's intro...

On 27/Apr/15 07:08, ??rsan ??enalp wrote:
>4. Only knowledge has the capacity to produce new negentropic
>potential, and only social organisations based on systemic enhancement
>and culture made possible through reticular parity will enable a move
>beyond the anthropocene, to ???save the world???, and enter into what
>would therefore be called the ???neganthropocene???.

Hmmm, intriguing as this is, I don't think I can agree -- knowledge may be 
seen as new (or novel) configurations of neural pathways (as embodied 
knowledge) or as ordered data (information) that has been ordered as a 
configuration of energized matter. Both these forms of knowledge require 
energy to create and sustain. They are therefore energy drains on the wider 
techno-social system and the eco-system. Of course, knowledge and 
information does function as an optimizing paradigm for making the best use 
of available resources -- supporting functions like the propagation of the 
species and the satisfaction of basic needs *and* the hegemonic control of 
one segment of society over an other.

Prior to 'reticular parity' (does anyone know exactly what is being talked 
about here? My approximate guess is 'network equality' which is *only* a 
theoretical system state in a universe that is organized around the 
anisotropic distribution of energized matter!) -- with this, already, we are 
moving into the theoretical, not the actual! "Saving the world" is *not* 
going to happen without a substantial (precipitous) drop in the human 
population. Nothing short of this will alter the over-riding trajectory of 
what is happening in the present moment. One sure way of decreasing the 
population is to subtract large quantities of available energy from the 
techno-social equation -- this will have an immediate knock-on effect of 
severly compromised life-expectancy for large numbers of people.

Semantically, a 'negentropic potential' can be understood to be a 
(potential) energy source. Nothing but a *real* energy source has 
(literally!) the power to counter entropic decline. Knowledge as an 
abstraction of such cannot in itself precipitate a negentropic 'situation' 
-- knowledge has to be combined with actualization (which means energy 
consumption).

It is not known what mechanism precipitates a spontaneous negentropic 
'situation' in an open system (the most fundamental example being the'rise' 
of Life from ???). But any such situation requires an energy input from the 
environs of that situation... A negentropic situation is one where energy is 
being consumed at a faster rate than is the case in simple entropic 
decline...

jh

-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dr. John Hopkins, BSc, MFA, PhD
grounded on a granite batholith
twitter: @neoscenes
http://tech-no-mad.net/blog/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org