We don't often separate the mechanisms of our political system with our economic system. They prop up each other up, Capitalism doesn't need democracy for itself to function, so what is the new global order?
The natural environment is our commons, belonging to all of us, but decided by no one person; it is "the ground of our being".
How will intellectual property be used in this management of the commons?
Zizek struggles with the concept of freedom. He proposes we are now in a social context where we are less and less free, despite the options provided to us to consume. Our economic coordinates are being decided in secret.
Ecological consumption choices are our fundamental duty. These duties, these suggestions are ridiculous, I agree with Zizek. However, does that mean we need to be alienated from them, from choices that suggest we are in control? This is not a way to confront major catastrophes, however, perhaps it is a step to aligning people toward supporting such a solution top-down.
Do we need to a ruling ecological ideology to manage large scale systems. Ecology as religion, Zizek asserts has made each one of us culpable, but we are in no way prepared to react to culpability, especially as consumers.
Uncertainty of ecological catastrophe defines our transition to it. Anthropocene situates us between nature and history, we are the subject of the history, conscious of our destruction, but the anthropocene is as "stonelike" as geological reality itself, so Malabou combines this consciousness of the paradox as the definition of this error of logical, irreflexivity.
Who is the man of the anthropocene? There is a "rupture in reflexivity" here that Malabou considers to be central to our experience in corraling our experience in a changing system.
Achievement, and telos. Work to get somewhere or some thing. (I'm going to avoid bringing up 'ego' and associated guilt PSA.)
Where does it start? Ego builds the individual? Knowledge from an individual builds those around her?
After a few weeks of life, we start separating the world from the 'I'.
In our teen years we rebel. We say I am not a possession of anything or anyone. Our parents cringe.
Is this separation what puts humans into an achievement mindset? The itch and scratch to do, do more, then do less, repeating viciously, insatiably. To perform some work that proves our utility, or more specifically proves that the 'I' is a valuable entity on its own (as if that was something that needed to be proved out). Also, there are other parts of the 'me' story that reinforce our self-value, which again, has an appetite for proving itself worthy, at least of our attention: we wear nice clothes, commute to work, buy nice things, carefully choose and groom social circles..
Now, achievement is quite a fascinating thing in these times. We once had the convenience of looking at our creations as future-proof. As we enhanced our ability to look out into the world and predict, we also saw its limits.
Is 'Agile' nihilistic? Its openness to changing requirements, respecting the limits of our ability to see past the here and now, is a perfect for the software world, in a world where the certainty of Moore's law's means your code cannot be future proofed, it will have to be rewritten.
Our environment is not static, thus our plans must be fluid if we are to achieve anything in a fluid setting.
Small changes have been around for some time, by nature. We see evidence of evolution everywhere. It is more than a way of life, I would argue it is the way of life.
Write, post, publish, prophet!