Suchergebnisse

The ban today on "population talk" (Diana Coole) by the liberal western traditions as unethical has the inverse effect in a post-'tipping point' world defined by future population culls of peripheries. It turns out that this ban not only advances the outcome the liberal tradition would most avoid but blinds it from seeing what is now underway before its eyes—a 'species split' engineered by the hyper-elite with one eye to the coming climate catastrophism. It turns out that the ban conceals that the western anthropos had from the first been defined as arche-eugenicist and extinctivist. This in turn illuminates the puzzling non-response of global leadership to the prospect of irreversible ecocide.

The term "anthropocene," emerging around the time of Derrida's death, implies a shift in reference that his late production does not address or anticipate—and thus, if it is to be taken seriously as a ghost term, it poses today a question of a selective translation effect as regards "deconstruction." This essay finds in Derrida's "last" interview and the "war with myself" that it avows a cipher and entry point for this broader question. Given official "deconstructions" withdrawn, conservative, and fallow state today, as a minor academic camp dedicated to Derridean theology, the essay asks whether the arrival of the term is not a catalyst for the re-organization of deconstructive memes (if not proper names). It examines not only Derrida's systematic avoidance in his writing of eco-catastrophism, but how that occlusion parallels others—specifically, a certain "materiality" that lies outside binaries and, more surprisingly, cinema. In examining this "war" between the two Derridas the essay speculates on whether the anthropocene moves us beyond the sort of soft Derrideanism that, since his death, has paralyzed the franchise (deconstruction™) and fulfilled his prediction of his work's disappearance.

This essay does not ask what Derrida's use for 'environmentalism' might be but rather how the geomorphic logics released by a dawning era of climate change diagnose what is called 'deconstruction' today.

Abstract
We argue for consideration of deliberative democratic pathways to governing infrastructure systems to enable a planned reduction in economic activity. Given the dominant perspective is "infrastructure facilitates growth", we first consider contemporary criticisms of growth. We critique the large-scale, complex infrastructures implied, and the forms of democratic governance envisaged. Such infrastructures drive forms of economic activity that advocates of degrowth demonstrate are incompatible with attempts to reduce resources consumed by contemporary economies and their emissions. We argue any deliberation on infrastructures must acknowledge they are not simply physical objects but rather bundles of relationships. With dominant economic relationships challenged by the view that infrastructures ought to be managed as commons we argue that the relational perspective sets the stage for deliberation over physical, social, and environmental infrastructure that escapes what are incorrectly assumed to be insurmountable path dependencies.

Mini-publics—deliberative fora made up of randomly selected, representative groups of citizens—have attracted considerable interest as a means of resolving perceived weaknesses in existing forms of governance. In this paper, we consider the use of a mini-public or citizens' assembly to constitute an ad hoc governance space based on the Travel to Work Area of Cambridge in the United Kingdom rather than working within the existing local government boundaries within which transport infrastructure is usually governed. Through this case study, we explore the question of embedding mini-publics in the wider processes of policy and decision-making. More specifically this is the question of the extent to which they ought to be permitted to inform and even assume responsibility for local-level transport policy decisions. We argue that, if they are to become more widely used, then it will be necessary to understand the practices associated with such democratic experiments and their potential to transform existing governance networks in contested areas of spatial policy.

The investment and excitement surrounding self-driving vehicles are huge. We know from earlier transport innovations that technological transitions can reshape lives, livelihoods, and places in profound ways. There is therefore a case for wide democratic debate, but how should this take place? In this paper, we explore the tensions between democratic experiments and technological ones with a focus on policy for nascent self-driving/automated vehicles. We describe a dominant model of public engagement that imagines increased public awareness leading to acceptance and then adoption of the technology. We explore the flaws in this model, particularly in how it treats members of the public as users rather than citizens and the presumption that the technology is well-defined. Analysing two large public dialogue exercises in which we were involved, our conclusion is that public dialogue can contribute to shifting established ideas about both technologies and the public, but that this reframing demands openness on the part of policymakers and other stakeholders. Rather than seeing public dialogues as individual exercises, it would be better to evaluate the governance of emerging technologies in terms of whether it takes place 'in dialogue'.

Abstract The investment and excitement surrounding self-driving vehicles are huge. We know from earlier transport innovations that technological transitions can reshape lives, livelihoods, and places in profound ways. There is therefore a case for wide democratic debate, but how should this take place? In this paper, we explore the tensions between democratic experiments and technological ones with a focus on policy for nascent self-driving/automated vehicles. We describe a dominant model of public engagement that imagines increased public awareness leading to acceptance and then adoption of the technology. We explore the flaws in this model, particularly in how it treats members of the public as users rather than citizens and the presumption that the technology is well-defined. Analysing two large public dialogue exercises in which we were involved, our conclusion is that public dialogue can contribute to shifting established ideas about both technologies and the public, but that this reframing demands openness on the part of policymakers and other stakeholders. Rather than seeing public dialogues as individual exercises, it would be better to evaluate the governance of emerging technologies in terms of whether it takes place 'in dialogue'.