Read on Twitter
Been thinking about the aesthetics of modernity. New technologies are celebrated for their transformative potential while others, which are scientifically shown to be more efficient, ecological, and highly productive are often considered backwards.
For example today people hail lab-grown meat as a liberatory technology. To deny its potential for transforming our food system will get you called anti-modern or even anti-science.
In contrast, plenty of research shows the potential of agro-ecology. Here, people combine the best of what we know about soil science with regenerative, diverse, and long-term sustainable farming techniques. (thanks @max_ajl for the links) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332472058_The_'Campesino_a_Campesino'_Agroecology_Movement_in_Cuba
However, those celebrating lab meat donât seem to hail agro-ecology as equally transformative, even if it is already practiced by millions of peasants under the most dire circumstances, to great success. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1010078923050
What is the difference between the two? Lab meat has a modern aesthetic. It is not dirty, it is not complicated. And, most importantly, it seems to be free of labor, it can happen without the complicated stuff of land reform, changing social relations, local knowledge, etc.
Agro-ecology is also arrived at scientifically, but it is complex, labor-intensive, takes local knowledge, and requires knowledge of how to repair relationships with the land for a long-term future. But, those who champion lab meat deride it as primitive or simply ignore it.
Another example.
Modernists argue that we need air conditioning to prevent rising deaths due to heat waves. Delivering cheap energy and AC is necessary to make our cities livable. Rejecting of AC makes you anti-modern and anti-science. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/08/air-conditioning-climate-change-energy-pollution
Modernists argue that we need air conditioning to prevent rising deaths due to heat waves. Delivering cheap energy and AC is necessary to make our cities livable. Rejecting of AC makes you anti-modern and anti-science. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/08/air-conditioning-climate-change-energy-pollution
The problem is that architects, urban planners, and the wider scientific community agrees that the best approach to cooling our cities is ripping out concrete, increasing plant coverage, more water bodies, better designed buildings, and so on. https://theecologist.org/2018/sep/24/cool-peoples-movements-why-air-conditioners-arent-good-enough-working-class
Here again, the âmodernâ solution is simple, more technological, and deemed more scientific. A more ecological approach is complex, actually pays attention to the science, and requires social transformation, rational application of tech, and local knowledge.
Another example, maybe more extreme. Here @csmaje argues that according to his calculations, using a scythe on his farm would be more efficient than using a tractor. https://smallfarmfuture.org.uk/2020/09/on-the-efficiency-of-my-scythe/
@csmaje: âThe scythe seems redolent of agrarian âbackwardnessâ ...But this issue only arises because of our modern cultureâs hang-up with notions of progress and backwardness. Ask not whether your scythe looks modern, but whether it cheaply and successfully mows the darned crop.â
The scythe is not considered modern even if, in Smajeâs case, it is superior in terms of efficiency and productivityâa conclusion arrived at through empirical observation. Funnily enough, those who call the scythe backwards could be called anti-science in this case.
So what exactly makes something modern and something else primitive? Whether it is scientific has little to do with it. It has more to do with how it is perceived than whether it is objectively better. In that sense modernity is more of an aesthetic ideology than a rational one.
What defines that aesthetic? At its core, I think, is the idea of production without care: we can create the things we need without having to take care of our relationships or mend them.
In that sense it is very patriarchical, colonialâit seeks to overcome the present without having to do the dirty work of repairing the harm done by the present system. https://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/decolonizing-ecology
This isnât to say that I think lab meat & other tech (GMOs, automated farming, air conditioning) are inherently bad. But, the fetishization of them over other ecological and transformative tech helps avoid the more difficult question of social transformation needed.
All that is to say, I think we should think twice when embracing the newest tech, and consider that there may be highly scientific approaches that may be less fashionable but are equally, if not more, transformative.
