Cosmotechnics as Cosmopolitics

Source: Cosmotechnics as Cosmopolitics

The unilateral globalization that has come to an end is being succeeded by the competition of technological acceleration and the allures of war, technological singularity, and transhumanist (pipe) dreams

1. The article argues we are witnessing the end of a period of unilateral globalization dominated by Western epistemologies and metaphysics. Events like 9/11 represent an "autoimmune" reaction against this from within the Atlantic bloc itself. This signals the need for new concepts of "cosmopolitics" that move beyond a single global hegemon.

2. Two meanings of cosmopolitics are outlined:
   a. Cosmopolitics as a commercial/political regime of globalization.
   b. Cosmopolitics as a "politics of nature" - how humans relate to and understand the cosmos and environment in the Anthropocene age.

3. Modern ideas of perpetual peace and progress are underpinned by Enlightenment concepts of nature having an inbuilt teleology or purpose that leads to universal human history. But technological developments have also "disenchanted" nature.

4. The "ontological turn" in anthropology highlights completely different understandings of nature across cultures - "multi-naturalism". But it risks simply idealizing indigenous ontologies and obscures questions around technology and modernization.

5. Instead of just focusing on "cosmology", the concept of "cosmotechnics" is proposed - how technical activities in different cultures unify moral ideas and conceptions of the cosmos. There have been multiple, historically situated cosmotechnics, not a singular logic of technology.

6. This requires rethinking assumptions in debates about technology. The aim is not to substantialize tradition or refuse modern technology, but to show possibilities for different technological futures, building on non-European ideas of cosmotechnics.

Moving past concepts of nature and culture that underpin mainstream ideas of globalization and cosmopolitanism. Instead it calls for plural understandings of how humans relate to environments, worlds and technology, opening space for new post-globalization futures.

Article under-estimates the strong impulse and organization forming around transhumanism which may invariably be adopted by post-American Empire states as a way to maintaining global dominance - accelerationism envisioned as a way of destabilizing the formation of a new post-American reality? Same goes for war itself - rival blocs to the American financial system adopt the same contours, features and mechanisms as the post WWII economic system just under different auspices and sovereign arrangements. The Chinese are running similar levels of debt compared to American Empire, despite ostensibly offering a different model of economic production - then there is also the demographic question in several BRIC+ countries mirroring the woes of American Imperial heartlands.

Worth thinking about - but ultimately I remain unconvinced by this article