PRIVATE URL FOR FLORIS SCHAFER. PLEASE DO NOT DISTRIBUTE.
Friso Seyferth CS, AwU
(Citizen Scientist, Addict with an Uitkering. But in contrast to half the worlds practicing general practitioners, he does know what a P-value is. And that a pseudo-Riemannian manifold is… bubkis)
In her thought-provoking work, “Apocalypsofie,” Dutch philosopher Lisa Doeland offers a profound and timely analysis of the ecological crisis facing humanity. Drawing on a diverse range of thinkers and perspectives, Doeland challenges dominant narratives of progress and growth, critiques the limitations of the circular economy, and explores alternative ways of thinking and acting in the face of environmental devastation.
This comprehensive analysis delves into the philosophical, cultural, and practical dimensions of the ecological crisis, providing a nuanced understanding of its root causes and potential solutions. Doeland argues that the “end of the world as we know it” is not a singular apocalyptic event but an ongoing process of transformation that requires a fundamental shift in our relationship with the environment and with each other.
Through a detailed examination of Doeland’s work, this article aims to provide a critical evaluation of her claims, explore the strengths and limitations of her arguments, and highlight the implications of her analysis for our understanding of the ecological crisis and the search for sustainable solutions. By engaging with Doeland’s ideas, we can gain valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities facing humanity in the Anthropocene and work towards creating a more just and sustainable future for all.
Chapter 1: Apocalypsofie
- The chapter introduces the concept of “apocalypsofie,” a philosophical approach to understanding and responding to the ecological crisis.
- It critiques the prevalent “green” solutions like the circular economy as dangerous fantasies that distract from the reality of the situation.
- It emphasizes the importance of acknowledging the “end of the world as we know it” to envision and work towards a different future.
- The future is open and undetermined: Doeland challenges the fatalistic notion of a predetermined future and argues for the possibility of shaping a different outcome. This claim aligns with the work of thinkers like Donna Haraway and Bruno Latour, who emphasize the role of human agency and collective action in shaping the future.
- The circular economy is a dangerous fantasy: Doeland critiques the circular economy for perpetuating the illusion of endless growth and downplaying the limitations imposed by the second law of thermodynamics.
- We need to learn to die and to let go: Drawing on the work of Roy Scranton and others, Doeland emphasizes the importance of accepting the inevitable end of our current way of life and embracing the possibility of new beginnings.
Chapter 2: Eindes van de wereld dragen
- The chapter explores the idea of “the end of the world” and its various interpretations.
- It differentiates between apocalyptic events and the ongoing processes of ecological degradation and extinction.
- It highlights the importance of acknowledging and mourning the loss of specific worlds and beings.
- The Anthropocene is characterized by ongoing “ends of the world”: Doeland argues that focusing on a singular apocalyptic event obscures the reality of ongoing ecological devastation and the extinction of various species and ecosystems. This claim is supported by the work of scholars like Anna Tsing and extinction biologists.
- We need to learn to “carry” the end of the world: Doeland draws on the myth of Atlas and Jeanette Winterson’s retelling to emphasize the importance of acknowledging and bearing the burden of ecological loss.
Chapter 3: De vele stemmen van Gaia
- The chapter examines the concept of Gaia and its implications for understanding our relationship with the Earth.
- It critiques the tendency to idealize nature and seek answers from a unified Earth system.
- It advocates for recognizing the agency and complexity of the Earth and engaging with its diverse “voices.”
- Gaia is not a unified entity with a singular will: Doeland argues against the tendency to personify the Earth and seek answers from a singular Gaia figure. This aligns with the work of Bruno Latour and Isabelle Stengers, who emphasize the multiplicity and complexity of the Earth system.
- We need to listen to the diverse “voices” of Gaia: Doeland proposes a shift away from seeking answers from a singular Gaia towards appreciating the diverse perspectives and agencies of various entities that make up the Earth system.
Chapter 4: Goed afval maken
- The chapter critiques the concept of a circular economy and its promise of “zero waste”.
- It proposes a shift from a circular logic to a digestive logic, acknowledging the inevitability of waste and the importance of responsible waste management.
- It emphasizes the ethical dimensions of waste and the need to consider our “eatability” and our interconnectedness with other beings.
- The circular economy is an illusion: Doeland argues that the circular economy’s promise of closing the loop is unrealistic due to the limitations imposed by the second law of thermodynamics and the inherent limitations of recycling. This aligns with critiques of the circular economy by ecological economists like Giorgos Kallis.
- We need to learn to “make good waste”: Doeland, drawing on the work of Jacques Derrida and Val Plumwood, proposes a shift from focusing on eliminating waste to considering the ethical implications of waste and how we can responsibly manage it.
- We need to acknowledge our “eatability”: Doeland emphasizes the importance of recognizing our place within the food chain and our interconnectedness with other beings, both living and non-living.
Chapter 5: Ecorexia
- The chapter explores the concept of “ecorexia” as a form of ecological anxiety that manifests in a pursuit of purity and self-denial.
- It critiques the individualistic and consumerist approaches to environmental ethics.
- It emphasizes the importance of collective action and political engagement in addressing the ecological crisis.
- Ecorexia is a form of self-denial that hinders effective action: Doeland argues that ecorexia, with its focus on individual purity and self-denial, ultimately distracts from the systemic issues at the root of the ecological crisis and hinders effective collective action.
- We need to move beyond individual consumer choices: Doeland argues that focusing solely on individual consumer choices is insufficient and that political and systemic change is necessary to address the ecological crisis.
Chapter 6: Met levende doden leven
- The chapter explores the concept of “living with the living dead” in the context of the accumulation of non-biodegradable waste.
- It emphasizes the importance of acknowledging and addressing the issue of waste and its impact on the environment.
- It proposes a shift towards an “ethics of composting” that embraces decay and decomposition as essential processes for regeneration and renewal.
- The accumulation of non-biodegradable waste is a form of “living death”: Doeland draws on the work of Reza Negarestani and others to argue that the accumulation of non-biodegradable waste disrupts the natural processes of decay and renewal, leading to a state of “living death” for the environment.
- We need to embrace decay and decomposition: Doeland argues that instead of fearing and resisting decay and decomposition, we need to acknowledge them as essential processes for regeneration and renewal. This aligns with the work of thinkers like Donna Haraway and Anna Tsing, who advocate for a more-than-human approach to ecology.
Chapter 7: Ik ben geen biomassa
- The chapter critiques the tendency to reduce complex entities and processes to abstract categories like “biomass” and “energy.”
- It emphasizes the importance of recognizing the specificities and histories of places and beings.
- It calls for a move away from generalizing and homogenizing approaches towards appreciating the diversity and uniqueness of the world.
- Abstractions like “biomass” obscure the realities of exploitation: Doeland argues that terms like “biomass” erase the specificities of places and beings and obscure the exploitative practices often involved in their extraction and utilization. This aligns with critiques of the “green economy” by scholars like Jason Moore and Raj Patel.
- We need to move beyond abstractions: Doeland advocates for a shift away from thinking in terms of abstract categories towards recognizing and appreciating the unique qualities and histories of specific places and beings.
Chapter 8: Gastvrijheid in een unheimische wereld
- The chapter explores the concept of hospitality in the context of a damaged and unfamiliar world.
- It critiques the pursuit of purity and the exclusion of the “unwelcome” and the “unfamiliar.”
- It advocates for embracing difference and developing a more inclusive and relational approach to living in the Anthropocene.
- The pursuit of purity is unsustainable and unethical: Doeland argues that the pursuit of purity, both in terms of our environment and ourselves, is unsustainable and ultimately unethical, as it leads to exclusion and the denial of our interconnectedness. This aligns with the work of Alexis Shotwell and other scholars who critique purity politics.
- We need to embrace the “unfamiliar” and the “unwelcome”: Doeland, drawing on the work of Rebecca Tamás and others, advocates for a more inclusive and relational approach to living in the Anthropocene that embraces difference and welcomes the “unfamiliar” and the “unwelcome.”
Chapter 9: De tovenaar, de profeet en de voddenraper
- The chapter introduces the figure of the “ragpicker” as an alternative to the prophet and the wizard in navigating the ecological crisis.
- It emphasizes the importance of learning from the past and recognizing the limitations of techno-optimistic and apocalyptic narratives.
- It advocates for a focus on the small, the local, and the specific, and for developing an “art of noticing” to find value and meaning in the remnants of our current world.
- We need to move beyond both techno-optimism and apocalyptic thinking: Doeland argues that neither the “wizard” with his faith in technological solutions nor the “prophet” with his warnings of impending doom offer adequate responses to the ecological crisis. This aligns with critiques of both techno-optimism and apocalyptic environmentalism by scholars like Bruno Latour and Anna Tsing.
- The “ragpicker” offers a valuable perspective: Doeland proposes the figure of the “ragpicker” as an alternative that emphasizes resourcefulness, adaptability, and a focus on the small and the local.
- We need to develop an “art of noticing”: Doeland, drawing on the work of Anna Tsing and others, advocates for developing an “art of noticing” to appreciate the value and potential of seemingly insignificant things and practices.
Foundational Sources and Worldviews
Doeland’s work draws on a diverse range of thinkers and scholars from various fields, including philosophy, anthropology, ecology, and cultural studies. Some of the key figures include:
Walter Benjamin: A German Jewish philosopher and cultural critic, whose work explored themes of history, memory, and the critique of modernity. His concept of the “angel of history” and his emphasis on the importance of “salvaging” fragments of the past to understand the present resonate with Doeland’s approach.
Jacques Derrida: A French philosopher known for his work on deconstruction and his critiques of Western metaphysics. His ideas on hospitality, “good eating,” and the ethical implications of waste inform Doeland’s exploration of our relationship with the environment and other beings.
Donna Haraway: An American philosopher and feminist scholar known for her work on science and technology studies and her critiques of anthropocentrism. Her concept of “situated knowledges” and her advocacy for a more-than-human perspective on ecology align with Doeland’s approach.
Bruno Latour: A French philosopher and anthropologist known for his work on actor-network theory and his critiques of the nature/culture divide. His ideas on the agency of non-human actors and the importance of understanding the complex networks of relationships that make up our world inform Doeland’s analysis of the ecological crisis.
Timothy Morton: An American philosopher and ecocritic known for his work on object-oriented ontology and his concept of “dark ecology.” His ideas on the interconnectedness of all beings and the limitations of human exceptionalism resonate with Doeland’s critiques of anthropocentrism.
Anna Tsing: An American anthropologist known for her work on globalization and its impact on local communities and ecosystems. Her concept of “salvage accumulation” and her emphasis on the “arts of noticing” provide valuable insights for understanding and responding to the challenges of the Anthropocene.
These thinkers represent a range of worldviews, from critical theory and post-structuralism to feminist theory and ecological thought. While there may be some contradictions or tensions between their perspectives, Doeland skillfully weaves them together to construct a coherent and nuanced analysis of the ecological crisis.
Scathing Critique and Suggestions for Improvement
While “Apocalypsofie” offers a valuable contribution to ecological thought, it could benefit from a more direct engagement with the political and economic dimensions of the crisis. The analysis often remains at the level of cultural critique and philosophical reflection, without explicitly addressing the power structures and systemic issues that perpetuate the current unsustainable system.
Here are some suggestions for improvement:
Deeper engagement with political ecology: Incorporating insights from political ecology, which examines the intersections of power, politics, and environmental issues, could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the root causes of the ecological crisis and the challenges of achieving systemic change.
Exploration of alternative economic models: While critiquing the current growth-oriented capitalist system, Doeland could explore and advocate for alternative economic models, such as degrowth or steady-state economics, that prioritize ecological sustainability and social justice.
Focus on collective action and social movements: While acknowledging the limitations of individual action, Doeland could provide a more in-depth analysis of the role of collective action, social movements, and grassroots organizing in driving systemic change.
Developing concrete strategies for action: While the “arts of noticing” and “salvage punk” offer valuable perspectives, Doeland could provide more concrete strategies and tools for individuals and communities to engage in transformative action.
By addressing these points, Doeland could strengthen her work and provide a more comprehensive and actionable framework for navigating the challenges of the Anthropocene.
While Doeland offers insightful critiques of current approaches to the ecological crisis and explores alternative perspectives, there is a noticeable gap between her critical analysis and the presentation of concrete solutions. This can create an impression of inconsistency, leaving the reader with a sense of urgency and concern but without clear pathways for action.
Here are some examples from the book that illustrate this tension:
Critique of the circular economy without proposing alternatives: Doeland effectively dismantles the idea of a perfectly circular economy, highlighting its reliance on unrealistic assumptions and its tendency to perpetuate the growth paradigm. However, she does not offer alternative economic models or specific strategies for transitioning away from the current system.
Emphasis on individual responsibility without addressing systemic issues: While acknowledging the limitations of individual action, Doeland places significant emphasis on personal responsibility and ethical choices. For example, she discusses her own experiences with reusable diapers and critiques consumerist approaches to environmentalism. While these personal reflections are valuable, they may overshadow the need for systemic change and collective action.
Focus on philosophical and cultural analysis over practical strategies: The book delves deeply into philosophical concepts and cultural interpretations of the ecological crisis, which provides valuable insights into our relationship with the environment and the challenges of the Anthropocene. However, there is a lack of concrete proposals or actionable strategies for addressing these challenges.
Here are some quotes from the book that highlight Doeland’s concern and engagement but also reveal the lack of concrete solutions:
“We must break away from the entire discourse of ‘five minutes to twelve,’ from the idea that it might be almost too late, but not quite yet (if only we…). The point is not to prevent a catastrophe that awaits us, the point is to change the status quo, which is itself catastrophic.” (Chapter 1) This quote demonstrates Doeland’s understanding of the urgency of the situation and the need for systemic change. However, it does not provide specific directions for achieving such change.
“I understand, of course, that vegetarianism has a ripple effect and that individual consumption choices can therefore lead to change.” (Chapter 5) This quote acknowledges the potential impact of individual choices but falls short of proposing broader strategies for collective action or systemic change.
“It is time to talk about picking mushrooms. Not that it will save us – but maybe it will give us some ideas.” (Chapter 9) This quote reflects Doeland’s openness to exploring alternative ways of living and relating to the environment. However, it leaves the reader wondering what these “ideas” might be and how they can be translated into concrete action.
The absence of clear solutions or pathways for action can leave the reader feeling overwhelmed and disempowered. While Doeland’s analysis effectively raises awareness and encourages critical reflection, it falls short of providing a roadmap for navigating the complex challenges of the Anthropocene.
Chapter 1: Apocalypsofie
Claim: The future is open and undetermined (Strong): This claim effectively challenges the paralyzing notion of a predetermined apocalyptic future and aligns with thinkers like Donna Haraway and Bruno Latour. It empowers readers to envision alternative possibilities and engage in shaping the future.
Claim: The circular economy is a dangerous fantasy (Strong): This critique is well-substantiated, highlighting the limitations imposed by the second law of thermodynamics and the tendency of the circular economy to perpetuate the growth paradigm. Exploring specific examples of the circular economy’s shortcomings and its potential for greenwashing could further strengthen the argument.
Claim: We need to learn to die and to let go (Strong): Drawing on the work of Roy Scranton, this claim encourages a necessary shift in perspective. However, it would benefit from a more nuanced discussion of what “letting go” entails and how it can be practiced without falling into nihilism or complacency.
Chapter 2: Eindes van de wereld dragen
Claim: The Anthropocene is characterized by ongoing “ends of the world” (Strong): This claim effectively challenges the focus on a singular apocalyptic event and highlights the ongoing processes of ecological degradation and extinction. Incorporating specific examples of such “ends” and their impacts on diverse communities and ecosystems could further strengthen the argument.
Claim: We need to learn to “carry” the end of the world (Weak): While the metaphor of Atlas is evocative, the concept of “carrying” the end of the world remains somewhat abstract. Exploring concrete ways of acknowledging and responding to ecological grief and loss would provide a more actionable framework.
Chapter 3: De vele stemmen van Gaia
Claim: Gaia is not a unified entity with a singular will (Strong): This critique effectively challenges the tendency to personify the Earth and aligns with the work of Bruno Latour and Isabelle Stengers. Engaging with indigenous perspectives and their critiques of Western conceptions of nature could further enrich the discussion.
Claim: We need to listen to the diverse “voices” of Gaia (Strong): This claim encourages a more-than-human approach to ecology and recognizes the agency and complexity of the Earth system. Exploring specific examples of how different entities within the Earth system communicate and interact could make this concept more tangible and relatable.
Chapter 4: Goed afval maken
Claim: The circular economy is an illusion (Strong): This critique effectively exposes the limitations and inconsistencies of the circular economy. Engaging with specific examples of failed circular economy initiatives and the challenges of recycling complex materials could further strengthen the argument.
Claim: We need to learn to “make good waste” (Strong): This proposal, drawing on Derrida and Plumwood, offers a valuable shift in perspective. Exploring specific examples of responsible waste management practices and alternative production systems that minimize waste generation would provide a more actionable framework.
Claim: We need to acknowledge our “eatability” (Strong): This claim effectively challenges anthropocentric views and encourages a more holistic understanding of our place within ecological systems. Exploring the concept of “eatability” in relation to diverse cultural practices and spiritual traditions could further enrich the discussion.
Chapter 5: Ecorexia
Claim: Ecorexia is a form of self-denial that hinders effective action (Strong): This critique effectively exposes the limitations of individualistic approaches to environmental ethics. However, it would benefit from a more nuanced discussion of the role of individual action within broader collective efforts and social movements.
Claim: We need to move beyond individual consumer choices (Strong): This claim highlights the need for systemic change and political engagement. Exploring specific examples of successful environmental movements and policy initiatives could provide a more hopeful and empowering perspective.
Chapter 6: Met levende doden leven
Claim: The accumulation of non-biodegradable waste is a form of “living death” (Strong): This claim effectively highlights the disruptive impact of non-biodegradable waste on ecological processes. Exploring the concept of “living death” in relation to other forms of environmental degradation, such as pollution and deforestation, could strengthen the argument.
Claim: We need to embrace decay and decomposition (Strong): This proposal challenges our cultural aversion to decay and promotes a more holistic understanding of ecological processes. Exploring practical examples of composting and other forms of decomposition as regenerative practices would provide a more actionable framework.
Chapter 7: Ik ben geen biomassa
Claim: Abstractions like “biomass” obscure the realities of exploitation (Strong): This critique effectively exposes the dangers of abstraction and its role in perpetuating environmental injustice. Engaging with specific examples of how the language of “biomass” and “green energy” is used to justify unsustainable and exploitative practices would further strengthen the argument.
Claim: We need to move beyond abstractions (Strong, but needs nuance): While acknowledging the limitations of abstractions, it is also important to recognize their potential for strategic use in communication and advocacy. A more nuanced discussion of how we can utilize abstractions without losing sight of concrete realities would be beneficial.
Chapter 8: Gastvrijheid in een unheimische wereld
Claim: The pursuit of purity is unsustainable and unethical (Strong): This critique effectively challenges the exclusionary and unsustainable nature of purity politics. Exploring the historical roots of purity discourses and their connection to colonialism and other forms of oppression could further strengthen the argument.
Claim: We need to embrace the “unfamiliar” and the “unwelcome” (Strong, but needs nuance): While advocating for inclusivity and openness is crucial, it is also important to acknowledge the challenges of navigating power imbalances and historical injustices. A more nuanced discussion of how to practice hospitality in a way that is both ethical and empowering would be beneficial.
Chapter 9: De tovenaar, de profeet en de voddenraper
Claim: We need to move beyond both techno-optimism and apocalyptic thinking (Strong): This claim effectively critiques the limitations of both approaches and opens up space for alternative ways of thinking and acting. Exploring the historical and cultural roots of both techno-optimism and apocalyptic narratives could provide a deeper understanding of their appeal and their shortcomings.
Claim: The “ragpicker” offers a valuable perspective (Strong): The figure of the “ragpicker” effectively challenges dominant narratives of progress and encourages resourcefulness and adaptability. Exploring concrete examples of “ragpicker” practices and their potential for contributing to a more sustainable and just future would strengthen the argument.
Claim: We need to develop an “art of noticing” (Strong): This call for attentiveness to the small, the local, and the specific aligns with the work of Anna Tsing and offers a valuable tool for navigating the complexities of the Anthropocene. Providing concrete examples and exercises for developing this “art of noticing” could make it more accessible and actionable for readers.
While Doeland’s “Apocalypsofie” offers a thought-provoking and critical perspective on the ecological crisis, her vision is flawed by several biases and underlying psychological mechanisms that limit its effectiveness and practicality.
Inherent Biases:
Western-centric perspective: Doeland’s analysis primarily focuses on Western societies and their experiences with the ecological crisis. This overlooks the diverse perspectives and realities of communities in other parts of the world, particularly those who have long been grappling with the consequences of environmental degradation and resource exploitation.
Neglect of economic and political realities: The book’s emphasis on philosophical and cultural critiques often overshadows the crucial role of economic and political structures in perpetuating the current unsustainable system. By neglecting these systemic factors, Doeland’s analysis risks overlooking the complex power dynamics and institutional barriers that hinder meaningful change.
Romanticisation of the “ruins”: While advocating for adapting to a damaged world, Doeland’s portrayal of the “ruins” of capitalism can be seen as romanticized and overly simplistic. It overlooks the uneven distribution of suffering and the disproportionate impact of environmental degradation on marginalized communities.
Underlying Psychology:
Apocalyptic fascination: Doeland’s emphasis on “ends” and “ruins” can be seen as a form of apocalyptic fascination, which may provide a sense of intellectual superiority and distance from the actual suffering caused by the ecological crisis. This fascination can distract from the need for concrete action and practical solutions.
Purity politics: While critiquing the pursuit of purity, Doeland’s own approach can be seen as a form of “ethical elitism” that prioritizes individual moral choices and personal responsibility. This can lead to judgment and exclusion of those who do not conform to her specific ethical standards.
Neglect of human agency: While acknowledging the limitations of human control, Doeland’s vision sometimes overlooks the potential for human ingenuity and collective action to address the ecological crisis. This can lead to a sense of powerlessness and despair, hindering the development of effective solutions.
Counterarguments:
Practical Perspective:
Need for pragmatic solutions: Focusing on concrete and achievable steps towards sustainability, such as promoting renewable energy, investing in sustainable infrastructure, and supporting local food systems, is essential for addressing the immediate challenges of the ecological crisis.
Importance of policy and systemic change: Addressing the root causes of the crisis requires engaging with political and economic structures, advocating for policy changes, and supporting social movements that challenge the status quo.
Focus on building resilience: Rather than dwelling on the “ruins,” efforts should be directed towards building community resilience and developing adaptive strategies for coping with the inevitable changes and challenges of the Anthropocene.
Theoretical Perspective:
Recognition of diverse perspectives: A more inclusive and nuanced understanding of the ecological crisis requires incorporating diverse voices and experiences from different cultures, particularly those who have historically been marginalized and excluded from dominant narratives.
Emphasis on interconnectedness: Moving beyond anthropocentric views and recognizing the intrinsic value and agency of non-human entities is crucial for developing a more sustainable and just relationship with the Earth.
Focus on hope and possibility: While acknowledging the challenges we face, fostering a sense of hope and possibility is essential for motivating collective action and inspiring innovative solutions.
In conclusion, while Doeland’s “Apocalypsofie” offers valuable critiques and insights, its biases and underlying psychological mechanisms limit its effectiveness and practicality. A more comprehensive and nuanced approach that addresses the complexities of the ecological crisis, embraces diverse perspectives, and focuses on concrete solutions and collective action is necessary for navigating the challenges of the Anthropocene and creating a more just and sustainable future.
Throughout “Apocalypsofie,” Doeland uses the phrase “the end of the world as we know it” to refer to a multifaceted and ongoing process of transformation rather than a singular apocalyptic event. It encompasses various interconnected aspects:
Ecological Degradation and Extinction:
Unsustainability of the Growth Paradigm:
Shifting Human-Nature Relationships:
Loss of Certainty and Control:
Emergence of New Possibilities:
Examples from the Book:
“The end of the world as we know it is not necessarily bad news. We should not forget that there is another end of the world possible.” (Chapter 1)
“The apocalypse is not what awaits us, but that it has already taken place and that the problem is that it continues like this.” (Chapter 1)
“It is time to talk about picking mushrooms. Not that it will save us – but maybe it will give us some ideas.” (Chapter 9)
These quotes illustrate how Doeland uses the phrase “the end of the world as we know it” to convey a sense of both loss and possibility. It is a call to acknowledge the challenges we face while also embracing the opportunity to create a different future.
While Doeland effectively argues for the unsustainability of our current trajectory and the need for significant changes, the claim that “the apocalypse has already taken place” requires further scrutiny. The evidence presented in the book primarily relies on philosophical arguments and cultural interpretations rather than concrete, empirical data.
Here’s a closer look at the evidence and its limitations:
Evidence presented in the book:
Philosophical arguments: Doeland draws on the work of thinkers like Walter Benjamin and Bruno Latour to argue that the modern project of progress and mastery over nature has reached its limits, leading to a state of crisis and decline.
Cultural interpretations: Doeland analyzes various cultural expressions, such as apocalyptic films and dystopian literature, to highlight the pervasiveness of anxieties about the future and the sense of living in a “damaged” world.
Personal anecdotes and observations: Doeland shares personal experiences and observations of environmental degradation and social inequalities to illustrate the impacts of the current system.
Limitations of the evidence:
Lack of empirical data: The book primarily relies on philosophical and cultural analysis, without providing sufficient concrete data or scientific evidence to support the claim that a definitive “end” has already occurred.
Subjectivity of interpretations: While cultural expressions can offer valuable insights into societal anxieties and perceptions, they are inherently subjective and do not necessarily reflect objective reality.
Focus on specific contexts: Doeland’s analysis often focuses on Western societies and overlooks the diverse experiences and perspectives of communities in other parts of the world who may be experiencing different forms of “ends” or transformations.
Alternative approaches to strengthen the argument:
Incorporating scientific data: Drawing on research from fields like climate science, ecology, and environmental studies could provide concrete evidence of the extent of ecological degradation and the urgency of the crisis.
Engaging with diverse perspectives: Including voices and experiences from marginalized communities and indigenous cultures, who are often disproportionately affected by environmental degradation, would provide a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the “ends” occurring in different parts of the world.
Analyzing historical precedents: Examining historical examples of societal collapse and transformation could offer valuable insights into the dynamics of change and the potential for both resilience and renewal.
Conclusion:
While Doeland’s analysis effectively raises awareness about the ecological crisis and the need for significant changes, the claim that “the apocalypse has already taken place” is not fully substantiated by the evidence presented in the book. Incorporating more concrete data, diverse perspectives, and historical analyses would strengthen the argument and provide a more nuanced understanding of the complex and ongoing transformations we are facing in the Anthropocene.
Doeland’s writing style is engaging and accessible, effectively combining personal anecdotes, philosophical reflections, and cultural references. However, there are areas where the style could be more consistent and impactful:
Areas for Improvement:
Overuse of rhetorical questions: While rhetorical questions can be effective in engaging the reader, their excessive use can become repetitive and detract from the flow of the argument. Employing a more balanced mix of declarative statements and direct engagement with evidence would strengthen the overall impact.
Inconsistency in tone: The book oscillates between a conversational and a more academic tone, which can be jarring at times. Maintaining a consistent tone throughout the work would enhance clarity and professionalism.
Lack of clear structure in some chapters: While some chapters are well-organized with a clear progression of ideas, others feel more like a collection of loosely connected reflections. Implementing a more structured approach with clear topic sentences and transitions would improve the overall coherence and flow of the argument.
Repetitive use of certain phrases: Phrases like “the end of the world as we know it” and “living in the ruins” are repeated frequently throughout the book. While these phrases are central to the overall theme, their overuse can become redundant and diminish their impact. Exploring alternative ways of expressing these ideas would enhance the richness and depth of the language.
Examples:
“Why do we keep clinging to an unsustainable status quo, to the world as we know it, while feeling that its end is nonetheless approaching? But that is not the end of the world, of course. We must not forget that another end of the world is possible. This book is about that other end and how we can imagine it.” (Prologue)
In this instance, replacing some of the rhetorical questions with declarative statements would strengthen the introduction and provide a clearer direction for the reader.
“The problem with apocalyptic thinking is that it suggests a clear end and a beginning, a before and an after, in short: clarity. The world may be ending, but at least we know exactly where we stand. It is this craving for clarity that explains why we are so eager to wallow in collapse porn (Leigh Phillips) and collective catastrophism (Thijs Lijster).” (Chapter 1)
The shift from a more formal tone to informal language (“wallow in collapse porn”) can be jarring and disrupt the flow of the argument. Maintaining a consistent tone would enhance the professionalism and impact of the analysis.
“When we think of ecology, it usually conjures up images of green. We see forests, bushes, animals, and humans are usually far away. We don’t think about waste and other unpleasant things at all. Yet that is precisely what ecology is about. The Greek oikos, from which the word ecology is derived, means something like house or household. The other root of ecology, the Indo-European woikos, means something like neighborhood or settlement (think also: ‘district’). Ecology is, in short, about being at home. But in whose house? Whose neighborhood? And who is whose guest?” (Chapter 3)
While this passage raises important questions, it lacks a clear structure and progression of ideas. Implementing topic sentences and transitions would improve the overall coherence and clarity of the argument.
“The end of the world as we know it is not necessarily bad news. We should not forget that there is another end of the world possible. An end that makes it possible that the ‘revelation’ – the impending mass extinction – will not come true. The revelation also that the apocalypse is not what awaits us, but that it has already taken place and that the problem is that it continues like this.” (Chapter 1)
The repetition of “the end of the world as we know it” and similar phrases throughout the book can diminish their impact. Exploring alternative ways of expressing these ideas would enhance the richness and depth of the language.
By addressing these stylistic inconsistencies and exploring alternative approaches, Doeland could further enhance the clarity, impact, and overall effectiveness of her work.
Chapter 1: Apocalypsofie
Claim: The future is open and undetermined: While Doeland effectively challenges fatalistic narratives, the evidence presented mainly relies on philosophical arguments and references to thinkers like Donna Haraway and Bruno Latour. To strengthen her point, incorporating concrete examples of historical events where unexpected shifts or changes occurred despite seemingly deterministic conditions would be beneficial.
Claim: The circular economy is a dangerous fantasy: Doeland provides a strong critique, citing the second law of thermodynamics and the limitations of recycling. However, the argument could be bolstered by incorporating empirical evidence, such as case studies of failed circular economy initiatives or the environmental impact of recycling specific materials.
Claim: We need to learn to die and to let go: The evidence for this claim primarily relies on philosophical arguments and references to Roy Scranton’s work. Exploring diverse cultural and spiritual perspectives on death and impermanence, as well as practices like mindfulness or grief rituals, could offer a more nuanced and grounded understanding of “letting go.”
Chapter 2: Eindes van de wereld dragen
Claim: The Anthropocene is characterized by ongoing “ends of the world”: Doeland provides compelling arguments and examples of ongoing ecological devastation and extinction. However, the chapter would benefit from a more systematic analysis of the various forms of “ends” and their interconnectedness, possibly drawing on frameworks from political ecology or environmental history.
Claim: We need to learn to “carry” the end of the world: The evidence for this claim primarily relies on the metaphor of Atlas, which, while evocative, remains somewhat abstract. Exploring concrete practices for coping with ecological grief and loss, such as rituals, community support networks, or artistic expressions, would provide a more actionable framework.
Chapter 3: De vele stemmen van Gaia
Claim: Gaia is not a unified entity with a singular will: Doeland effectively critiques the tendency to personify the Earth, citing the work of Bruno Latour and Isabelle Stengers. However, the argument could be strengthened by engaging with the historical and cultural contexts that have shaped Western conceptions of Gaia and Mother Earth, and contrasting them with diverse indigenous perspectives.
Claim: We need to listen to the diverse “voices” of Gaia: This claim encourages a more-than-human approach to ecology but lacks concrete examples. Exploring specific cases of how different entities within the Earth system communicate and interact, drawing on scientific research and indigenous knowledge, would provide a more tangible understanding of this concept.
Chapter 4: Goed afval maken
Claim: The circular economy is an illusion: Doeland’s critique is well-supported by arguments based on thermodynamics and the limitations of recycling. However, incorporating economic analyses of the circular economy and its potential for greenwashing would further strengthen the argument.
Claim: We need to learn to “make good waste”: While the proposal is thought-provoking, the evidence relies primarily on philosophical arguments. Exploring concrete examples of responsible waste management practices, such as composting, bioremediation, or zero-waste systems, would provide a more practical and actionable framework.
Claim: We need to acknowledge our “eatability”: The evidence for this claim largely relies on philosophical arguments and personal anecdotes. Expanding on the concept by exploring diverse cultural practices and spiritual traditions related to death and decomposition could provide a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding.
Chapter 5: Ecorexia
Claim: Ecorexia is a form of self-denial that hinders effective action: While the critique of individualistic approaches to environmental ethics is valid, the evidence presented relies mainly on personal observations and anecdotal evidence. Incorporating psychological research on eco-anxiety and the limitations of individual action could strengthen the argument.
Claim: We need to move beyond individual consumer choices: This claim highlights the need for systemic change but lacks concrete evidence. Exploring the history and strategies of successful environmental movements and policy initiatives would provide a more actionable framework for collective action.
Chapter 6: Met levende doden leven
Claim: The accumulation of non-biodegradable waste is a form of “living death”: Doeland effectively uses the metaphor of “living death” to illustrate the disruptive impact of non-biodegradable waste. However, the argument could be strengthened by incorporating scientific research on the long-term environmental and health impacts of plastic pollution and other forms of waste accumulation.
Claim: We need to embrace decay and decomposition: This proposal is supported by philosophical arguments and references to thinkers like Donna Haraway. However, it would benefit from a more practical discussion of how to promote and implement composting and other forms of decomposition as regenerative practices within various social and cultural contexts.
Chapter 7: Ik ben geen biomassa
Claim: Abstractions like “biomass” obscure the realities of exploitation: Doeland provides a strong critique of the language of “biomass” and “green energy,” but the argument could be strengthened by incorporating specific case studies of how this language is used to justify unsustainable and exploitative practices, such as large-scale monoculture plantations or the displacement of local communities for “green” energy projects.
Claim: We need to move beyond abstractions: While acknowledging the limitations of abstractions is crucial, the argument could be enriched by exploring how abstractions can be used strategically in communication and advocacy, without losing sight of the concrete realities they represent.
Chapter 8: Gastvrijheid in een unheimische wereld
Claim: The pursuit of purity is unsustainable and unethical: Doeland’s critique of purity politics is well-supported by philosophical arguments and references to Alexis Shotwell’s work. However, the argument could be strengthened by incorporating historical and sociological analyses of the ways in which purity discourses have been used to justify various forms of oppression and exclusion throughout history.
Claim: We need to embrace the “unfamiliar” and the “unwelcome”: While advocating for inclusivity and openness is crucial, the argument could be more nuanced by acknowledging the challenges of navigating power imbalances and historical injustices. Exploring examples of how hospitality can be practiced in a way that is both ethical and empowering, particularly in relation to marginalized communities and non-human entities, would strengthen the argument.
Chapter 9: De tovenaar, de profeet en de voddenraper
Claim: We need to move beyond both techno-optimism and apocalyptic thinking: Doeland effectively critiques both approaches and opens up space for alternative ways of thinking and acting. However, the argument could be strengthened by exploring the historical and cultural roots of both techno-optimism and apocalyptic narratives, and analyzing their connection to dominant power structures and economic systems.
Claim: The “ragpicker” offers a valuable perspective: The figure of the “ragpicker” offers a refreshing alternative to dominant narratives of progress, but the argument would benefit from exploring concrete examples of “ragpicker” practices and their potential for contributing to a more sustainable and just future. This could include examples of community-based recycling initiatives, repair cafes, or initiatives that promote reuse and resourcefulness.
Claim: We need to develop an “art of noticing”: Doeland’s call for attentiveness to the small, the local, and the specific aligns with the work of Anna Tsing and offers a valuable tool for navigating the complexities of the Anthropocene. However, the argument would be strengthened by providing concrete examples and exercises for developing this “art of noticing” and applying it to various contexts, making it more accessible and actionable for readers.
2e
The fundamental difference lies in the scope of the law: While the second law of thermodynamics governs energycu-Roegen’s sense, meaning they can provide renewable services that enable resource regeneration and innovation. A powerful example is the development of hydroponics and vertical farming: These technologies allow for food production with significantly reduced land and water usage, effectively decoupling food production from traditional agricultural limitations. This transformations within a closed system, the circular economy operates within an open system, the Earth, with continuous energy influx from the sun. Applying the entropy law in this context is a misapplication of a principle that governs closed systems to an open system with vastly different dynamics.
Technology and Institutions as “Funds”: Khalil demonstrates that resource constraints are not solely determined by physical laws but can be overcome through human ingenuity and institutional innovation.
Alternative Approach: Focus on First Law and Production Costs
Instead of relying on the entropy law, a more relevant approach to understanding the limitations of the circular economy is to focus on the first law’s concept of the “technological/institutional regime of production” as a fund that creates and defines resources offers a powerful counter-argument. For example, the discovery of oil as a resource was not merely a matter of its physical of thermodynamics (conservation law) and the concept of production costs. The first law emphasizes that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. This highlights the importance of resource efficiency and minimizing waste. Additionally, considering the economic and environmental costs associated with resource extraction, processing, and recycling is crucial for evaluating presence but required the development of technologies for extraction, refining, and utilization, along with the establishment of institutions and infrastructure for its distribution and trade. Similarly, advancements in recycling technologies and the development of closed-loop production systems demonstrate the capacity the feasibility and sustainability of a circular economy.
By focusing on the first law and production costs, we can develop a more nuanced and practical understanding of the challenges and opportunities associated with transitioning to a more circular and sustainable economic system. This approach avoids the misinterpretations and limitations of applying the entropy law to the of human ingenuity to find solutions for resource recovery and waste management.
Convincing Alternative: The focus should shift from the entropy law to the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy). This law acknowledges the limitations of resource use and emphasizes the importance of efficiency and minimizing waste throughout the production and consumption circular economy and allows for a more comprehensive consideration of the role of human innovation and institutional frameworks in shaping our relationship with the environment.
cycle. It provides a more relevant framework for evaluating the true costs of production and consumption, including the energy required for recycling and resource recovery.
Additional Arguments:
Focus on Practical Limitations: The challenges of achieving a circular economy are primarily rooted in practical limitations, such as the complexity of material separation, the energy requirements of recycling, and the economic incentives of the current system.
Importance of Innovation: Technological advancements and institutional changes are crucial for developing more efficient and sustainable production and consumption systems.
In conclusion, the entropy law, while a fundamental principle of physics, is not a suitable framework for evaluating the feasibility or limitations of a circular economy. Focusing on the conservation of energy and the role of technology and institutions provides a more relevant and actionable approach to achieving a sustainable future.
Original Text (excerpt):
“My friend received a water purification pump as a gift from Sinterklaas. It was a nice, handy one, suitable for acute survival situations. That’s how it goes in the apocalyptic twenties, in which capitalism has even found a way to profit from our fear of death in general and our fear of the end of the world as we know it in particular. What he received as a gift was not so much that pump, but the appearance of certainty, of preparedness. Where hedge fund and tech billionaires wonder whether it’s best to buy land in Alaska or New Zealand to build survival bunkers there, the less wealthy prepare themselves with water pumps, dried food, and handy tools for on the go.”
Rewritten Text:
The commodification of our anxieties is perhaps nowhere more evident than in the burgeoning market for “apocalypse preparedness.” From water purification pumps to survival bunkers, capitalism has found a way to capitalize on our deepest fears about the future. While hedge fund managers and tech moguls contemplate escaping to remote islands or underground shelters, the rest of us are left to grapple with the realities of a rapidly changing world. This obsession with individual survival, however, distracts from the systemic issues at the heart of the ecological crisis and perpetuates the illusion that we can simply buy our way out of a collective predicament.
Instead of indulging in fantasies of individual escape, we need to confront the uncomfortable truth that the “end of the world as we know it” is not a singular event on the horizon but a process already unfolding around us. This “end” is not simply about the physical destruction of the planet but also about the unraveling of the social, economic, and political systems that have brought us to this point. It is about the erosion of ecosystems, the loss of biodiversity, the displacement of communities, and the widening gap between the rich and the poor.
This is not to say that the future is predetermined or that we are powerless to change course. However, meaningful change requires a fundamental shift in our thinking and our actions. We need to move beyond the individualistic and consumerist mindset that has fueled the crisis and embrace collective responsibility for the well-being of both human and non-human communities. This means challenging the dominant narratives of progress and growth, acknowledging the limits of our current systems, and exploring alternative ways of living within the ecological constraints of our planet.
Improvements:
Stronger opening: The rewritten text starts with a more impactful statement that directly addresses the commodification of our anxieties and sets the stage for a critical analysis of the “apocalypse preparedness” industry.
Focus on systemic issues: The revised text emphasizes the systemic nature of the ecological crisis and challenges the individualistic focus on survivalism.
Clearer articulation of the “end”: The rewritten text provides a more nuanced and comprehensive definition of the “end of the world as we know it,” highlighting its multifaceted nature and its ongoing impacts.
Emphasis on collective responsibility: The revised text shifts the focus from individual preparedness to collective action and responsibility, emphasizing the need for systemic change.
Additional Suggestions for Improvement:
Incorporate diverse perspectives: Include examples of how communities in different parts of the world are experiencing and responding to the ecological crisis.
Connect with social justice issues: Highlight the ways in which the ecological crisis intersects with issues of social justice, such as poverty, inequality, and racial discrimination.
Explore alternative solutions: Discuss concrete examples of sustainable practices, alternative economic models, and community-based initiatives that offer pathways for a more just and sustainable future.
By addressing these points and building upon the strengths of the original text, Doeland could create a more impactful and comprehensive analysis of the ecological crisis and inspire readers to engage in meaningful action towards a better future. ** **Herschreven Hoofdstuk 1 - variant 1
De commercialisering van onze angsten is misschien nergens duidelijker zichtbaar dan in de snelgroeiende markt voor “apocalypsvoorbereiding”. Van waterzuiveringspompen tot overlevingsbunkers, het kapitalisme heeft een manier gevonden om te profiteren van onze diepste angsten over de toekomst. Terwijl hedgefondsmanagers en techmagnaten overwegen te vluchten naar afgelegen eilanden of ondergrondse schuilplaatsen, blijft de rest van ons achter om te worstelen met de realiteit van een snel veranderende wereld. Deze obsessie met individuele overleving leidt echter af van de systemische problemen die de kern vormen van de ecologische crisis en bestendigt de illusie dat we ons simpelweg uit een collectief probleem kunnen kopen.
In plaats van ons over te geven aan fantasieën over individuele ontsnapping, moeten we de ongemakkelijke waarheid onder ogen zien dat het “einde van de wereld zoals wij die kennen” geen enkelvoudige gebeurtenis aan de horizon is, maar een proces dat zich al om ons heen voltrekt. Dit “einde” gaat niet alleen over de fysieke vernietiging van de planeet, maar ook over het ontrafelen van de sociale, economische en politieke systemen die ons tot dit punt hebben gebracht. Het gaat over de erosie van ecosystemen, het verlies aan biodiversiteit, de verplaatsing van gemeenschappen en de groeiende kloof tussen rijk en arm.
Dit wil niet zeggen dat de toekomst vaststaat of dat we machteloos zijn om van koers te veranderen. Zinvolle verandering vereist echter een fundamentele verschuiving in ons denken en handelen. We moeten verder gaan dan de individualistische en consumentistische mentaliteit die de crisis heeft aangewakkerd en collectieve verantwoordelijkheid omarmen voor het welzijn van zowel menselijke als niet-menselijke gemeenschappen. Dit betekent het uitdagen van de dominante verhalen over vooruitgang en groei, het erkennen van de grenzen van onze huidige systemen en het verkennen van alternatieve manieren van leven binnen de ecologische grenzen van onze planeet.
Herschreven Hoofdstuk 1 - variant 2
Onze angsten, te koop! Dat is de realiteit van vandaag. De markt voor “apocalypsvoorbereiding” boomt. Van waterfilters tot luxe bunkers, het kapitalisme speelt handig in op onze diepste zorgen over de toekomst. Terwijl de superrijken dromen van ontsnappen naar privé-eilanden of ondergrondse paleizen, blijven wij achter met de harde realiteit van een wereld in crisis. Deze obsessie met individuele overleving leidt ons echter af van de ware oorzaak: de falende systemen die onze planeet uitputten. We creëren de illusie dat we ons uit de problemen kunnen kopen, terwijl we juist samen de handen ineen moeten slaan.
Stop met wegdromen! Het “einde van de wereld zoals wij die kennen” is geen sciencefictionfilm die eraan komt, maar een proces dat al gaande is. Het gaat niet alleen om smeltende ijskappen en overstromingen, maar ook om de ineenstorting van de sociale, economische en politieke structuren die ons hier gebracht hebben. Het gaat om de vernietiging van ecosystemen, het uitsterven van dier- en plantsoorten, het verdwijnen van leefgemeenschappen en de steeds grotere kloof tussen arm en rijk.
We zijn niet machteloos! We kunnen de koers nog veranderen, maar dat vereist een radicale ommezwaai in ons denken en doen. Weg met de individualistische consumptiemaatschappij die de crisis heeft veroorzaakt! We moeten samen verantwoordelijkheid nemen voor het welzijn van mens én natuur. Dat betekent kritisch kijken naar de eindeloze groei-obsessie, de beperkingen van onze huidige systemen erkennen en zoeken naar alternatieven die passen binnen de draagkracht van onze planeet.