Zizek's Counterintuitive Suggestion for What to Do Now About Climate Change

I assume you noticed the quiet demise of the Climate Bill, consented to by most of the people who claimed they gave a damn about the climate. It was a lousy, weak, inadequate bill, but that's still no excuse for giving up the ghost. This makes the 1 bazillionth time in my lifetime I've been ashamed to be associated (if only because the US has no real left, and thus anyone on the left ends up with a default association with the Dems) with the American Democratic Party. I'm used to it by now.

On the other hand, maybe the death of our attempt to deal with climate change will force a change in the discourse - or maybe it won't. But as usual, we're firmly in the "well, this couldn't fail any more than everything we've done so far has already failed" so we don't have a lot to lose. And I really like Slavoj Zizek. Is this the answer? Probably not, but it is a heck of a lot more interesting than another stab at the same old narrative. (H/T to Christina at Oscillator for finding this!)

More like this

In my stream of consciousness post about Joe Lieberman, I noted that Lieberman's loss reveals just how inept the Democratic consultant and advisor class is. Over at My Left Wing, thereisnospoon picks up on this theme: This was never our race to win. It was Joe Lieberman's to lose. More…
In Pennsylvania, retired admiral and current Representative Joe Sestak won the Democratic primary against former Republican Arlen Specter; Sestak will face failed Senate candidate Pat Toomey in November. In Kentucky, Jack Conway will be running for the Senate seat currently held by Jim Bunning.…
With the Dems now about to assume control of both houses of Congress, science policy is going to change. Big time. Indeed, in The Republican War on Science I pointed out that one reason the Reagan administration never messed with science as much as the current administration was because the…
The art of losing isn't hard to master; so many things seem filled with the intent to be lost that their loss is no disaster. Lose something every day. Accept the fluster of lost door keys, the hour badly spent. The art of losing isn't hard to master. Then practice losing farther, losing faster:…

Very cool video. I think there is truth to what he is saying. When we can no longer send our waste away, then we'll finally do something about it. Weather thats forced on us by peak oil, consuming the entire planet or of our own volition is another matter.

If you like audio, you should check out Doug Lain's Diet Soap Podcast. Doug is a big fan of Zizek, and uses clips in audio collages he creates. Go to dietsoap.podomatic.com

I wasn't familiar with Zizek, but whether his idea has any merit or not, it was great fun watching and listening to him.

BTW, Sharon (off topic), the latest issue of National Geographic has a brief article about glyptodonts! It's in the unnumbered pages at the beginning of the issue.

the clip is an extract from the movie Examined Life (2008), a series of short interviews with modern philosophers. very well worth seeing; Zizek was among the most provocative and thought-provoking people featured in it, i thought. the accompanying book, holding full transcripts of all the interviews, is also worth its price.

By Nomen Nescio (not verified) on 26 Jul 2010 #permalink

Zizek is very entertaining and controversial, but I fear his arguments are often so wide-ranging that he may leap from point to unconnected point, in order to arrive at an unsupported conclusion. The main thesis of this video needs further development, for one thing. We all know there are problems, but in truth we should accept them and love the status quo regardless? Or did I miss the bit about confronting and implementing change?

Or maybe he's a closet Buddhist - viewing the world with equanimity while moving down the path to nirvana :)

Just remember, if Congress cannot legislate, the EPA will regulate.


He's certainly in love with his own brain. Too bad he's never had a conversation with an actual ecologist. As he uses the word "ecology", he's really only talking about the "green movement" kind of thing, which is indeed "new agey", basically religious, and only related to science in a vague way. The confusion for him comes from not understanding the relationship between "Greenies" and ecological scientists.

The Greenies consider the scientists to be prophets. The scientists are 95% oblivious about that. When a prophet publishes a paper on GM plants, the Greenies will take it as gospel. They'll actually read the paper; but without the fierce training needed to be a real scientist, they'll interpret it in rather loose ways. Often only the words from a few paragraphs will penetrate the Greenies ideology. 95% of Greenies are oblivious about that. And they are, indeed, likely to become dogmatic about it all, pretty quickly.

He's wrong about a lot, right about a little. From his manner, I have doubts his mind is really open.