{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","title":"The Stack On Software and Sovereignty","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780262029575","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","id":"24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","uuid":"24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","title":"The Stack On Software and Sovereignty","normalized_title":"thestackonsoftwareandsovereignty","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780262029575","isbns":["9780262029575"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":517,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/The%20Stack%20On%20Software%20and%20Sovereignty","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341/search"},"page":{"printed_page":306,"pdf_page":320,"physical_index":320,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"b51173176700dcf195e4af8a42a32bbd12f3ba3fd71d212c96150ea0adc3533a"},"chapter":"Fheck The Stack |On Software and Sovereignty Benjamin H. Bratton","content":"Put differently, that situation is also characterized by an opposition between the global plasticity of the second planetary computer and the Anthropocenic crisis of ongoingness. While it may be that our position on the precipice of ecological collapse suggests an anti-cosmopolitanism based on sharing this G ö tterd ä mmerung, different economies have contributed to its inadvertent geoengineering in very different ways and it is certain that how some groups accommodate the coming crisis will be as equally pronounced and divided. It is sometimes said by the political right that the dangers posed by climate change are overblown by leftists keen on using centralized anti-market regulatory measures as a matter of principle and eager to mobilize them in the name of bad weather from the future, but the political opportunism of climate-change denialists represents the more ominous teleology. The longer that effective interventions and mitigations are forestalled, the more catastrophic the eventual outcomes will be, and the less likely that open and democratic societies will be able to manage the deluge of life or death consequences. Many on those the political right are well aware of this, but see it as an opportunity for the development of quasi-sovereign enclaves in which those who can will consolidate their wealth and deploy it as a bulwark against both the ecological consequences of industrialization and the populations that these effect most dramatically. For those who would prefer neo-Feudalism and/or tooth-and-nail libertarianism, inaction on climate change is not denialism, rather it is action on behalf of a different strategic conclusion.\n\nToo often, notions of ecological cosmopolitics rely on rhetorical criteria of consensus, whether as a lifeboat ethics — that we are all in this together — or the supposed self-evidence of Earth ’ s archive seen as a single space that can be made more communitarian. However, while it draws on an ethics of rationality, the geodesign I would endorse doesn’t see dissensus as an exception to the norm but as a matter of fact (nor does it see it as only and necessarily “ political ” ). It doesn’t confuse the universality of a shared planetary ecology with how its political geography subdivides sovereignties, ones that are not only separate but may not even be interoperable. It is not that we will split the middle but that, quite specifically, we speak different languages, live in different worlds, and have different geophysical relations to capital as a design asset in relation to emergencies. That said, the current ecological emergency extends, rather than supersedes, the importance of totality as interpretive instrument, especially with regards to planetary-scale computation. When I peruse with fascination all the rightwing conspiracies theories about “ Green totalitarianism, ” Agenda 21, and carbon police confiscating McMansions, I can ’ t help but wonder if the right has a more active and forceful vision (however goofball) for the left than the left does. At the same time, we are sensitive that just as well-meaning initiatives too often sour into failure (and wonder if we should instead design evil things that will decay into something wonderful and successful) we know that the anti-strategy of neo-feudal secession may, however counterintuitively, usher in a geopolitics that provides a platform that — in time — may unwind the social hierarchies that inaugurated it. Who knows? They may get what they want, but they may not want what they get. <sup>18</sup> With regards to this, the next section considers possible futures of the next layer of The Stack, and how the delimitation of sovereignty from territory by global Cloud platforms, and the differing models of Cloud Polis that they represent, supports the momentum of generalized secession (for better and for worse) which may or may not evolve toward (away from) an institutionally normative Cloud feudalism .\n\n306\n\nThe Stack to Come","previous_page":305,"next_page":307}