Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

NATURE AND TECHNOLOGY AFTER EMPIRE, Note how Pritchard and Moore discuss…

- - - - High Modernism
        
        A sweeping faith in the power of s/t, that arose as a result of historical experiences
        
        How political systems influence the ability to enact visions of high modernism (authoritarian vs liberal)
        
        Nature/the conditions of the natural world challenges high modernism?
        
        L1 Scott
        
        Notes that 'high modernism' originated in the C19's industrial revolution because people realised how technology could enhance/transform human lives
        
        C19-C20 was also a period of transformation for governance, as states began adopting more interventionist roles (Foucault's bio power)
        
        So, C20 practices of high modernism was compatible with various political ideologies, though tended to be prominent in authoritarian rule because thrived on an ability to marshal $$/resources!
        
        Also draws the connections between high modernism and postcolonial elites because of the vision of dramatic progress it promises
        
        High modernism entails assumption
        
        Projects that adopt such visions are, according to Scott, predicated on the STATE's visions, and not on the requirements/views of individuals
        
        There is easily a tendency to assume that what the local population wants is what the state is giving
        
        And so, high modernist development projects have this recurring theme where we see unexpected unintended consequences
  - - - L1 Chakrabarti and Worboys
        
        Overview of the changing rs between science and imperialism since the 1870s, and also show developing understanding among scholars of the rs between science/colonialism (having a more hybrid view of the origins of science)
        
        In the late C19, we have the Berlin Conference, and the Scramble for Africa. At this point, acclimatisation as a concept was heavily studied (bc of Lamarckian ideas)
        
        In the interwar period: Weakening colonial control, constructing a 'vernacular science'
        
        Post-war: Science became an ideological tool of development policies to win hearts and minds (but this is really just a continuity of colonial heritage!)
        --> But for former colonies, science became a crucial aspect of national development!
        
        Vernacular Science
        
        Basically just this idea of the co-production of knowledge between the indigenous groups and the empire's scientists
  - - - Case Study: The Aswan Dam
        
        To recognise how different elements of the natural world can combine together (malaria, WWII, agriculture/fertilisers, food shortages) to uproot human agency, or human assumptions of control over the natural world --> The natural world interacts independent of human agency
        
        This helps us recognise how human agency is being made/constructed!
        
        L1 Mitchell
        
        Uses the construction of the Aswan Dam in Egypt to argue that mankind's construction of a man-nature binary is artificial, rather than inherent, and that this simple binary neglects the agency of the natural world
        
        While the Aswan Dam was used to fulfil dreams of modernity in Egypt, the reality of its construction shows tat the natural world can actually construct human expertise! --> But we don't seem to like this narrative in Cold War geopolitics which centred on techno-economic development
        
        Eradicating the Gambiae mosquito in Egypt isn't just simply about human efforts, its also about how nonhuman assistants (eg. DDT) shaped our power/influence
        
        What it means that we cannot simply assume that human agency/power is inherent. Rather, human agency is MADE
        
        Note that the DDT case study is implied to have some impacts/influnece on the subsequent MEP by the WHO in the Cold War/1950s
        
        Mitchell's claims are quite compelling/useful, and provides a strong analytical framework for why projects fail
        
        Mainly, the idea that we think of nature as something to CONQUER --> This is also why we see things in the natural world as resources
- - - - Noting also that these dams are often the visions of empires imposed on the local populations (so the needs of the locals are not considered at all)
  - - - Aswan High Dam (1964)
        
        Egypt used this as a 'break' from the past so that it could move out of colonial development and into industrial modernity
        
        Note that here its particularly symbolic because it was meant to IMPROVE the one the British built
        
        Also recognising how the nationalisation of the Suez Canal was meant to produce revenue for the dam construction
        
        NOTE:
        
        The nationalisation of the Suez Canal was what caused the Suez Crisis in 1956/57, because it threatened British, Israeli and French economic interests
        
        Here, there is a connection drawn between the dams and geopolitical developments
      - Sad Merowe Dam (Sudan) (Construction began in 1999)
        
        Engine of growth for the Sudanese economy and a drive for modernisation
        
        How the dam was used as a tool to rile up nationalistic fervour in a way compatible with Islamic thinking/ideology
        
        L2 Mohamud and Verhoeven
        
        Specifically examines the role of dams in constructing a decolonised nation: Sudan. Argues that dams rekindled the regime and country's identity at a time of political transofrmation
        
        The programme was launched in 1999 by the new Al-Ingaz regime, and the regime sought to reconcile the tensions between Islamism and nationalism
        
        Sure, the dam had tangible benefits, but the way in which it was milked for its propaganda value shows how it was precisely meant to generate a transformative vision for Sudanese people, and consolidate the regime's power!
        
        In short, the dam enabled the Sudanese government to embody both modern and traditional ideologies, reinvent Islamism so that citizens could be Islamic and nationalists
        
        Note that the tensions were real: Islamism promoted the state as a MIDWAY point to the end-goal of a Caliphate, so nationalism was not necessarily something it endorsed!
    - - Hydroimperialism:
        
        Dams as tools of colonial instrument, because they necessitated the entry of large amounts of specialists from the metropole
        
        Colonies as sites of consolidating and gathering technical knowledge
      - Hydrocapitalism
        
        This refers more to the entry of private firms into natural resource management
        
        It is crucial to note the link between the 2; in the case of France, colonial engineers were the ones who influneced water management/engineering projects --> And these same experts, after colonialisation, went on to establish firms/corporations/agencies for technical aid
        
        Basically, even under the hydrocapitalism, the companies can be operating with state interests/intentions in mind
        
        L2 Moore
        
        How Japan and its engineering firms strengthened its postcolonial power in SEA through the use of dam projects. Moore challenges the simplistic picture of a developed West assisting Asia during the Cold War with the case study of JApan
        
        Japan's aid projects were part of efforts to bring Asian nations under its sphere of influence, and also to 'atone' for historical events (war reparations) --> Dual-meaning!
        
        For Burma, this manifested in the Bali Chuang Dam, which relied heavily on the Japanese engineers' expertise/knowledge
        
        We can still see the same notions of neo-colonialism in the way that the engineers recounted their experience
        
        Crucially, how the engineers were involved in creating a network of power that helped America generate anti-communist bulwarks in SEA
        
        The case of Japan is particularly interesting because here its not just about postcolonial power/neocolonialism. The aid project was meant to acknowledge the atrocities of Imperial Japan's colonisation of SEA (GEACPS); so you could argue that the dam project, while meant to acknowledge the horrors of its colonial pursuits, helped Japan push/implement/practice a new form of colonialism (neocolonialism)
        
        Therefore, I would argue that Moore's case study serves as an even clearer case study than Pritchard about the hydroimperialism/hydrocapitalism network --> Very explicitly seeing the SAME power continuities/configurations
        
        The postcolonial dam projects remind one of the fundamental principles of GEACPS!
        
        Also note the parallels that you should draw with Imperial Japan's Fengman and Sup'ung Dam in Manchukuo and Korea
        
        What is different is the 'guise' under which it was done --> A project for imperial expansion vs a geopolitical project for GOODWILL
        
        Different aims, same power relations
        
        And again, similar means of constructing an analytical human-nature boundary
      - L2 Pritchard
        
        Argues that a transition from hydroimperialism to hydrocapitalism occurred from c19 to c20, showing the power associations of water and its management (Case study: Algeria, a French colony)
        
        C19: Dams legitimised French colonial control in Algeria by promising to help the Algerian people overcome their agricultural problems
        
        Pritchard argues that information flow here was bi-directional too, as the colony acted as a laboratory for the metropole
        
        C20/postcolonial: Water specialists returned to France, helped create new model for water projects through technical aid programmes --> emergence of hydrocapitalism (private corporations tapping on colonial networks and knowledge!)
        
        Pritchard argues that hydrocapitalism is the successor of hydroimperialism... agree?
        
        The term 'capitalism' does seem to turn some attention away from the state though, so its not entirely clear that it is again the state trying to expand its sphere of influnece but just that its using private corporations as part of Cold War developmental logic
        
        Its not immediately clear that they're tapping on the same power networks...
- - - - L3 Mitchell
        
        How oil (its flow and infrastructure) has simultaneously opened and close democratic possibilities in the C20. By 'following the carbon', we can see why oil has the power to influence democracy!
        
        First, Mitchell looks at COAL, showing how coal generated a new working class and created new political forces because its infrastructure gave the workers a lot of agency/power to disrupt its flow --> democracy and unionisation was easier to achieve!
        
        Noting also some comparisons between oil and coal: Oil requires more expertise to produce (needs refinement, extraction)! --> Oil companies are inherently in need of more R&D and engineers!
        
        Oil and Political Power
        
        But when oil came about, it was less vulnerable than coal because its flow/transport was less visible
        
        But, oil infrastructures remained very vulnerable, and these sites have often been targeted by dissenting citizens to achieve democratisation
        
        Noting that because oil itself was a very valuable military resource, the superpowers were very sensitive to its flow, and would do anything to stop these disruptions --> In some cases, toppling democratically-elected governments (Iran says hi)
        
        Oil and Economic Power
        
        After WWII, the US set the US dollar as the standard currency for oil transactions, thereby keeping its people rich and its democracy popular!
        
        Critically too was the link between oil and the Keynesian economy (pp. 418) which argued that the economy had 'no limit' because it wasn't a material thing --> As such, because the Keynesian economy promoted various forms of economy, oil could be seen as enabling new forms of democracy too
        
        1967-74 Dollar-Oil Crisis: New ways of looking at oil (compared to nuclear), reorientation of the carbon democracy (weakening ideas of democracy in the Middle East)
        
        EG: In 1973, OPEC nations proclaimed an oil embargo targeted at nations that supported Israel during the Yom Kippur war
        
        These incidents show how the oil-producing nations in the Middle East utilise oil as political leverage (they had done so in 1956 during the Suez Crisis)
        *In some ways, you can think of the similarities that this has with the yellowcake in Niger (Hecht, nuclear things)
  - - - Systematic Ignorance
        
        Yet, the company could choose to hide certain information from the government (e.g. estimates of the reserves), because these could be used in their negotiations about concessions
        
        So, "Iran's oil was simultaneously knowable and unknowable"
      - L3 Shafiee
        
        To recognise the social and technical aspects of oil extraction and infrastructure, and how it shaped states, and corporations
        
        Oil as a resource for techno-economic development in the C20
        
        The AIOC's control over the various scientific knowledge about oil in Iran
        --> A socio-technical approach to oil, so that we can see how humans/nature interact with each other
      - L3 Shafiee Ch 2
        
        Examines the making of petroknowledge by BP, and how it become constituted as political tools
        
        AIOC's recognition of the importance of s/t can be seen through the development of an R&D branch in the company in 1917, led by John Cadman
        
        The R&D was designed so that Iran's oil fields could become a controllable laboratory
        
        But, the AIOC was careful to create systematic ignorance about the petroknowledge to ensure the Iranian government continued concessions/relying on them --> How this allowed them to create/extend the political and economic spaces for manoeuvring!
    - - (1) Generating Ignorance about Oil Production
        
        By couching the work in very technical terms, or choosing to select certain information to omit, oil companies behave as full-fledged political actors
        
        The oil archives reflect the narrative they deliberately want to reflect!
      - (2) Redressing Reputational Harm
        
        Oil archives can be manufactured in such a way to emphasise the corporate social responsibility of the companies
        
        To show they are transparent and complaint with established regulations
      - L3 Barry
        
        Argues that the internet archives of BP carry important political entanglements, because what isn't said is equally important as what is said
        
        Oil archives: Redress reputational risk, project responsible social image
        
        But, Barry argues that the information overload in the archives means that there are most definitely contradictory messages embedded within them
        
        Also, the archives are a way for BP to present themselves in a certain way, to direct discourse/debate/discussion in a certain diredction (so other controversial things can be neglected)
        
        The systematic absences in their archival material is an attempt to neglect the material/human agencies of oil infrastructure!
- - - - Colonialism/Imperialism
        
        Peanuts in Senegal
        
        Colonial authorities adopted vertical, top-down interventions to override farmers' desire to cultivate peanuts on their own terms
        
        The production of new 'improved' varieties by combining their varieties with the farmers'
        
        The irony only is that the improved varieties didn't actually increase productivity, but merely reduced the farmers to sites of intervention
        
        Fascism/Fascist Ideology
        
        Nazi Germany
        
        Potato Breeding in the Third Reich
        
        How breeder varieties were the vechiles by which political regimes were advanced, and tying citizens to the state
        
        Here, we see how potatoes became linked to Hitler's war machine (to prepare the nation for war!)
        
        L4 Saraiva
        
        Argues that potato breeding produced techno scientific organisms in Nazi Germany, which then enabled/strengthened the regime's ideologies
        --> It simultaneously created epistemic developments in agricultural science and enabled Hitler's enactment of the Lebensraum ideology
        
        Establishment of the BRA to conduct R&D on plant breeds --> Their research allowed the state to implement a 1934 Seed Decree, so farmers could only plant certain varieties resistant to the wart
        
        Another fight was against the Colorado Potato Beetle: This involved the BRA mobilising the masses to track/remove the insect military-style
        
        Then, with regards to the Late Blight, BRA researchers sought to screen varieties resistant to the pest and aimed to identify scientific mechanisms for resistance
        
        Rubber Cultivation in Conquered Territories During WWII
        
        Cultivation of the kok-sagyz plant and the role of Auschwitz as an agricutlural experimental station
        
        Rubber was an essential ingredient for the war effort (to build/create military equipment)
        
        EXTRA Saraiva Ch 5
        
        Using the plantation schemes a way to understand the practices of Nazi Imperialism
        
        When it became clear that locals were not incentivised to plant the Kok-Sagyz, Himmler sought to generate a tabula rasa by wiping out entire areas in Ukraine/Belarus, forcing women and children to work in these plantations
        
        Auschwitz had a dual-role in rubber cultivation: It housed the chemical factory of IG Farben (synthetic rubber), and was also used for the experimental site for agriculture
        
        Auschwitz was central to Kok-Sagyz cultivation, because it served as a hub --> Information about the best practices to cultivate the plant flowed IN and OUT of Auschwitz
        
        Rubber was an essential tool for the war effort, that much is clear. So, this was a good that nations were clamouring for
        
        But none did it in the extreme ways that the Nazis did, and so, studying the differences helps us elucidate the tenets of Nazism
        
        We also see how, if we let the Kok-Sagyz speak, it actually rationalised Himmler's extreme measures --> the plant was of little nutritional value, hard to cultivate --> So then he had to FORCE locals to plant it
        
        Hitler's successes in WWII was largely a result of his Blitzkreig strategy, and this relied heavily on the tanks/armour
        --> Hence, one could say that rubber was literally the foundation of Hitler's fascist ideologies
        
        Italy and Coffee Cultivation in Ethiopia
        
        EXTRA Saraiva Ch 5
        
        Wheat and coffee cultivation in Ethiopia to illustrate the colonial practices of fascist regimes
        
        Ethiopia had become a laboratory for Italian scientists, as they aimed to produce sufficient food for its settlers
        
        Coffee was a vital cash crop --> So Mussolini was interested in increasing its production by forcing locals to cultivate the coffee crops, through incentivising these practices --> NOTE: This is an important practice that is seen in colonies!
        
        Scientists were often dismayed at the indigenous population's apparent ignorance/improper practices --> So they used to reiterate their superiority complex
        
        Decolonisation: The Green Revolution
        
        Movement in the 1960s that aimed to produce high yielding varieties and improve agricultural production in the Third World
        
        So the programme was largely a neo-colonialist endeavour to win hearts and minds
        
        Its subsequent problems/failures actually ended up depending global inequalities, losing genetic crop varieties!
        
        L4 Laveaga
        
        Something different: Laveaga uses the case study of agriculture in Mexico to show how people on the peripheries constructed or exchanged knowledge (Largo Dislocare: Decolonisation movement)
        
        Case study of an Indian agronomist, Pandurang Khankhoje, and how he transformed Mexican agriculture through the conducting of various experiments, and finding new hybrid strains
        
        His endeavours were part of an anti-imperialist movement, and this made him attractive to the Mexicans!
      - L4 Jasanoff
        
        Argues that biotechnology was employed for empire-making through the framework of different modes of imperial governance
        
        During the age of colonialism, seeds were collected from the colonies and then transported back to the metropole for commercialisation --> This reinforced colonial ideologies of civilising missions, promoting development in the colony
        
        C20: Biopower and biopolitics drove a push towards the social engineering of all aspects of life!
        
        With biotechnology, Jasanoff argues that it built on the same imperial networks observed in imperial biology, utilising similar rhetoric of core-periphery exchange, and is still perceived as civilising missions (the Green Revolution)
      - L4 Flitner
        
        Argues that the US, USSR and Germany all embraced eugenics and racial hygiene, but that this manifested in different ways due to their differing political ideologies
        
        Germany: 1934 Seed Decree; biology was closely linked to the regime's political power expression, so plant expeditions gave power to the human genetic movements (and vice versa)
        
        USSR: Forced collectivisation among farmers, standardisation of varieties
        
        US: State control is less direct here, but we see attempts to control/regulate the prices of agricultural products (as a recognition of its importance/value)
        
        Eugenics, particularly in agriculture, was of immense value to fulfilling the 3 states' ideals of a modern nation/state!
        
        Zygmunt Bauman's The Gardening State
        
        The state's attempts to ensure that it very carefully curated its population by setting apart those who are 'useful' and 'useless'
        --> Baumant uses this concept to argue that the Holocaust should not merely be seen as a Jewish history, or a case of anti-Semitism, but rather, it was 'fully in keeping with everything we know about civilisation'
        
        This is to suggest that the 'gardening' metaphor was heavily practiced throughout the world, just to different means/extents, or through different means --> Eugenics in itself is a clear example of this endeavour!
        
        Bauman <-> Foucualt's Biopower
        
        Bauman was concerned about the notion of violence, and how violence related to modernity in a state-context because of the concept of the disposability of lives
        
        Foucault's biopower targets the management of populations (and disciplinary power)
        
        *Concerns are different, though they can be related in terms of how states in the early C20 chose to deal with their territories/populations h
        
        Flitner discusses also Bauman's 3 dimensions of the modern state
        
        The gardening state
        
        The surgical state
        
        the architectural/space-managing state
        --> Useful frameworks to understand the goals/objectives of modern states
- - - - Case Study: Craig Venter and the Human Genome Project
        
        HGP was initially funded by the US NIH in 1991, and they had intended to file patents on the gene sequences, but the public outcry forced the NIH to make their data/information open source
        
        Venter formerly worked on the HGP, but then funded his own company, Celera, to continue sequencing the genome
        
        Data was produced quicker, because he could still tap on the open information by the HGP
        --> In typical accounts, Venter becomes characterised as a villain, versus the heroes of the HGP
        
        "Wealth has become a major stake in biology"
      - L5 Reardon
        
        Argues that calls for open access to genomic data actually creates environment for capitalist takeovers, because the demands/work of genomic scientists employ EXACTLY the logic of capital
        
        Because genomic scientists need $$ to conduct efficient sequencing --> Private companies are actually better poised for this endeavour!
        
        So, the challenge for public-funded projects is to match up with private enterprises in the genomics arms race
  - - - Case Study: Human Genome Diversity Project
        
        A project that sought to understand the diversity of humans from their genomes, so collected DNA from indigenous populations
        
        Scientists were unable to recognise how they exploited the indigenous populations, or that they assumed the indigenous populations would be alright with the ways their genomic data/DNA samples were used
        
        An exercise of genetic hegemony by the white scientist, and the scientists' assuming of their ownership of the indigenous population's genomic data as empire by FORCE
        
        L5 Reardon and TallBear
        
        Argues that such projects which assert themselves to be antiracial, are actually impeding the fight against racism, because scientists in these projects often assume they have ownership of the DNA of indigenous groups!
        
        Historical connection between 'whiteness' and 'property', such that in the 2014 Havasupai controversy, scientists assume they have a 'right' to study the genetic material of the tribe, because they think what they are studying is what the tribes want
        
        The controversy elucidates the limitations of existing regulatory frameworks, which seems to ignore the power inequalities between scientists and the indigenous tribes, or like scientists, assume 'whiteness = property'
        
        See SUPO 2 Essay
        
        But basically Reardon/TallBear's article provides a new sort of knowledge model - an assumption model, whereby knowledge is made by those in power FOR those who are 'subjected to their power'
        
        This knowledge is constructed based off ASSUMPTIONS - i.e. assuming that this is what the group wants, that this other group wants their better resources etc.
        
        There are continuities here - these are similar ways that nations/Western empires conceived of their ability to speak on behalf of the colonised
        --> High modernist projects are manifestations of this
        --> When you look at a dam, these are visions of the superpower, that does not at all consider what the side-effects would be, whether the locals would be willing to sacrifice their livelihoods for this state project!
    - - Case Study: Mexican Genome Project
        
        But such genomic projects, much as they seek to empower the population, usually becomes privatised and benefits the capitalist corporations only
        
        In Mexico's case, it seems that the intention was never to have the government control the enterprise?
        
        L5 Vasquez and Garcia-Deister
        
        Argues using the Mexican Genome Project as a case study that the concept of a national genome is inherently unsustainable and ambiguous, and so it usually becomes easily inherited by private corporations for profit
        
        Beyond their strong nationalistic rhetoric, such projects can provide a boost to the country's bioeconomy too --> So, governments may deliberately craft these projects FOR private takeover (in Mexico, it was SIGMA)
        
        SIGMA's publications show deliberate attempts to avoid the concept of a 'national genome' (in the data they collected, the results they published)
        
        But, when it came to marketing medical products, they appealed very heavily to the concept of a 'Mexican genome' being at higher risk for diabetes etc.
        --> Genomics is a highly FLEXIBLE concept!
        
        Noting in particular that the concept of a national genome is an imaginary concept that:
        (1) States use to create market for their biotech companies (L5 Benjamin)
        (2) Corporations use to earn profits $$ (SIGMA)
      - L5 Benjamin
        
        Argues that these projects hold a lot of power for countries in the global South, but that these projects are fraught with difficulties in their attempts to unite different social groups in a single bio-political project (basically, nations are hardly ever racially/ethnically homogenous, and people aren't simply identified by nationality)
        
        Why these countries initiate their own project is because they have been excluded from the International HapMap project --> So they want to carve out a niche for their own ethnic drug markets!
        
        However, there are severe limitations/challenges in these projects that make it hard to properly assert a NATIONAL genome
        (1) Taxonomic mismatch: Tensions between scientific and social identities!
        (2) Systemic inequalities: It's not clear that the indigenous groups get access to the interventions produced
        (3) Diasporic populations: How to understand/characterise them? (e.g. Mexicans vs. Mexican Americans)
- - - - L6 Qureshi
        
        Argues that the formation of national parks in C19 America must be viewed in tandem with contemporary understandings of wilderness and human extinction --> To realise that humans are actually simultaneously AGENTS and SUBJECTS of environmental change
        
        Extinction discourse revolved around the fact that it was 'natural' for groups that were inferior/less civilised to die out (eg. indigenous groups)
        
        So, C19 America saw various policies implemented that asserted that removing indigenous groups was legal, and even in accordance with the wishes of God
        
        Combine with notions of wilderness, which at that time, was understood as undisturbed beauty
        
        So, this understandably led to the creation of Yellowstone, which also involved the gross mistreatment and displacement of native Indians (a model that was replicated elsewhere), and the characterisation of their practices as 'harmful' to the environment
        
        Note: When we speak of wilderness, we are trying to construct a boundary between NATURAL/ARTIFICIAL!
  - - - See L6 De Bont
        
        Argues that the rhetoric of internationalism and universalism of scientific knowledge was a useful tool employed by biologists to maintain access to the ANP in the post-colonial period
        
        But that these concepts were extensions of colonial frameworks!
  - - - Case Study: American Scientists and Tropical Biology
        
        American scientists set up an extensive network of tropical field stations in Latin America (Cuba, Jamaica etc.), and empire laid the foundation for these!
        
        Nationalist movements in the 1950s-60s concerned scientists, who worried that they would LOSE access to these valuable sites
        
        For scientists, it was about trying to maintain their ownership of these sites, and to continue imperial networks in a post-colonial world --> Which they tried to do so by emphasising the value of biodiversity!
        
        L6 Raby Ch 5
        
        Explores how American biologists tried to maintain ownership of their prized field stations in Cuba (Soledad Station) and Panama (the BCI) during the political turmoil in 1950s/60s by reframing ecology
        
        Cuba: Castro's overthrowing of the government, deteriorating US-Cuba relations --> American scientists needed to thus find NEW tropical sites. By arguing for the immense value of biodiversity, these scientists marshalled more $$ for their 'basic research', and established a new site in Coast Rica (the "model of democracy in Latin America)
        
        Panama: Amidst political turmoil and desires to take back the Panama Canal Zone, scientists had to establish the instituion's role as a BASIC research institute, disconnected from US political interests
        
        The key is to see how scientists managed to overcome political turmoil (or not) to maintain control of field stations in Neo-colonies, by appealing to the inherent value of biodiversity
        
        L6 Raby Epilogue
        
        Contemporary biodiversity discourse has its roots in the tropical biology field stations of Latin America, because these field stations generated a wealth of data to help scientist make keen observations about nature!
        
        These field stations represented the ways in which the biologists were entangled with global power politics, as US biologists had to tap on these networks to establish infrastructure.labour
        
        To consider how the assertion/attempts of these scientists constituted neocolonialist practices, or how recent conservation efforts seem to exemplify conservation imperialism (sort of like the Galapagos)
- - - - C19
        
        Data was being collected, but the means/value/utility of it was still being understood (so not a lot of uses fo exert power)
        
        However, it was able to render populations VISIBLE as it helped states categorise/group people using social boundaries/constructs
      - 1900 - 1950s
        
        A shift towards the masses for a few reasons: Factories, mobilisation for war efforts etc.
        
        Hence, data was about trying to understand how people fit into the masses
        
        Improved means of collecting/visualising data (insurance companies!)
        
        And we can see how in WWII, nation states utilised data doubles as a way to exert their political power (the Holocaust, Internment of Japanese-Americans)
      - 1970s
        
        Fundamental shift towards services industries, the increasing role of neoliberal politics
        
        Now, a new actor emerged: Companies/corporations too wanted to harness the economic value of the consumer's data (monetisation of data)!
        
        Emergence of BIG DATA and reinforcement of high modernism (we think it solves all our problems, when in reality, it reinforces discrimination/systemic biases)
  - - - EG: Whole Earth Catalogue (1968 -72)
        
        Resources for people who wished to escape mainstream work/education
        
        The rationale was to provide means for people to forge their own way, to escape the bureaucratic systems of the post-war world!
        
        Here, technology is seen as a solution and tool of liberation!
      - Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link (WELL)
        
        Basically a forum that was developed even before the Worldwide Web had been developed
        
        People paid $$ to log onto a conversation forum managed by Stewart Brand, and it focussed on user-driven conversations and content
        
        KEY: Users made money for WELL, but were not paid --> Commoditisation of user-created content! (sounds familiar?)
    - - Relation to Labour
        
        The cloud works on time-sharing technology, and it means that users of the system are customised/identified --> Creation of new time management systems in the workplace!
        
        L7 Hu CH 2
        
        Argues that the rise of time-sharing systems had both a user and economic logic to it
        
        Time-sharing systems were born out of economic imperatives (because you have more users on the same system, you divide the cost + it helps employers manage/monitor work performance)
        
        Today, the cloud is likened to be like a sewer: It is meant to help the state ensure that people keep their garbage inside and exercise self-restraint
        
        The cloud is essentially also a product of virtualisation
        
        This step has a lot of significance: (1) it enhances productivity/reduces cost because it removes the physical infrastructure needed to maintain data centre (2) promotion of neoliberal citizenry, by forcing citizens to make their own filters/walls when browsing the internet
        --> Importantly, it is this step of VIRTUALISATION that has made the cloud appear as an ethereal, invisible and limitless space!
      - L7 Hu INTRO
        
        An overview of the history of the cloud, asserting that the cloud relies heavily on Cold War infrastructures and cybernetics. Hence, one can draw continuities between Cold War concerns of sovereignty/security and also DATA sovereignty!
        
        Shows how the cloud provides ways of exercising power (for the state, using Foucault's disciplinary power), and through invisible rules/regulations (Deleuze)
        
        Explains that the cloud being represented as a diffuse, invisible space presents challenges for us to undermine the power imbalances/exploitations of citizens!
      - The Invisibility of the Cloud
        
        This is a key lens through which to understand where the 'nature' in data is
        
        The cloud, whilst invisible to us, is a physical data server/infrsateucture that generates HUGE amounts of environmental waste/damage!
        
        L8 Ensmenger
        
        Brings attention to the environmental problems that data centres create, and is worried by their apparent invisibility
        
        In terms of (1) energy use (2) water consumption (3) mining for materials to create the devices (4) e-waste/toxic chemicals
        
        The worry is that the digital economy often tricks us into thinking we are saving the environment, because the damage done is invisible to us!
        
        L8 Velkova
        
        Examines how data centres in Europe are trying to turn heat waste to heating systems, to show how the industry can commoditise its waste!
        
        When we define heat as waste, Velkova argues this means it has no value and cannot be exploited (so the commoditisation of it is not really problematic)
        
        The heat waste generated by data centres disrupts/contaminates the pure image of data centres --> When companies commodify this heat waste, they stabilise the image of data centres!
        
        Either through infrastructural convergence (Sweden) or data furnaces (France/Carnot company)
        
        When we are able to commoditise the heat waste, we generate a new commodity in the industry: that of flows of data