The Semioethics Interviews III 173MT: But surely it relates to the Earth‘s relationship to the Sun. Mediated by the
atmosphere – where the biosphere has played a role in maintaining the
atmosphere.
JD: In a certain sense, we have no choice but to do something about this. What
exactly we should do... (pauses) is not so easy to say. But we need science.
We cannot get anywhere without science any more.
MT: You mention industry here, as part of the root of the problem. What kind of
thoughts do you have, in broad strokes, about the impact – the consequences
- of industrialization? Including its desirability, at a global scale?
JD: Up until this time, we were concerned with making products that we wanted,
things that we could use. We really did not give much thought to the
consequences of the processes used to get those products. And that is what
the enormous extent of pollution has been caused by – not realizing the
consequences of the processes we were using to produce things. The
semioethic aspect of it is really from semiotics, and amounts to a change in
the understanding of human beings highlighting processes of semiosis.
Every species has some processes of semiosis that is unique to itself – that
are species-specific. And what we have concentrated on – aspects of
semiosis that are unique to human beings – we have always looked upon
them as making us superior to, and independent of, nature. But what we
have come to realize is that they actually tie us in with nature.
MT: All of them?
JD: Yes, all of them. The cultural world is no more opposed to nature than the
spider web is opposed to nature. Culture is simply nature for a human being.
We a re tied in with the whole. And this we are being forced to realize
through this whole climate destabilization experience as well. What
semiotics provides is an understanding of the human being that fits with this
picture. Does that make sense?
MT: You make sense, but the picture you paint is a timeless one. When you say
that processes of semiosis ties us to nature, it seems like you are saying this
in a very fundamental way. The circumstances of your argument, it appears,
would be no different today than a hundred years ago. On what points can
you say: These semiosic processes in and of culture have changed as part of
an industrial system during the last hundred years?
JD: The main difference, it occurs to me, is that up until this point we have
concentrated primarily on things that we wanted to produce. The processes
by which we produce them, and their effect on the environment – the
ecosystem, the biosphere – we just never gave much thought to it. We are
being forced to become aware that we cannot just produce things, we have to
become aware of the processes by which we produce them just as much as
the products.
MT: There is clearly an emerging awareness about the process of production and
how it relates to the environment. But some fundamental assumptions, like
the goal of sustainable economic growth – in effect sustained economic
growth, meaning that it can go on steadily year after year – remain
fundamental premises for our kind of society. These are not really being