Krioprezerwacja teraźniejszości? Kryzys klimatyczny i powstanie polityki zawieszenia
Thomas Lemke
Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am MainAbstrakt
Scholars analyzing contemporary technologies of freezing have recently argued that “cryopolitics” represents an important extension of the classical concept of biopolitics as it operates by the principle to “make live and not let die” (Friedrich 2017; Radin and Kowal 2017). It extends temporal horizons by suspending metabolic processes and establishing a “state of a potentially reversible death” (Neumann 2006). This article advances this theoretical proposition further by exploring the dimensions of a “politics of suspension” in the light of the climate crisis. It discusses the infrastructural role of cryopreservation and cryobanking technologies in addressing biodiversity loss and the vital challenges of the Anthropocene. These technologies promise to keep future options open by reversing past extinctions in order to address the existential threats of the present. Following this imagination, de-extinction scientists and biologists dream of restoring ancient ecosystems and resurrecting extinct species as a way of responding to the climate crisis. However, this politics of suspension might also contribute to tendencies to preserve the status quo by putting on hold the political and social transformations needed to effectively respond to the climate crisis.
Słowa kluczowe:
biopolitics, cryopolitics, “politics of suspension”, biodiversity, de-extinctionBibliografia
Breithoff, Esther and Rodney Harrison. 2018. “From ark to bank: Extinction, proxies
Google Scholar
and biocapital in ex-situ biodiversity conservation practices.” International Journal
Google Scholar
of Heritage Studies 26(2): 1–19
Google Scholar
Clarke, Adele. 2009: “The Frozen Ark Project: The role of zoos and aquariums in preserving
Google Scholar
the genetic material of threatened animals.” International Zoo Yearbook 43(1):
Google Scholar
–230.
Google Scholar
Chrulew, Matthew. 2011. “Managing love and death at the zoo: The biopolitics of endangered
Google Scholar
species preservation.” Australian Humanities Review 50: 137–157.
Google Scholar
Chrulew, Matthew. 2017. “Freezing the ark: The cryopolitics of endangered species preservation.”
Google Scholar
In Cryopolitics: Frozen life in a melting world, edited by Joanna Radin and
Google Scholar
Emma Kowal, 283–306. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Google Scholar
Church, George M. and Ed Regis. 2012. Regenesis: How Synthetic Biology Will Reinvent
Google Scholar
Nature and Ourselves. New York: Basic Books.
Google Scholar
Cohen, Lawrence. 2005. “Operability, bioavailability, and exception.” In Global assemblages:
Google Scholar
Technology, politics, and ethics as anthropological problems, edited by Aihwa
Google Scholar
Ong and Stephen J. Collier, pp. 79–90. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Google Scholar
Comizzoli, Pierre. 2017. “Biobanking and fertility preservation for rare and endangered species.” Animal Reproduction 14: 30–33.
Google Scholar
Corley-Smith, Graham E. and Bruce P. Brandhorst. 1999. “Preservation of endangered species and populations: A role for genome banking, domatic cell cloning, and androgenesis?”
Google Scholar
Molecular Reproduction and Development 53(3): 363–367.
Google Scholar
Fletcher, Amy L. 2014. Mendel’s ark: Biotechnology and the future of extinction. New York: Springer.
Google Scholar
Folkers, Andreas. 2019. “Freezing time, Ppreparing for the future: The stockpile as a temporal matter of security.” Security Dialogue 50(6): 493–511.
Google Scholar
Friedrich, Alexander. 2020. “A cold yield: Cryopreserved oocytes of ‘social freezing’ customers as potential option values for biomedical research.” New Genetics and Society 39(3): 327–351.
Google Scholar
Friedrich, Alexander and Christoph Hubig. 2018. “Kryosphäre: Künstliche Kälte im
Google Scholar
Dispositiv der Biomacht.” In Technik–Macht–Räume, edited by Andreas Brenneis,
Google Scholar
Oliver Honer, Sina Keesser, Annette Ripper and Silke Vetter-Schultheiß, 159–184.
Google Scholar
Wiesbaden: Springer.
Google Scholar
Friese, Carrie. 2009. “Models of cloning, models for the zoo: Rethinking the sociological significance of cloned animals.” Biosocieties 4(4): 367–390.
Google Scholar
Friese, Carrie. 2013. Cloning wildlife: Zoos, captivity, and the future of endangered snimals. New York: New York University Press.
Google Scholar
Gehring, Petra. 2007. “Evolution, Temporalisierung und Gegenwart revisited. Spielräume in Luhmanns Zeittheorie.” Soziale Systeme 13(1+2): 421–31.
Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 2016. Staying with the trouble. Durham–London: Duke UniversityPress.
Google Scholar
Herridge, Victoria. 2021. “Before making a mammoth, ask the public.” Nature 598: 387.
Google Scholar
Kaiser, Mario. 2015. “Reactions to the future: The chronopolitics of prevention and preemption.” Nanoethics 9: 165–177.
Google Scholar
