Cryopreserving the present? The climate crisis and the emergence of a politics of suspension

Thomas Lemke

doi:10.25167/sk.4940

##plugins.themes.libcom.datePublished##: 2022-06-30

Číslo 10 (2021)

Cryopreserving the present? The climate crisis and the emergence of a politics of suspension

Thomas Lemke

Studia Krytyczne/Critical Studies

Sekcia: Varia

https://doi.org/10.25167/sk.4940

Abstrakt

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.

##plugins.themes.libcom.download_files##

pdf (English)

##plugins.themes.libcom.cit_rules##

Lemke, T. (2022). Cryopreserving the present? The climate crisis and the emergence of a politics of suspension. Studia Krytyczne/Critical Studies, (10), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.25167/sk.4940

##plugins.themes.libcom.share##

##submission.citations##

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