Personally, I had a hard time trying to understand Haraway’s conclusion of “Making KIn.” I think in this text there are a lot of broad connections being made, but it’s being done on purpose as if to show that these connections aren’t all that broad after all. The most obvious example is that of the Anthropocene, Capitlocene, plantationocene being connect to what she refers to as the “Chthulucene.” She also connects bacteria, and symbiotic life to anthropocenic habits, as well as the disconnect of human, nature, and technology, cheap nature, genocides, system collapse, post-humanism all to the anthropocene. Her quick listing of the many things that are actively changing the earth in order to connect them back to the term “Anthropocene” strengthened her point, and my confusion, of the very not obvious critique of the vague umbrella term of the anthropocene. I think shes trying to argue against stuffing the issues of climate change under the “human era,” hence the overwhelming dump of different thing that effect the climate, down to the bacteria within our bodies that we need to survive.
”Recursion can be a drag,” all these things are just feeding into the next. What good is a broad umbrella term like the human era, or “anthropocene” going to do about it. Haraway draws all of these connections that I, again, found confusing. But with some further reading, all these “broad” connections serve purpose, being that they’re not so broad but are being treated as such. Hence, her aiming at humanists that just believe the earth and it’s resources are at it’s complete and total disposale. She challenges the anthropocene, as opposed to being “broad” which is how I see it, as being a blip. A blip in that, it’s ridiculous to believe that humans will destory the Earth to the point of return. But humans, as a blip, will only destroy their Earth to the point of THEIR own destruction, and the Earth will just regenerate itself.
The concept of the human being a blip, is not meant to encourage accelerationism, but is rather connected back to what Haraway calls the “Chthulucene.” I understood the Chthulucene as, not a return to not knowing or understanding, but integrating the aspect of not knowing certain things, not looking to have control but instead knowing how to react, behave and plan. Also explaining her self-identification as a “compostist” as oppsed to a post-humanist, utilizing what humans already have and know. Lastly, allowing me to connect back to making kin, not babies. Connecting with what we already have, “We need to make kin sym-chthonically, sym-poetically,” using what we already have in order to create a new symbiotic relationship with nature.
That’s sort of how I undertood this piece by Haraway. Overall, I found it quite strange. Mostly because of the different ecological words that took a while for me to registeras english rather than gibberish, but also because, to be quite frank, the slogan to “Make kins, not babies” is ridiculous to me. Which is why I still feel like i’m missing something. I find it to be a larger version of individualism? Like collectivism, but not on the actual collective that I understand to be the actual perpetrators of climate change. Corporations, big businesses, produce companies, bomb-droppers, building-burners for the purpose of insurance etc. So is it an issue of population? Maybe, but why are so many people unable to have control of when they want to have babies? Also, what about people that have babies born for a few minutes beforoe they die because of post-environmental effects. This reading was very unsatisfying for me, but interesting and still important to read.