on Oxana Timofeeva’s
“Energy and Extraction: A Philosophical Approach”

Kosmos Lecture given on January 30, 2025,
at the Humboldt University in Berlin

Not being familiar with Prof. Dr. Oxana Timofeeva’s work, I was not sure what to expect in attending this presentation. Yet I ended up being so deeply moved, in an unexpected and very surprising way, that I am still talking and writing about it…

At first, the lecture was a bit slow, and I was relieved. Having taken a quick peek at her writing the day before, I was afraid the lecture might be a bit overwhelming —  as we say in English, “like trying to drink from a firehose”. But no, she started by laying out the context, in a very measured and deliberate way…

Maentioning the different ways in which energy is being studied, from economic to ecological to technological to political / socio-political to cultural perspectives, 

and the different kinds of energy available, from fossil-fuels to renewables to nuclear to thermonuclear, along with the disadvantages of each…

as well as, the kinds of conversations about energy that are happening in each realm, among decision-makers and policymakers, climate activists, and scholars.

With regard to sciences, Timofeeva mentioned the realms of climate science and geoengineering, as well as the social sciences – anthropology, sociology, human geography, political economy – and then offered a brief overview of some notable recent work in the energy humanities, including environmental history, cultural studies, arts and literature, and philosophy. Given that many of these works explore the shadow sides of the “energy transition”, she posed the philosophical question of “what do renewables really renew?”

Then, delving into the history of energy within the realm of physics and metaphysics, Timofeeva introduced Katushika Hokusai’s powerful painting of “Phoenix Glaring In All Directions”. Some of the associations she pointed out included Hegel’s philosophy of Nature, where the purpose of death is entering the realm of Spirit, as well as the ancient philosophical view that all things are made of fire, and that fire transmutes matter into spirit. How might these perspectives inform our present circumstances, where Nature is the “unwilling host to our current parasitic economic systems”? And what is it, that we think might be reborn from this conflagration?

Another powerful image Timofeeva introduced was Rubens’ painting “Prometheus Bound”. Here Prometheous is being punished for stealing fire from the Gods, by having his liver eaten by birds of prey every day, and then regenerating it every night — an eternal cycle of torture. The Sun, seen as the supreme Deity by many cultures around the world, is the fiery source of the “solar radiation that is the ultimate source of all life.” Yet today our technocratic culture seeks to “master the Sun, instead of celebrating its mastery”; thus we might see the ongoing technological search for viable thermonuclear energy on Earth, as a desire to capture the Sun — the one existing thermonuclear reactor to date, that is in close proximity to us — “to have the Sun in our pocket, at our full disposal”.  

The third indelible image from Timofeeva’s presentation is that of a “cage around the Sun”, similar to a Dyson Sphere, designed to capture more amounts of solar radiation. Along this vein, she made reference to the scientific proposals to ‘capture’ other planets, to use their resources in the insatiable search for ever-increasing sources of energy, in the never-ending dream of “always having more”. Those are my words; her more poetic phrasing was the “bad infinity” of ever-expanding colonial extraction: “New horizons ahead, new debris behind….”

Clearly, we can’t extract our way out of an extractivist mindset… and many of us have been realizing how much “renewable energy” depends on extraction. So, what is the alternative? Timofeeva did not offer any “solutions”; I believe she even said that the role of philosophy is not to offer solutions. What I saw her doing instead, is helping us humans to see ourselves and our human predicament more clearly. Paradoxically, despite all the bleakness that can be part of seeing things more clearly, this left me feeling more hopeful.

Questions that remained…

I was glad to have an opportunity to ask a question at the end of the lecture. I wondered about the role of human energy… not fossil fuels nor “renewable energy”, not nuclear or thermonuclear, it seems to be its own distinct category. Of course, we depend on plants and sunlight to stay alive, so we too, derive our energy from the Sun…

Clearly within the structures of capitalism, much of our human energy is captured and exploited, to be converted into ever more capital… and yet, there is still the question of what we might do, with whatever energy we do have…

At the same time, as humans we do not just spring forth, full-grown… but instead there is all the energy of care, that goes into nurturing the development of a full-grown human. I have friends and colleagues who are working with the concept of maternal, gift-giving economies, and so I was curious as to how Prof. Dr. Oxana Timofeeva, might comment on these themes.

In response, Timofeeva offered, “there is something of the Sun in us… not only exploited & self-exploiting, but also an explosive companion, which can extend solidarity to others…” She also mentioned that the Soul is the topic of her next book, and that Soul is also energy…

In closing, she offered a quote from Georges Bataille on humans’ ongoing “striving toward more generous, glorious ways of being” – alongside her concern that in our restrictive capitalist economies, these gifting models remain limited; one cannot remain a giver for long, “when the system is more favorable to those who take.”

Post-lecture reflections

Part of my enthusiasm in response to Timofeeva’s work may be connected to the possibilities that are generated, whenever science begins to discover its own limits… Analogous to how our growing awareness of the pervasiveness of “motivated reasoning”, may possibly help transform the pervasive metaphorical structuring of “argument as battle” (Lakoff and Johnson), the images we see in the mirror that Timofeeva is offering us, might illuminate the inherent fallacy of attempting to “extract our way out of extractivism”.

In both cases, the ways to move forward (in contrast to the “solutions” themselves) might be interestingly similar. In “The Righteous Mind”, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt writes that:

We should not expect individuals to produce good, open-minded, truth-seeking reasoning, particularly when self-interest or reputational concerns are in play. But if you put individuals together in the right way, such that some individuals can use their reasoning powers to disconfirm the claims of others, and all individuals feel some common bond or shared fate that allows them to interact civilly, you can create a group that ends up producing good reasoning as an emergent property of the social system.” [emphasis added]

He continues as follows:

This is why it’s so important to have intellectual and ideological diversity within any group or institution whose goal is to find truth (such as an intelligence agency or a community of scientists) or to produce good public policy (such as a legislature or advisory board).”

While I don’t know ahead of time what the answers may be in any given situation, with regard to transforming the madhouse in which we are currently trapped (or is that Plato’s cave in which we are lost?) I am still reasonably confident about how we can find some useful ways forward. And that is, by bringing together small groups with real intellectual and ideological diversity, into situations where participants can feel some “common bond” or “shared fate”.  In some contexts, this work falls under the rubric of “deliberative minipublics” and “democractic innovations”; in others, this work takes place under the larger framework of “transdisciplinary research”, such as the research that is conducted here at the RIFS Institute for Sustainability, in Potsdam, Germany, where I am very grateful to be a Senior Fellow at present.

Of course, neither deliberative minipublics nor transdisciplinary research are a panacea, though they may sometimes be presented as such. We are continuously learning more in this area, about the strengths and limitations of this work. I also want to acknowledge my own biases in this regard; as an applied behavioral scientist and researcher of group facilitation, I am intimately familiar with the kinds of contexts that tend to draw out the best in humans, as well as, the impressive work that humans are able to accomplish in these supportive circumstances that typically include some form of skilled facilitation.

Yet while we have abundant instances of “proof of concept”, we don’t fully know what the possibilities might be for larger societal change, arising from extending significant energy and effort in this direction — and we won’t know, unless and until we attempt to do so. Yet we do know that a powerful creative tension is generated, whenever a diverse group has the support to hold both the clarity of the present circumstances, along with a jointly-generated shared vision of “the more beautiful world that our hearts know is possible.”

image from the Wise Democracy Pattern Language — used with permission.
https://www.wd-pl.com/patterns/pattern-list-v2/45-holistic-leadership-and-governance-dynamics-v2/

We also know that as humans, we are much better able to handle the cognitive load of facing difficult circumstances, when we feel ourselves to be a part of a supportive community; researchers who study this call it “human co-regulation”.

In addition, we know from experience whatever particular next steps are needed in a given situation, tend to become much clearer in settings where each person is being heard with care and respect. And furthermore, regardless of the degree to which we are ultimately able to manifest our shared vision, we know that participating in this kind of shared journey generates a deep sense of meaning.

Last but not least, some of our spiritual traditions tell us, that while we are not be obliged to finish the journey, we are indeed obliged to start it… in this case, I see the journey as exploring the transformative potential of highly diverse groups in supportive settings, to explore difficult challenges, bridge significant differences, and create meaningful shared ways forward

So here’s to, listening deeply through the nightmare visions of “bad infinities”, to collaborative ways of breaking the spells of helplessness and hopelessness engendered by hubris gone mad. The subtle energies of our souls can be just as real and powerful and life-giving as the energy of the Sun; may we keep ourselves nourished in both body and soul with the dance of mutuality, the generosity of giving-and-receiving that sustains all Life.  

Would love to hear any thoughts you might have in response…

Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics and Religion. New York: Vintage Books. p. 105

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.