Rewording for myself: Mutu's and Butler's works do offer an alternative to environmental ethics in the form of "vital material ethics" (emphasizing the importance of all things? or just living things? kinda unclear to me), however the works are entirely centered around the difficulties that come up with this alternative. Hierarchies are still existent, even if in different forms.

Reminding me of Haraway! An emphasis on connections with and to The World and all it may contain (including people of course) that is not interwoven with all this stuff that had a hand in us getting us into trouble in the first place.

And she is right- these roles do not serve anyone now, and definitely will not if the world comes undone. So interesting to read her logical internal monologue against the backdrop of this world she lives- in which rape is such a prevalent danger and women are not always told they should learn to protect themselves as well as form themselves as individuals (rather than as connected to men: husbands, fathers, etc.). I did not think about this so hard when I was reading it but having my attention on it now makes me realize how much this juxtaposition emphasizes Lauren as a leader and individual.

This makes sense to me- like in the Ghosh reading when he talked about his personal experiences with climate change and how it has affected him and his family. Also reminiscent of that part in the Nixon reading where he talks about "environmental justice movements that have pushed back against an antihuman environmentalism that too often sought ... to impose green agendas dominated by rich nations and Western NGOs," (Slow Violence 2358)

Is Frazier saying that Mutu and Butler are able to focus black female subjectivity due to the fact that their work is not tied down by real places in real time (ex. USA right now)? idk what she means by "resistive notions of ecological relationality" though?

Interesting- to connect to Iton's quote above (and Chantal's comment on it) - Parable of the Sower is totally challenging (or at least forcing readers to think about) diaspora. When we think about the characters in it, they all come from what once was the USA, specifically California, but are traveling away from that area. The US is hardly recognizable in the novel anyway, I think they are also moving away from the concept of what it once was too. But anyway this group of people that were once a part of these specific places have moved past that to build their own community. "A unifying force rather than an isolating one."

Rather than focusing on Mutu's & Butler's differences and how those have informed their work, Frazier is going to focus on the ways in which their work is similar, similar subjects, similar themes etc.

Kind of reminding me of standpoint theory- the idea one's experiences and perspectives shape how they view the world. Frazier seems to be analyzing how Mutu's and Butler's "standpoint" inform their work and what the implications are in the central themes and messages of their work.

Interesting! I like that the author is pulling in two different art forms as a part of her argument, rather than analyzing only visual art or only literary work.

Yikes! Reminds me of how in the book someone (Bankole maybe?) does bring up this point of how religions are bound to be changed and morphed despite the founder's wishes. She pushes back on this by saying at least while she's alive it won't... just goes to show that he was absolutely right. Makes you wonder what you can safely believe in- what is worth investing your future in if ideas can be poisoned and morphed by those who are selfish.

While yes, this is ultimately what Lauren sees as the end goal and does play a heavy role in the Earthseed religion (and the book's general plot & worldbuilding), I think it is worth noting that Earthseed is also so much more than that! It is about adaptability and change, willingness to change. The need to focus energy and efforts toward action and community. This is what primarily stood out to me from the Earthseed religion, not the colonization of the stars necesarily.

Woah! Did not even occur to me! Very true though- what do those pushing for "Anthropocene" title suppose comes next?

Interesting- I don't really remember Haraway's "Chthulucene" title in this way. I thought it was more about the interconnected nature of us and our world, how we are our world, etc. It (as I understood it) was not solely critical of capitalism like the name Capitalocene is- but instead more all encompassing. Could contain good and bad- could be neutral, which is why the phrase "monstrosity on an unthinkably large scale" is throwing me off.

Perhaps this is the root of the problem with the "spatial separation" that confused me in the paragraph above?

Not very clear on what this means- it is reminding me of readings we have done that criticize naming this recent era the Anthropocene... this looks to me to be a continuation of that argument maybe? Is Canavan arguing it would be better for us to focus on "spatial separation"? Is the criticism of this thinking that it is so easy to imagine a distant future where humans are nearly eradicated, or have regressed?

Directly connected to much of what we have read so far. Ghosh touches on this by delving into these questions of why we are unable to perceive climate change as a real and imminent threat. Parable of the Sower also deals with this question- Lauren working through what it takes to make a better and more connected society and then creating that for herself and others.

More of a side note observation- I'm really appreciating how these reading are intersecting climate change issues (and the political, scientific, and social issues that go along with it) in more creative ways, like here with the word play. It shows passion and care. It doesn't read as much like a boring academic paper as it does the writing of someone who is really invested in the topic. There is a particular level of care in making something eloquent and important also digestible.

Interesting to me because what is the plan? I feel like people always talk about the "future" and what it holds in terms of societal growth and technology, yet simultaneously leave out this big piece about resources.