However, it seems uncertain—if not highly doubtful—that all those with an in-ﬂuence on the future, especially those with fossil fuel interests, will ﬁrstly comprehend projected time, then feel inclined to adopt it, and on top of that, coordinate with everyone else in a way that ultimately works to their detriment. Realizing this could prove to be demotivating. The Deleuzian alternative, however, is suited to a situation where the future must be fought for against resisting forces that possess far more power over fate than we have. In other words, while Dupuy’s model can compel some people to regard the problem with the seriousness that its catastrophic nature warrants, it may not help to empower and inspire them to ﬁght against the forces that are resisting the needed changes.
Here is where the Deleuzian model seems preferable: it reminds underdog parties that power is widely distributed and in ﬂux, with the future remaining ever undecidable, and that furthermore, by injecting disruption in the right ways and into the proper zones, itmay proliferate widely enough to make the seemingly insurmountable hold that fossilfuel interests have on the future become more undecidable. Such an effort would seek toproduce a cataclysm n to fossil fuel powers so that a far worse climate catastrophe willnot transpire later. Perhaps with this prospect of diabolical diagramming’s potencies in mind, we might become motivated to take such needed actions.
Foto: Sylvia John