Agency and Action

I find it quite interesting that the piece begins with what would seem much more lika an ending. Latour opens with such drastic details as to truely awaken the reader to the situation we have created for the world we all take part in inhabiting. I really find it inticing that Latour objects to our objective ability to observe and study the world. This notion is greatly related too our arguements of whether or not we can ever really distinguish ourselves from the environment. We say that our experiences are a part of us because they make us who we are. The environment plays a large role in our development and identity, so why do we even try to say that it is an external entity? The reference to the prophetic theory of Galileo is greatly relateable except for the new revealtion has much more drastic consequences. The ultimate aftermath of our actions, or inaction, will not be able to be written in a book or told to others as a lesson. As Latour writes of different barriers being broken, I cannot help but think of the different extinctions brought up by Kolbert. Are all these different abandonments of life not just foreshadowing more death and barren land? I do agree that action must be taken now to provide for the future, but I also would say that a contract, as suggested by Serre, is too formal. A contract is with two parties, and thinking the environment a party outside of ourselves is the whole problem. The idea of agency is a strong one because it makes the question not what to do but who to do it. Is it our job to try to manipulate the world back to what we think it should be or allow the world to mold us to better live in harmony with the environment? I think that Latour would agree that it there is indeed an abundant morphological process in sue for our world. The ultimate outcome will be decided by the agency that enacts the great change.