“The planet’s fate is already sealed…”

“Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous seven degrees by the end of this century.

“A rise of seven degrees Fahrenheit, or about four degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.

“But the administration did not offer this dire forecast, premised on the idea that the world will fail to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite:

The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.

“The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket.


“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it,” said Michael MacCracken, who served as a senior scientist at the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002.

“The document projects that global temperature will rise by nearly 3.5 degrees Celsius above the average temperature between 1986 and 2005 regardless of whether Obama-era tailpipe standards take effect or are frozen for six years, as the Trump administration has proposed. The global average temperature rose more than 0.5 degrees Celsius between 1880, the start of industrialization, and 1986, so the analysis assumes a roughly four degree Celsius or seven degree Fahrenheit increase from preindustrial levels.

“The world would have to make deep cuts in carbon emissions to avoid this drastic warming, the analysis states. And that “would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible.”

“The White House did not respond to requests for comment.”

Text: Trump administration sees a 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100, Washington Post.

Pic: Surface of Venus.


“Bots, trolls/sock puppets, political activists…”

“Political discourse on social media is seen by many as polarized, vitriolic and permeated by falsehoods and misinformation. Political operators have exploited all of these aspects of the discourse for strategic purposes, most famously during the Russian social media influence campaign during the 2016 Presidential election in the United States and current, similar efforts targeting the U.S. elections in 2018 and 2020. The results of the social media study presented in this paper presents evidence that political influence through manipulation of social media discussions is no longer exclusive to political debate but can now also be found in pop culture. Specifically, this study examines a collection of tweets relating to a much-publicized fan dispute over the Star Wars franchise film Episode VIII: The Last Jedi.


“The study finds evidence of deliberate, organized political influence measures disguised as fan arguments. The likely objective of these measures is increasing media coverage of the fandom conflict, thereby adding to and further propagating a narrative of widespread discord and dysfunction in American society. Persuading voters of this narrative remains a strategic goal for the U.S. alt-right movement, as well as the Russian Federation. The results of the study show that among those who address The Last Jedi director Rian Johnson directly on Twitter to express their dissatisfaction, more than half are bots, trolls/sock puppets or political activists using the debate to propagate political messages supporting extreme right-wing causes and the discrimination of gender, race or sexuality. A number of these users appear to be Russian trolls. The paper concludes that while it is only a minority of Twitter accounts that tweet negatively about The Last Jedi, organized attempts at politicizing the pop culture discourse on social media for strategic purposes are significant enough that users should be made aware of these measures, so they can act accordingly.”

Text: Morten Bay, Weaponizing the haters: The Last Jedi and the strategic politicization of pop culture through social media manipulation. Research Gate,

Image: Vitaly Komar and Alexander Melamid, The Origins of Socialist Realism, from the series Nostalgic Socialist Realism, 1982–3

Simon Sellars’ Applied Ballardianism: “When you have to shoot, shoot. Don’t talk.”

Simon Sellars‘ Applied Ballardianism is part cultural theory, part fictional memoir, its narrator “fleeing the excesses of ’90s cyberculture” a young researcher setting out to “…systematically analyse the obsessively reiterated themes of a writer who prophesied the disorienting future we now inhabit.” Andrew Frost interviews Sellars on the emergence of a brand new genre, the writing of the book, and the possibility of escape…

Photo: Simon Sellars, on Instagram

Andrew Frost: I saw a tweet recently that posted a four-page reading list of ‘theory fiction’. The list starts with Lucretius’s On the Nature of the Universe (52 BC) and then includes in publication order authors such as Blake, Bataille, Kafka, Adorno, Beckett – and Ballard’s Atrocity Exhibition – then Virilio, Dick and Haraway, eventually ending with Simon Sellars’ Applied Ballardianism. This was only the second time I’d heard of this genre, the first being when you mentioned it on Facebook. What do you make of this notion of your book belonging to what might be a brand-new genre, albeit one with deep roots?

Simon Sellars: That list is an interesting exercise, but I don’t feel a part of any genre. Most people see Applied Ballardianism as a hybrid work in that it combines theoretical elements with a fictional format, but even that’s not quite accurate. The subtitle is ‘Memoir from a Parallel Universe’ and I do see it as the story of my life at a certain moment in time, when I’d returned to my PhD on Ballard after a ten-year absence and was struggling to complete it. The apocalyptic and science fictional elements have a basis in reality – they’re psychologically true to my imagination and the way I viewed the world during that time. And the theoretical elements bubble to the surface, no matter how nonsensical, as the protagonist, my alter ego, tries to make sense of his life as a failed academic and stalker of the object of his desire: J.G. Ballard.

If people claim theory-fiction as a genre of the moment, then perhaps that’s because everyone is so bored with critical theory now. Theory has failed to make sense of a world that has become so extreme and chaotic at every turn. But we retain the primal urge to make order from chaos, to root seismic cultural changes in a comforting theoretical framework. Maybe that’s why theory has become unstable, frayed at the edges, spliced with other forms.

AF: Yeah, a kind of theory-fiction has been emergent since at least the 1990s, and the ‘science fiction of theory’ posited by some writers and academics, predominantly in the UK had some traction. It seems that at some level you’re engaging with the possibility of what that can do in terms of a kind of ficto-criticism. How do you feel being in this august company? Do you feel an affinity or connection with those writers beyond Ballard?

SS: The connections I feel are with French theorists such as Baudrillard and Virilio, who consistently wrote beautifully calibrated theory that blurred around the edges into something approaching science fiction, but to say I feel ‘connected’ to them seems arrogant. Virilio, the true Prophet of the Techno-Apocalypse, is a towering presence for me, and I think that with his death and a revisiting of his work, it’s becoming apparent how much he predicted the volatile nature of 21st-century life. Actually, Baudrillard and Virilio are the presiding deities of my book, aside from Ballard of course. I cite them extensively in Applied Ballardianism and I also have my protagonist try to emulate their style, although he speaks for me when he says: ‘I thought I’d be able to effortlessly produce a startling hybrid of theory-fiction, like Baudrillard and Virilio, but I simply wasn’t talented enough in either theory or fiction. All that emerged was torturous, meaningless phraseology crudely shoehorned into an incoherent framework.’ I simply don’t know the worth of my book at this point, and whether it should be spoken about in that sort of company. Probably in terms of a general trend, then yes, I suppose so – I seem to have tapped into a current, a formal revolution in what we understand as ‘theory’.

AF: I was wondering if you could talk about the genesis of this novel. You’ve written a few non-fiction books and co-edited the Ballard interviews collection, Extreme Metaphors, but did this book start out as non-fiction? What was the motivation?

SS: The original motivation was to have my PhD on Ballard published. Mark Fisher asked me to adapt my thesis for Zero Books in 2009. Back then, the project was called Applied Ballardianism: The Philosophy of J.G. Ballard. It was intended to be a reasonably straight translation of the thesis into book form but written in the style of the posts I’d been doing for Ballardian.com, a more conversational, literary tone. But re-reading my thesis, I realised I’d used all the worst clichés of academic-speak, like prefacing an argument with ‘I want to argue that…’. So many academics use this ludicrous phrase, which just reeks of mealy-mouthed fence sitting.

I always think of Tuco in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly when he’s ambushed by a man who talks so much he doesn’t realise Tuco has whipped his gun out. Tuco kills him, then gives the corpse some excellent advice: ‘When you have to shoot, shoot. Don’t talk.’ Likewise, with academics: when you have to argue, argue. Don’t blather on.

So, having to re-engage with this drivel and interpret it for a new audience was doing my head in. Also, in terms of my career, I couldn’t see the point. I was working as a sessional tutor and knew I had to get my PhD published to have any chance at career progression, but it began to seem all so remote, with or without a published book. My research topic, ‘nodes of resistance’ in Ballard, was too niche, too pretentious. Because I was so enervated, it took me three years to write the first chapter and by then the Zero contract had expired.

At that point, I was still hopelessly trapped in the sweatshop hell of sessional teaching, and that’s when the book began to take on the form of an insane alternative version of myself attempting to write a thesis on Ballard. It wasn’t a conscious decision to go down that path. Even though I’d lost the contract, I was still possessed by the idea of writing this book, so I just sat down at the computer most nights and that’s how it emerged.

AF: The book is written in the first person and I assumed that most, if not all of it, was at least partly based in part on your own experiences. But as I understand it, that’s not necessarily the case. Could you talk about the process of fictionalising your ideas, or creating a narrative, around certain Ballardian themes?

SS: You asked about theory-fiction, but I see my book as more in line with auto-fiction, because I think it’s hilarious when people assume that memoirs and autobiographies are telling the unvarnished truth about a person’s life. It’s impossible. The writer’s memory will always be contaminated by conscious and subconscious bias, a key theme in my book. So, when Applied Ballardianism slips into some of the more outlandish incidents, most of the time it’s a true reflection of how I remember a key detail of my life occurring, even if the reality diverges from the memory in a minor or major way.

There are also parallels with the way Ballard fictionalised his life story in Empire of the Sun, based on his childhood in wartime Shanghai, and its sequel The Kindness of Women, drawing on his adult life in England. In my book, there is a section that explores this process. The narrator appropriates Baudrillard’s ideas about the symbolic role of the clone in technological societies, and how perfect reproductions of the self become the ideal fetish object in the society of simulation. As the narrator argues, Ballard generated many versions of himself in his fiction, many ‘clones’, all based on his life story, rendering all attempts at explaining his work pointless because there is no single source of truth.

In fact, Ballard’s fictionalised life stories have become so entrenched in the way the public sees him that when real details of his life emerge, no one pays any attention. The fiction has invaded reality, emptied it out and replaced it with a parallel universe. In Applied Ballardianism, the narrator thinks this technique prophesies social media, where retouched versions of ourselves make up our multiple online personas.

The narrator is also fixated on something Ballard once said about Crash, his most extreme and shocking work. He said that Crash was his real autobiography, not Empire, the obvious candidate, or even his official autobiography, Miracles of Life. Ballard said Crash was true to his inner life, to the psychological turmoil he was working through after his wife died unexpectedly. When my narrator grapples with this, he’s indirectly telling the reader: that’s how Applied Ballardianism functions. He’s saying that this device is a comment on the fact that there is no authentic self in the age of spontaneous self-reproduction. And he’s saying that the book is precisely what it claims to be in the subtitle: a memoir from a parallel universe, a work rooted in my imaginative inner life, including extended periods of black depression induced by academia and my fading career, which in their overwhelming realness became my only true reality in a world of fake realities.

AF: Your book has a remarkably controlled sense of what constitutes the ‘Ballardian’ text: certain words, phrases and images are reminiscent of Ballard, but without becoming what might be termed ‘Ballard fan fiction’.

SS: There’s a passage in the book where the narrator dissects the cliched imagery that many people associate with Ballard: motorway overpasses, drained swimming pools, abandoned airfields and so on. With that, I was signalling that I was fully aware of how hard it is to ape his style without degenerating into platitudes, so I wasn’t even going to try. After all, the book is not about the protagonist wanted to mimic Ballard, but about being consumed by him. There’s a difference.

In The Atrocity Exhibition, Ballard has the central character enter a landscape described exactly like Dali’s The Persistence of Memory, with its melted clocks, weird facial imagery and bleak desert environment. He does this to suggest that the character’s inner turmoil has been projected onto the landscape and that he has lost all sense of reality because he is literally living inside his head – broadly speaking, the themes of Dali’s painting. In Applied Ballardianism, I’ve done the same. I’ve made my protagonist live inside a world described like Ballard’s fiction – like the cliched public perception of it – to show that he has lost all touch with reality, and that his obsession with stalking Ballard, with stalking the meaning of Ballard’s work, have been overlaid onto the physical landscape.

 AF: What was the editing process like, either as you wrote it, or later?

SS: The editing process was intense. In between the loss of my Zero contract and Urbanomic coming to the rescue, I simply wrote and rewrote, over and over, until the blend of theory and fiction felt organic. It was incredibly hard to pull off something so technically difficult. I was repurposing phrases, sentences, sometimes whole paragraphs from the earliest drafts of my PhD, over 20 years old. I felt it was important to have the first attempts at my thesis survive as an echo in the book, given that the book originally started life as a translation of my thesis, but I found that it’s really hard to combine writing from decades ago with the way one writes now, let alone concoct a seamless blend of theory and fiction. It never felt quite right until I’d done at least ten drafts. When Robin Mackay from Urbanomic came along, that’s when the book really took off. Robin is a great editor and was alive to when I hadn’t pushed myself far enough and had become lazy or didn’t trust the audience to fill in the gaps. I enjoyed the collaborative process of working on the book with Robin, although in the end I couldn’t let it go. At the end, I’d become reduced to removing commas and then putting them back in, which I imagine drove him crazy.

I couldn’t let the book out into the world because writing it had become my identity. I first announced it on Twitter in 2009 and had loads of queries from people asking when it would be published. Every few years or so I would tweet ‘coming soon’ or ‘stay tuned for further announcements’. I think deep down I felt that if I finally published the book, which, after all, is my farewell to a life of studying Ballard, then my whole public persona, based on a certain knowledge of Ballard, would be punctured.

Now that the dust has settled, I feel liberated. With the publication of this project, I have finally completed my education at the feet of Ballard, almost twenty-five years on from when I wrote my first paper on him. The way I view the world, under his influence, has finally been solidified and I am OK with where it is has landed. It’s been a wild and crazy time living my life under the Ballardian lens, dangerous at times, as the book hints, although never less than thrilling. I owe Mr Ballard everything, but it’s time to move on.

AF: I was wondering if you could talk about the rather seemingly innocuous, if graphically bold, image on the book’s cover – it forms a crucial aspect of the narrator’s magical thinking.

SS: That image is a composite of two key paranormal moments experienced by the narrator. I don’t want to explain them here, because they’d be spoilers, but suffice to say these moments cement in his mind the idea that another type of world, a parallel reality, is bleeding through into his world. And these experiences repeat at key intervals throughout the story, sort of like breadcrumbs he must follow to find his way home, wherever that might be – or perhaps to escape this world and into another.

In fact, the image is a heavily retouched photo I took of a streetlight in the Netherlands when I was working as a travel writer over a decade ago. I remember thinking the light was so unusual, like an eye, and I was just drawn to its uncanny shape. In the book, the protagonist also becomes a travel writer but he becomes dissatisfied with it, as he did with academia, when his obsession with the occult completely controls his mind. Streetlights figure prominently in that delusion. So, the fact that a photo of mine has taken on this otherworldly sheen is perfect, really. When I took the photo, I never dreamed that twelve years into the future I’d write a fictionalised account of my life. But at some level I must have known I would, because here we are.

As Ballard warned: ‘Deep assignments run through all our lives. There are no coincidences.’

So, you see, the protagonist’s quest is ultimately futile, as is mine, because in the end it all comes back to Ballard. Always Ballard.

Who am I kidding? I can never escape.

Simon Sellar’s Applied Ballardianism from Urbanomic is available from a giant soulless multinational... 

Allowed & Forbidden Universes

“On June 25, Timm Wrase awoke in Vienna and groggily scrolled through an online repository of newly posted physics papers. One title startled him into full consciousness.

“The paper, by the prominent string theorist Cumrun Vafa of Harvard and his collaborators, conjectured a simple formula dictating which kinds of universes are allowed to exist and which are forbidden, according to string theory. The leading candidate for a “theory of everything” weaving the force of gravity together with quantum physics, string theory defines all matter and forces as vibrations of tiny strands of energy. The theory permits some 10,500 different solutions: a vast, varied “landscape” of possible universes. String theorists like Wrase and Vafa have strived for years to place our particular universe somewhere in this landscape of possibilities.


“But now, Vafa and his colleagues were conjecturing that in the string landscape, universes like ours—or what ours is thought to be like—don’t exist. If the conjecture is correct, Wrase and other string theorists immediately realized, the cosmos must either be profoundly different than previously supposed or string theory must be wrong.


“The conjectured formula—posed in the June 25 paper by Vafa, Georges Obied, Hirosi Ooguri, and Lev Spodyneiko, and further explored in a second paper released two days later by Vafa, Obied, Prateek Agrawal, and Paul Steinhardt—says, simply, that as the universe expands, the density of energy in the vacuum of empty space must decrease faster than a certain rate. The rule appears to be true in all simple string-theory-based models of universes. But it violates two widespread beliefs about the actual universe: It deems impossible both the accepted picture of the universe’s present-day expansion and the leading model of its explosive birth.

“Since 1998, telescope observations have indicated that the cosmos is expanding ever so slightly faster all the time, implying that the vacuum of empty space must be infused with a dose of gravitationally repulsive “dark energy.”

“In addition, it looks like the amount of dark energy infused in empty space stays constant over time (as best as anyone can tell).

“But the new conjecture asserts that the vacuum energy of the universe must be decreasing…”

Text: The Universe as We Understand It May Be Impossible, The Atlantic.

Pic: Oystein Aspelund, from Dark Brasilia

90 Percent

“Every year, millions of tonnes of plastic debris ends up in the sea – a global environmental problem with unforeseeable ecological consequences. The path taken by plastic to reach the sea must be elucidated before it will be possible to reduce the volume of plastic input. To date, there was only little information available on this. It has now been followed up by an interdisciplinary research team who were able to show that plastic debris is primarily carried into the sea by large rivers.


“In the meantime, minute plastic particles can be found in the water in virtually every sea and river. This constitutes a serious and growing global environmental problem. There are enormous quantities of input each year and plastic weathers only very slowly. Marine life can be harmed by the tiny plastic particles floating in the water. One example of how this happens is when fish, seabirds or marine mammals mistake the particles for food and consume them. “It is still impossible to foresee the ecological consequences of this. One thing is certain, however: this situation cannot continue,” says Dr. Christian Schmidt, a hydrogeologist at the UFZ. “But as it is impossible to clean up the plastic debris that is already in the oceans, we must take precautions and reduce the input of plastic quickly and efficiently.”

“However, in order to take practical measures to reduce plastic input, it will be necessary to answer the initial questions: Where does all the plastic come from anyhow? And how does it get into the sea? Schmidt and his team addressed these questions in a study that recently appeared in the current issue of “Environmental Science & Technology” journal. For this purpose, the researchers analysed various scientific studies that examined the plastic load – that is the quantity of plastic carried by the water – in rivers. They converted the results of the studies into mutually comparable datasets and determined the ratio of these figures to the quantity of waste that is not disposed of properly in the respective catchment area. “We were able to demonstrate that there is a definite correlation in this respect,” says Schmidt. “The more waste there is in a catchment area that is not disposed of properly, the more plastic ultimately ends up in the river and takes this route to the sea.” In this context, large rivers obviously play a particularly large role – not only because they also carry a comparatively large volume of waste on account of their larger discharge. Schmidt says, “the concentrations of plastic, i.e. the quantity of plastic per cubic metre of water are significantly higher in large rivers than small ones. The plastic loads consequently increase at a disproportionately higher rate than the size of the river.”

“The researchers have also calculated that the ten river systems with the highest plastic loads (eight of them are in Asia and two in Africa) – areas in which hundreds of millions of people live, in some cases – are responsible for around 90 percent of the global input of plastic into the sea. “Halving the plastic input from the catchment areas of these rivers would already be a major success”, says Schmidt. “To achieve this, it will be necessary to improve the waste management and raise public awareness for the issue. We hope that our study will make a contribution to a positive development so that the plastic problem in our oceans can be curbed in the long run.”

Text: Rivers carry plastic debris into the sea

Pic: Rachel Honnery, ‘…researching marine plastics and their role as kipple’.

Objects In The Sky

“In 1896, newspapers throughout the United States began reporting accounts of mysterious airships flying overhead. Descriptions varied, but witnesses frequently invoked the century’s great technological achievements. Some sources reported dirigibles powered by steam engines. Others saw motorized, winged crafts with screw propellers. Many recalled a flying machine equipped with a powerful searchlight.

“As technologies of flight evolve, so do the descriptions of unidentified flying objects. The pattern has held in the 21st century as sightings of drone-like objects are reported, drawing concern from military and intelligence officials about possible security threats.


By the 19th century […] the age of industrialization transferred its awe onto products of human ingenuity. The steamboat, the locomotive, photography, telegraphy, and the ocean liner were all hailed as “modern wonders” by news outlets and advertisers. All instilled a widespread sense of progress—and opened the door to speculation about whether objects in the sky signaled more changes.

“Yet nothing fueled the imagination more than the possibility of human flight. In the giddy atmosphere of the 19th century, the prospect of someone soon achieving it inspired newspapers to report on tinkerers and entrepreneurs boasting of their supposed successes.

“The wave of mysterious airship sightings that began in 1896 did not trigger widespread fear. The accepted explanation for these aircraft was terrestrial and quaint: Some ingenious eccentric had built a device and was testing its capabilities.

“But during the first two decades of the 20th century, things changed. As European powers expanded their militaries and nationalist movements sparked unrest, the likelihood of war prompted anxiety about invasion. The world saw Germany—home of the newly developed Zeppelin—as the likeliest aggressor. Military strategists, politicians, and newspapers in Great Britain warned of imminent attack by Zeppelins.

“The result was a series of phantom Zeppelin sightings by panicked citizens throughout the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand in 1909, then again in 1912 and 1913. When war broke out in August 1914, it sparked a new, more intense wave of sightings. Wartime reports also came in from Canada, South Africa, and the United States. In England, rumors that German spies had established secret Zeppelin hangars on British soil led vigilantes to scour the countryside…”

Text: How UFO Reports Change With the Technology of the Times

Pic: Andy Warhol – Silver Clouds, M Woods Museum.

The Event

“After I arrived, I was ushered into what I thought was the green room. But instead of being wired with a microphone or taken to a stage, I just sat there at a plain round table as my audience was brought to me: five super-wealthy guys – yes, all men – from the upper echelon of the hedge fund world. After a bit of small talk, I realized they had no interest in the information I had prepared about the future of technology. They had come with questions of their own. […]


“Finally, the CEO of a brokerage house explained that he had nearly completed building his own underground bunker system and asked: “How do I maintain authority over my security force after the Event?”

“The Event. That was their euphemism for the environmental collapse, social unrest, nuclear explosion, unstoppable virus, or Mr Robot hack that takes everything down.

“This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour. They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from the angry mobs. But how would they pay the guards once money was worthless? What would stop the guards from choosing their own leader? The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival. Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers – if that technology could be developed in time.

“That’s when it hit me: at least as far as these gentlemen were concerned, this was a talk about the future of technology. Taking their cue from Elon Musk colonizing Mars, Peter Thiel reversing the ageing process, or Sam Altman and Ray Kurzweil uploading their minds into supercomputers, they were preparing for a digital future that had a whole lot less to do with making the world a better place than it did with transcending the human condition altogether and insulating themselves from a very real and present danger of climate change, rising sea levels, mass migrations, global pandemics, nativist panic, and resource depletion. For them, the future of technology is really about just one thing: escape…”

Text: Douglas Rushkoff,  How tech’s richest plan to save themselves after the apocalypse