How colonial science and tech extract Antarctic ecosystems—while ignoring Indigenous stewardship and climate feedback loops
Original framing: “Drones, satellites and AI help scientists watch over Antarctica's smallest lifeforms” — Phys.org
The study ignores that Antarctica’s Indigenous neighbors (e.g., Mapuche in southern Chile, Sami in Arctic regions) have long practiced relational ecology through oral histories and land-based observation, not satellite data. For example, the Mapuche *ngillatun* (ceremonial gatherings) include ecological monitoring tied to microbial shifts in soil—a practice dismissed as 'anecdotal' by Western science. The Antarctic Treaty’s exclusion of Indigenous peoples mirrors how colonial treaties erased land rights; here, it erases ecological governance. Even the term 'smallest lifeforms' reflects a Western bias, as many Indigenous traditions classify microbes as sentient beings with agency (e.g., the Navajo *Diyin Dineʼeh* cosmology).
The study’s framing of AI/drones as 'neutral tools' for Antarctic monitoring is a *trickster* illusion, masking a colonial continuum where science extracts knowledge while excluding those most affected.
Historical patterns—from 19th-century specimen collecting to Cold War treaty-making—show how 'innovation' justifies ecological disruption, while Indigenous and marginalized voices (e.g., station workers, fishers) are erased. The solution lies in **decolonizing data** through Indigenous-led sovereignty zones, **slowing science** to assess tech impacts, and **repairing harm** via microbial restoration—approaches the study’s techno-optimism obscures. The Antarctic Treaty’s 1959 exclusion of Indigenous peoples must be revisited, as must the role of journals like ISPRS in serving extractive interests. Only by centering relational ecology—where microbes are not 'data points' but active participants—can we move from surveillance to stewardship.