"Certainly the digital, even augmented reality or Google Glass, creates distance between ourselves and the world around us; what's added are bits. This distancing, which is both clever and fast-forward technology-driven, may be more part of the problem than the solution"
Hi Alan, your thoughts on AR are really great - I'd never considered this - with AR we are augmenting with bits, but AR is also creating distance between ourselves and reality. I think you're right, especially when we think of the experience of headsets and goggles. dave On 16 March 2013 01:09, Alan Sondheim <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi - Need help! I'm giving a panel talk at the Hastac Conference in > Toronto, at the end of April; my proposal was as follows - > > "I'd like to do a full talk, dealing with What is to be Done, with issues > of animal and plant extinctions, with degrees of hopelessness, with the > mass Permian extinction, with images of escape in Second Life and > elsewhere, with the damnation of technophilia and Google Glasses. I would > talk from notes and project, not read a paper (I never write papers to > read), but could turn the notes in later of course. This is a theme I've > been harping on more and more - how to deal with absolute despair and the > despair of the absolute." > > I've written out (most of) an outline below, and would appreciate any > comments you might have. I realize my naivete in relation to the subject, > and I'm trying to get away from just "gut feelings" and say something > useful, with some sort of clarity. Please send me any thoughts; you can > write me back-channel (what an old expression!) and thanks, > > - Alan > > ================================= > > a. I am no expert in plant and animal extinctions; things seem complex on > the level of the species, and here I deeply find myself at a loss; there > are too many contradictory statistics for a layperson to disentangle, not > the least of which is the definition of 'species' (for example, there are > subspecies, morphs, etc.), and species' interrelationships. > > a.1. I am also no expert in bio-ethics or ethics in general. I do believe > that the habitus, biome, communality, are more important than individual > saves which take on symbolic status and often lead nowhere. I don't > believe in instrumentalist arguments, that the natural should be saved by > virtue of its use-value (say, for 'new medications'); I don't think any > functionalist reason plays out in the long run. I think species should be > saved because _they are there._ > > a.1.a. The problem with symbolic value is that the most attractive or cute > species (in terms of human perception) are often the ones that are saved > and considered valuable, while other species that are less appealing are > left by the wayside. > > b. There are three economies: political, financial, attention; each of > these vies in terms of saving species or biomes. > > c. Every species has an equally lengthy holarchic history (including > bacteria, mitochondria, etc.); each history is a sign and organism > resonant with the origin of life itself. > > d. Each organism has its own world-view, Umwelt, Weltanschauung. Each is > alterity and project to every other. Each possesses individual and > communal culture. Each participates in negation and learning. > > e. Each is driven to extinction by the other. Each other collapses into > either grotesque anomaly (asteroid, volcano) or the human, somewhere along > the line. > > f. Each is a projection and introjection of the world; each is immersive, > each is entangled, abject, somewhat definable. > > g. The extinction of any species is a permanent and irrevocable loss; the > death of any individual is the same. Histories condense and disperse, > homes disappear, the world flattens. > > h. Our era is not a repetition, say, of the Permian extinctions; it is > other, it is slaughter, and it brings pain from one species to many. The > death of an adult reproducer is the death of offspring, who may or may not > have already made their way into the world. > > i. Our language betrays us: there are no weeds, no vermin. We define the > world in terms of our desires and their negations. > > j. We are defined by our slaughters. We are hopeless, driven to the deaths > of others; the death drive literally drives species, herds, hordes, before > it; the death drive results in total annihilation. > > k. What is to be done? I am always surprised how few artists are concerned > about the environment - other than creating networks and new forms of > nodes and dwellings within it. How few media artists even bother with PETA > for example, or conservation. How many artists, driven by teleology, are > always already on the hunt for new forms of mappings, new modes of data > analytics. How we abjure responsibility, disconnect radically. How we > favor the human over other species. > > l. Certainly the digital, even augmented reality or Google Glass, creates > distance between ourselves and the world around us; what's added are bits. > This distancing, which is both clever and fast-forward technology-driven, > may be more part of the problem than the solution. I think of 'Internet > hunting' for example, tv/video programs like Survivor or The Great Race > (both of which can only damage pristine environments), etc.; on the other > hand, bird-, nest- and waterhole-watches might well serve to awaken > people's consciousness. > > m. How do we handle this on a personal level? If we're driven to > catatonia, we're doomed. I haven't been able to accept the Buddhist > account of suffering and enlightenment; the result is an almost constant > state of anguish, that is to say a condition that is a combination of > Lyotard's differend, a sense of helplessness, and a sense of the > destruction of worlds. > > > ======================================= > > [Quote below from World Wildlife Federation] > > WWF: > > Just to illustrate the degree of biodiversity loss we're facing, let.s > take you through one scientific analysis... The rapid loss of species we > are seeing today is estimated by experts to be between 1,000 and 10,000 > times higher than the natural extinction rate.* These experts calculate > that between 0.01 and 0.1% of all species will become extinct each year. > If the low estimate of the number of species out there is true - i.e. that > there are around 2 million different species on our planet** - then that > means between 200 and 2,000 extinctions occur every year. But if the upper > estimate of species numbers is true - that there are 100 million different > species co-existing with us on our planet - then between 10,000 and > 100,000 species are becoming extinct each year. > > *Experts actually call this natural extinction rate the background > extinction rate. This simply means the rate of species extinctions that > would occur if we humans were not around. > > ** Between 1.4 and 1.8 million species have already been scientifically > identified. > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
