dear Alan, and all interesting idea (not 'back channel' now) to ask in public, here, how you might prepare thoughts on the question of 'What is to be done' or 'What's next'?, and it would interest me how you began to plan your notes, for example the way you seem to want to address species extinction and 'biodiversity loss', and how you felt inspired to go to Toronto --
not having heard of HASTAC before, i had to track that, and found their call for thoughts titled: The Storm of Progress: New Horizons, New Narratives, New Codes April 25-28, 2013 York University, Toronto, Canada [underneath this: What’s next? 2013 marks the 10th anniversary of HASTAC’s founding. In that spirit we invite work that is either reflective or prescient, that evaluates our history and seeks to construct our future(s). We invite you to take this opportunity to look back, theorize and archive. We invite you to engage in the creative, if impossible, attempt to glimpse the digital future. We challenge you to shape it. We invite you to share how you, your team, your research lab, your classroom, or your students are building the technologies and subjects of the future right now or imagining new horizons of possibility for the ways in which we will make, teach, learn and find community in the coming decade(s). >> So it seems to me one thing in that announcement which made me curious is the subliminal reference to Walter Benjamin's angel of history (at the end of his ninth thesis in the essay “Theses on the Philosophy of History") and that angel, like you Alan (well, it was Paul Klee's painting that triggered Benjamin's comment), is looking on in despair on the increasing ruination of the civilizations, an angel in ruins with an angle on slaughter. is this what you have in mind too, to think on such a reflection of consequences of technological progress ( your last thesis: "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")? are you mocking the idea of us, humans, to "shape any future" in the "building the technologies" of such future? with regards Johannes Birringer ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of dave miller [[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 11:56 AM To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Would like comments in relation to an upcoming talk - "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 _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
