In the US, there was a lot of writing about this kind of distancing and how it played out, during the Vietnam War - I think there were early video games that were compared to bombing runs, and writing on the vocabulary the Pentagon used, 'defoliation' (I think), instead of 'killing everything in sight' - so the idea of distancing has been around; Barthes hints at its opposite in The Grain of the Voice - Alan
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013, dave miller wrote: > "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 > > == email archive http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/ web http://www.alansondheim.org / cell 347-383-8552 music: http://www.espdisk.com/alansondheim/ current text http://www.alansondheim.org/rw.txt == _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
