A recipe for action: 1. stop buying meat 2. tell everyone you know to stop buying meat until you have no friends left
Activism in this area tends to make people unpopular. It has to be talked about though; it is not a niche issue as it concerns food - which is essential for everyone - and markets - which more or less dictate the rules for our lives nowadays. On 17 March 2013 12:32, Simon Mclennan <[email protected]> wrote: > The male chicks go > into the grinder alive > this is normal > in the American > meat industry > > its a big screw > that moves the 'product' > through fine mesh > to creat the pink > slime > you can fry > > Alan the distancing is self evident > This distancing is layered on top of the existing distancing > > How we treat animals is a reflection of how we view, and relate to > our world. > > The cows are jacked up with machines and men in white coats, > ripped and broken while still alive > as violent as any sadistic torture of a human by a human > > I'm so sorry > > Really worrying is the statute in America that makes it a federal > crime of terrorism to make any > action that interferes with the 'profits' of the meat and food > industry - as you mentioned. > > I think we need to go into some of these practices in the meat > industry.. > > this way of thinking should be challenged. > > Mmm, > > got to make art that challenges this > > Good luck with the talk > > Simon > > > > > > I am with you on this > On 16 Mar 2013, at 11:56, 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > -- http://isabelbrison.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
