Thank you and I agree with you. We're vegetarian but that doesn't solve the problem. I remember when I was you singing "Old McDonald Had a Farm" - but that farm doesn't exist any more, if it ever did. Now it's like mini- Auschwitzes...
- Alan On Sun, 17 Mar 2013, Simon Mclennan 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 > > == 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
