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/
