lagadu on Sat, 19 May 2001 19:14:35 +0200 (CEST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> DNA 'bomb' digest [kurtz, wilding]

Bis repetita, one word was missing.

Hi !

Hmmm sorry but as a french speakin person I have difficulties understanding
(litterally speaking) the term "ethics-schmetics". Can someone provide some
translation ?

Meanwhile, I will say my word :  the ethicist position is not challenging the
real issues of privatization of knowledge and knowhows ressources which are at
stake in biotech and infotech-software patents, that is an evident capitalist
issue. It is just shadowing it and playing for the team it is supposed to oppose.

Same with the Biodiversity Convention, which pretends to protect the ressources
by giving them a public property status, and as such implies that they can be
negociated for what they are : merchandise. At the same time the Convention does
not even acknowledges the idea of a "commun humanity patrimony" that would saty
free, as free-software is free.

So yes biotech-art is a provocation to thought, is a way to drag peoples's
attention to the preposterous  issues of patenting (not only biotech). And how do

you drag attention today, if don't use the spectacle and play the game of excess
and outrage ?

Some will say that the game is dangerous because it propagates dangerous ideas
(some people could ffel like doing this bio-bullet). This is bullshit, because
the ideas are there, in the industrial and military camp who already work on such

weapons. Underlying the potential dangers of a proliferation of eco-terrorism,
makes me think they are already in the process of limiting  the  liberty
"expression" (research, creation etc) of non-professionnals, and weaving another
net of prohibiting laws, eavesdropping capabilities and budgets for intelligence



nettime's_lamarckian wrote:

nettime's_lamarckian wrote:

> You misunderstand me. Ethics as a spectacular _discipline_ is founded on
> capitalist ideology. I am sure you have heard bioethicists speak at one
> point or another. From CAE~s experience, the assumptions of these
> specialists are that market economy is good, god bless western society,
> so what is of value for the western  bourgeois subject? The ethicists
> subject position is not even spoken because it is such a given. Instead,
> there is generally a pretense of ambivilence and multiplicity, but it is
> only the ambivilence arising from limited diversity that can be found
> _within_ bourgeois culture. It~s to this discourse that Natalie was
> saying ~ethics, schmethics.~ She was not saying that its fine to
> surrender critical thinking, social responsibility, or personal
> accountability.

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: contact: