acm acm on Wed, 30 May 2001 13:14:12 +0200 (CEST)

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

<nettime> Food not (DNA)Bombs

As a entry to the "DNA Bombs for DNA" (by now outdated
in net-time) discussion, i have to say that there were
some important questions brought up, and so i'll add
my 2 cents (now worth only 1.2). Scott brings up some
particularly strong points for those not already
invested in a particular position, especially for
those watching the lampoon that is the ELF on various
mainstream media channels saying, "what a bunch of
Eco-terrorism is quickly becoming the target du jour
conservative/centrist forces, especially since there
are some less media savvy, brazen "groups" like the
ELF that have slit their own vocal chords in favor of
anonymity and isolated spectacle. While there
certainly does need to be some internal criticism
within the "lefts", to cite "eco-terrorists" (already
criminal by definition) as hypocrites is ridiculous.
The ELF has certainly never declared themselves
pacifists, in fact major contributors have denounced
pacifism as a methodology- a major mistake in this
person's mind, as their position in a social-darwinian
scenario is fragile at best. And many other groups,
Greenpeace and Earthfirst! to name the major
influences in the movement, may have engaged in risky
physical acts, but remained nonetheless pacifist in
theory and practice - risking harm to only themselves.
Anyway, while there may be more immediately crucial
issues for the environment ("land clearing", etc...),
certainly there already exists a recognition of these
problems, even by the capitalist machine (Wise Use
conservatism, sustainable development, industrial
metabolism). Indeed, it would seem that biotech is a
proposed way around these terrestrial concerns for
capital. The problem, as Faith and Steven make
apparent in their responses and collaborative work, is
that these technological developments/uses of are
driven by specific desires, the political economy of
which becomes invisible to history by becoming
"science," "health," and "common sense." As they point
out, it's necessary to 
interrogate/subvert these desires so that the process
of technological assimilation is as
democratic/transparent as possible. And as Rosalyn
Deutsche points out, this is a painful and
never-ending process, as democracy is an unstable
system of difference, and we (in the US) live in an
agoraphobic society.
Thanks to Scott for bring the _Voice_ article to my
attention though.
happy trails

artofficial construction media
A collaborative effort to screw in a lightbulb.
visit us on-line at

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices

#  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: