Re: [-empyre-] Re: life, dna

["sdv@krokodile.co.uk" <sdv@krokodile.co.uk>]

Ryan

There are a number of issues related to the way in which you
assume that my original paragraph is about ethics. Whereas it's intended 
to argue that the concept of equality is better understood 
ontologically. And that further it is deeply conservative to consider 
that 'equality and emancipation' are necessarily related to human beings.

"Ethics is the  professionalization of violence."  What can this 
possibly mean ? Are you arguing that Ventnor and other scientists were 
working within an ethical schema that contain such a meaning, that the 
critique of their ethic requires such a statement ? Well that's wrong. 
Ventnor certainly appears to function within an ethical system, and 
arguably it's one founded on some notion of compassion and scientific 
knowledge and that it can be critiqued. But if you do not do so from a 
ground founded on equality then rather obviously it will be a useless 
critique. However I agree with you that it is 'disturbing' to witness 
and participate in such discussions but it's primarily disturbing 
because because of the need people have to maintain a feintly ludicrous 
notion of human importance and supremacy.

If you wish to think further on ethics then better to think more in 
terms of Neitzsche: "...as the expression of a conservative will to 
breed the same species, with the imperative: 'All variation is to be 
prevented; only the enjoyment of the species must remain'".

Better by far to consider what rights and constraints must be developed 
and imposed on the human, under the current level of responsibility and 
accountability the species now has.

steve






Equality is an ontological notion
Ryan Griffis wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2007, at 9:00 PM, empyre-request@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au wrote:
>
> > There is no problem with the below as long as the new forms of life  have
> > the same rights as earlier and subsequent versions. Just as recent
> > govenment thinktank studies have accepted that intelligent machines  will
> > require the same citizenship rights as human beings, similarly
> > 'artificial life' will require the same rights as normally evolved  life,
> > starting with notions of equality and emancipation.
>
>
> Sure, but think about this for more than a second... which human  
> beings? Whose rights are to be comparatively used here?
> The model that Venter represents has been party to the denial of  rights 
> to already existing beings across the world. That's why  capital wants 
> novel beings... to give them the rights it has denied  those already 
> alive? Just tell the nanobots to get in line... behind  the poor, 
> domesticated animals and anything living over a source of  fuel.
> It's totally disturbing to witness the speculative discussions of  
> "ethics" regarding these developments, personally. Ethics is the  
> professionalization of violence. The development of synthetic  genomics 
> is a political reality that doesn't care about theological  and 
> philosophical "concerns" regarding what "humanity" is, anymore  than 
> capital cares about that same "humanity" it regularly considers  
> expendable.
> In all honesty, these developments may offer a hope for dealing with  
> the energy/climate crisis... but i don't, for a second, imagine it to  
> be liberatory to the oppressed. At best (without the kinds of  
> regulatory work called for by the ETC Group), it might allow for the  
> struggle against oppression to continue under ever more brutal  conditions.
> The iDC list recently had a discussion about the suicides by Indian  
> farmers and copyright law being shaped in Iraq that is creating  similar 
> conditions as it has in India - good for Monsanto, bad for  farmers (to 
> simplify). If we want to look to the "rights" that  speculative 
> capitalists/technofuturists like Venter assign to  "humans", there's a 
> worrying example.
> On another, less ranting note, in terms of this discussion, i'd  
> recommend Jackie Steven's "Symbolic Matter: DNA and Other Linguistic  
> Stuff"
> http://www.jacquelinestevens.org/articlesessays.html
> Lots of stuff by Richard Lewontin
> http://www.gene-watch.org/genewatch/articles/16-4lewontin.html
> (also have enjoyed Judith's perspectives here! - and assuming that  
> everyone took note of Eugene's excellent 2 books on genomics/ 
> bioinformatics)
> best,
> ryan
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre