[-empyre-] Re: Ontological equality

[Ryan Griffis <ryan.griffis@gmail.com>]

On Oct 8, 2007, at 9:00 PM, empyre-request@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au wrote:

> 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.

Perhaps i am making some assumptions, but there are a number of  
ingredients in that paragraph that point to "ethics" - "think tank  
studies" "accepted" "rights" etc. Maybe it's not about "ethics" in  
name...
And i am guilty of assuming the discourse of ethics to be one driven  
by and answerable to "human beings" in one way or another. i've read  
Latour's Politics of Nature and the mobilizations of non-human  
agents. That's all great. But even Latour's non-human interventions  
into politics are pretty much still interventions into the politics  
of "human beings" - and designed to be such, from what i can tell.  
One problem i have with this line of critique is that it further  
homogenizes what it means to be human - those in political/economic  
power "negotiating" with the non-human world on everyone's behalf?  
That's what is happening now - if we want to radicalize "equality"  
and "emancipation" beyond the anthropocentric, what about  
radicalizing the humans allowed into the conversation?
Instead, we're looking at further atomizing and instrumentalizing the  
excluded, or as many say, just abandoning them (the post-human  
solution).
> 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.

What "people" are you referring to that have this "ludicrous notion  
of human importance?"  Venter is arguably one of those most guilty of  
this perception of "importance".
And, sure, he and Monsanto DO operate in an "ethical system" "founded  
on some notion of compassion and scientific knowledge". This is  
exactly what i meant by the statement about ethics and violence  
(which, is a bit over dramatic, i admit). Ethics allows for decisions  
to be made, as ethical, that in fact cause massive amounts of harm  
both through willful negligence and deliberate violence. The  
decisions are only answerable to a "code of ethics" that precludes  
their role in a larger political ecology.
A book from 1982 called "Genetic Alchemy: The Social History of the  
Recombinant DNA Controversy" - by Sheldon Krimsky - does a thorough  
account of the shift from politics to ethics (my interpretation of  
it) in the juridical, scientific and governmental stakes in what was  
going to be done about recombinant DNA technology.
Like Brian, i'm open to being convinced of other perspectives (even  
if it doesn't sound like it).
best,
ryan