[Nettime-bold] Reintroduction of topic - <was:Re: <nettime> Planet destroyed; film at 11>

[igor@mi2.hr]

dear all,

/excuse discontinuity/

McKenzie Wark wrote:
>The thing about second nature is that it seems so 'natural'. We grow up
with it as
>normal, as taken for granted. When something comes along that appears as a
break
>from it, its tempting to cling to the naturalness of second nature, and
forget that it is
>the product of thousands of years of human artifice.
Distinction between the first/second natures seems to me as an easy-way out.
It implies that there is something like nature untouched with human
activities, but we may only discuss the level or modes of influence by genus
homo. I fully agree that appealing to the 'preservation of the Nature' can
not have any sense at all. "Natural nature" or The Nature is simply a
construct (except the magazine), some sort of wishful thinking (it can be
compared with the idealistic representation of childhood in contemporary
western culture). We are changing the environment in many ways, not all the
time even being aware of the changes.
Industrial Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), like PCBs and pesticides,
are accumulating in the animals, and many of toxic components are converted
in substances that can be excreted. The liver-enzyme system, responsible for
the cleaning of organism, does not exist in fish "naturally", but recent
researches in Arctic region imply that certain species develop such a
mechanism. Recent hype about ozone depletion contribute (financially) to
many researches, but it's still not known what kind of influence climate
change have on the base of food web: plankton community.
Heavy metals (primary mercury and cadmium), acidification, even
radioactivity - all are contributing to the creation, evolution and
adaptation of living species.
On the other hand, there is a problem of non-native species introduced by
humans. Australia (and some of the islands) is a nice example: feral
population of cats and foxes impact on vulnerable marsupial population in is
disastrous (nice research article The impact of cats and foxes on the small
vertebrate fauna of Heirisson Prong, Western Australia, can be found at
www.publish.csiro.au/journals/wr). Finally the impact of non-native plants
is far more important whit potential of great danger - particularly
so-called invasive species. And, that's the place where GMOs are entering
the story, and that's the only reason why lot of scientists is skeptical.
But, there is no essential difference among introduction of 'traditionally'
breed new sort, and one managed by biotechnology.

>To me, its an issue that can be argued within the purview of second nature.
These
>technologies need regulatory scrutiny and democratic control. Key parts of
>biological information must not be turned into intellectual property that
can be >monopolised by a few corporations.
Certainly there is also a need for risk-analysis - not because of nature (it
may change but it will survive), but because of selfish reasons:
preservation of human health - but the GMOs are problematic in two strictly
anthropocentric points.
The first one is almost ten years old, and it was put into agenda at the Rio
summit back in '92. (Convention on Biological Diversity precisely). It's
Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-sharing meaning "fair and equitable
sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources,
including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate
transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over those
resources and to technologies, and by appropriate funding". In practice it's
still fully unregulated area, despite several attempts to prevent
degradation not only in biological, but also in economic and cultural sense.
Official biodiversity convention site www.biodiv.net have impressive
collection of recommendations in that sense.
However, the major problem for me is not even that new type of colonialism,
but the question of the biotech industry purpose. And on that field there is
palpable need to reorient and restructure biotechnology R&D institutions
(and the agricultural biotechnology community's values and attitudes) so
that future benefits are indeed achieved through agricultural biotechnology.

And, as a digestive, bit off the topic - what about danger of
memetically-modified organisms, like neo-liberal social democrats (one can
found them in almost any 'post-socialist' government), neuro-psychoanalysts,
or my favorite: M3 - Memetically Modified Marxists...

ciao
igor



_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold