While there are obviously damaging changes to "nature" (as though the meaning
of that terms was obvious and univocal), not all "changing nature" is morally
wrong, surely. (The eradication of smallpox, for example, seems to me to be an
unambiguously good and progressive action).
Tom
Sent from
L2M15ePL39Ror
>
> I agonized about the aesthetics of the work- at first- so un-"cool", so
> un-cyber - because the humans are so alive AND they make the work.
> But now I'm really happy with it and would like to assert a place for this
> almost folksy aesthetic (rather than a rush
Regarding what an accelerationist aesthetics might resemble (or the set of
things which m ight be grouped via family resemblance as an "accelerationist
aesthetics"), there's the June 2013 EFlux which was devoted to exactly this
question. In it, Patricia MacCormack (In "Cosmogenic Acceleration:
Hello,
My name is Tom Kohut and I'm a sort of accelerationist.
I've been following the discussion of accelerationism since version 2 began
to coalesce in 2008. (V.1 being the work in the 60s/70s of
Deleuze, Lyotard's *Libidinal Economy* and Baudrillard). I say
"sort of accelerationist&quo
