Status Updates From Who Would You Kill to Save ...

If saving the world has always required saving an "us" from a "them" and if the end of the world has been depicted by using the landscapes and conditions that we have demanded of them, then the end of the world might be thought affirmatively as the end of us, the end of an absolute right to life and the beginning of the thought of what other lives might matter.

What if slavery and destroying those who are not us were constitutive of the hand-holding and home-loving humanity that is at the heart of saving the world?

Without the world as the horizon that allows various expressions of humanity to be included as differing forms of one ever-varying cultural being, there would be neither the modern vogue for the Anthropocene nor the fetish for playing out an end of the world that is really the end of a world that imagines itself as the transcendental plane of humanity in general.

What would tear such a humanist pluralism apart would be a multinaturalism, where nature itself had different ways of forminv worlds, including cosmologies that have no sense of the human as a single natural kind that might be mapped on to the species.

The end of the world would be the end of the cinematic aesthetic that defines subjectivity as a capacity to view the world as if it were one's own horizon of sense, unfolding from the sytheses and decisions of the individual.

The subiect for whom the world is a structure of sense beyond which lies the dark night of chaos is the outcome of a history in which complex social machines are contracted until we arrive at the private individual whose desires have been rendered personal and familial.

We are this economy: ongoing death for the sake of our life.