Toronto city declared a state of emergency a few days ago, and if it wasn’t already obvious before then, things are now definitely not normal. President Trump, yes Trump, has now implemented what amounts to a UBI package for the vulnerable, even as the Republicans have also somehow managed to screw that up. Over here in Canada, something else is brewing. “Supply booths” have begun to pop up around neighborhoods where people can freely take useful items like gloves, masks, and (I never understood this) toilet paper.

All that is solid melts into air. all that is sacred is profaned…

Marx, Capital

Pandemics have an odd way of turning everything solid again. The fluid, ephemeral quality of money, which we so treasure, must now—at a moment’s notice—be turned into what can actually be used. Some of us (the lucky ones who have the money to go out and spend) now realize, as we’re browsing frantically for that last batch of toilet paper with our credit cards firmly in hand: wait a minute, I think I got bamboozled.

In this state, the state of visceral material need, the world draws us back in from our flights of fancy. We turn away from the Platonic world of abstract Justice, Equality, and Freedom in the same way we turn away from the TV when life calls, and for the first time we notice bodies and we begin to treat people as, well, people, who, like us, are doggedly embodied. Those supply booths are a testament to that. We are living more communally than most of us young people have ever lived.

It is not uncommon, and certainly we are seeing this now, for some leftists to see potential in these developments. Even the relief packages by the government are evidence of the fact that we can, should we choose to, live in a better world. I want to believe that all this will last, but that does not seem to be how things go.

If anything, the transitory nature of events like these are built into our very Western vocabulary; it is narrativity par excellence. An event thrusts our contemporary heroic figure into action, we struggle at first, we fall to our lowest low, at which point we look ourselves in the eyes and somehow, just somehow, manage to pull through. And where do we arrive? Where we began. Different, but same. The prototypical Western narrative, in all its change, only ever pushes towards the final Return. The viral curve mimics the act-structures of Hollywood. We just can’t wait for everything to return to “normal.”

Desperate times call for desperate measures, or so we say. And perhaps this is all the present communism will ever be, just a desperate measure. It is okay to beg for food and shelter when a virus threatens us all, yes, that is understandable, but as soon as the smoke clears, it becomes once again criminal. We forget the people on whose blood we fed and will feed, not just during these global crises but every moment in between. Equilibrium is restored, the hero returns. The story ends. And who reads the Afterword anyways?

Like the Marvel movie-goers, we gawk at a series of momentary spectacles, between which we sit and wait for the sequel. Even Bill Gates acknowledges this point, though he does not see his own actions as those that produce it. We ebb and flow, in and out, like lulling waves, trapped in a sitcom-style limbo where nothing real ever happens.

Can we turn away from the TV, and this time for good? Well…

Love, Altruism and the Self

We are all one. It sounds almost cliche at this point. When the corona-virus hit, my parents were audibly shocked (our conversation was done over the phone) at my refusal to keep a stack of masks around. “Why do you insist on being so selfless,” they complained. My dad went on to give a speech about how airlines tell you to put the mask on yourself before putting it on someone else (I couldn’t help but think, “why does it matter what airlines tell you to do? Airlines tell you to take unnecessary flights, and we all know every trip you go on takes a couple precious days away from Earth’s very finite lifetime). My mom decides to send me a couple hundred masks anyways.

What I couldn’t explain then, and what I will try to explain here, is that my refusal to buy more masks than I need isn’t an act of selflessness, at least not in the sense I think they were implying. It isn’t that I decided I was not as important as everyone else. But neither is it some romantic, “we are all one” sort of radical equivalence. A dog is a dog. A cat is a cat. They do not melt away into each other, into some abstract value through which we can calculate an optimal spread of utility.

I am me. I am not anything else. But who and what I am is inextricably entangled with everything else. It is my being in the world, in relation to other things, that make up the person here typing. I am not everything, but I am everywhere. I act, the world responds, and in so doing, I am affected no matter where my action points. I print out a ticket to New York; in a year, a hurricane hits the south of California; all the way in Alberta tar sands, workers are losing their jobs as the economy shifts into renewable energy sources. In all this economic craze, I decide to take the bus more. There is no such a thing as a selfless act, not if we see that the self was never only here to begin with. This is what “we are all one” really means.

Human Atomic Shadow (With a Ladder), Hiroshima, Japan

We often like to pretend there is a magical place called Away. We flush the toilet, the poop goes Away. We launch Netflix, our assignments go Away. We do an action, and in an instant, the action goes Away. We are wrong. There is no Away. When the toilet flushes, someone, somewhere, must take on the coprophagous duties for us. The same goes for our actions. They are not events, a flash of activity and then nothing. They are objects. They persist, in space and in time. They linger on obstinately, for better or worse, and often in ways that are invisible or “distant.” We don’t draw the connection between the plane ticket and the hurricane and the workers and me, not until it’s too late anyways.

It is our persistence, our obstinance, and our refusal to accept it, that is horrifying to me. At the end of J.M. Coetzee’s The Lives of Animals, our protagonist Elizabeth (a vegetarian, I should mention), offers a pithy summary:

“Is it possible, I ask myself, that all of them [the meat-eaters] are participants in a crime of stupefying proportions? Am I fantasizing it all? I must be mad! Yet every day I see the evidence. The very people I suspect produce the evidence, exhibit it, offer it to me…Yet I’m not dreaming. I look into your eyes, into Norma’s, into the children’s, and I see only kindness, human-kindness. Calm down…This is life.

J.M. Coetzee, The Lives of Animals

My parents tells me it is out of love that they send me those masks at the expense of those who need it. It is out of love that those flights which take them from business meeting to business meeting were made. It is out of love, all is out of love. And how can I argue against love? There is nothing wrong with love, not even the ostensibly “selfish” kind.

But the world is responding, and it demands us to take another look. The atomic bomb imprints the human against the wood in Hiroshima, and so too, I am imprinted repeatedly, infinitely, into all that there is. There is no selfless act, so there is no selfless love. At the end of the day, we can all love, but we must learn how to. As much as the love is real, so is the hurricane. Like Elizabeth, all I see is kindness, all I see is love. But all I feel is horror and sadness.

Everyone else comes to terms with it, you can’t you? Why can’t you?”

I wish I knew.

The Ethics of the Shrug

I have quite a fond memory of one particular high school maths class (an odd juxtaposition for most, I’ll admit). We were all handing in our latest assignment at the beginning of the class. My friend went last. His dog had just died, and he was understandably too upset over the weekend to finish it off. The teacher, not in much of a negotiating mood, told my friend he was going to fail the assignment, to which my friend, without really much of an expression at all, shrugged and left the class (I must remind you that this was at the beginning of class).

Anthropologist Kath Weston identifies the shrug as a gesture of resignation, and it is, for sure. But resignation of what? A shrug is as much an act of negation as it is a positive decision. After all, a shrug is to say, “hey, it’s not really worth the fuss.” Barring the nihilists among us, a shrug is not actually a retreat from the world (as the word “resignation” might suggest) but a focusing in on it. In that moment, what mattered to my friend, he decided, was not the assignment. Whatever he went off to do that day (I never asked), he was better off doing that. A shrug is an acknowledgement of our finiteness, the finiteness of everything. Our shrugs places us in the hyper-specificity of the moment; action extends neither forwards into consequence and explanation nor backwards into reason and motivation, it stays obstinately where it is, in the moment when it happens. It revels in its smallness. We are all finite, and to force us to be in-finite is an act of violence.

But is this not what normative ethics forces us to do (those that try to change the world at least)? To account for all our inconsistencies and contradictions, and to show that this somehow makes our actions “ethically nullifying?” This, for Naisargi Dave, is the “tyranny of consistency.” We are pulled outwards by our limbs, expanding from our finite bodies into the infinite ideal, and somewhere along the way there just isn’t enough of us to fill up infinity. Expansion is futile. We give out and we give up.

Yet we shouldn’t mistake the shrug as merely the act of giving up in the face of futility. Often it is a call to do something else, something different. It is what Roy Scranton calls learning how to die. In a sense, consistency is a sort of death. In a fully consistent world, much of what we take to be life has no more meaning: no more thought, no more love, no more choice. And in the face of this death (which for some have already arrived; it is almost 30 years ago that Fukuyama declared the death of history), hope is found in that ostensibly negative gesture of a shrug, of not caring. Ironically, ethics appears where we least expected.


Naisargi Dave, “Something, Everything, Nothing; or, Cows, Dogs, and Maggots,” Social Text 130, vol. 35, no. 1 (March 2017): 37-56.

Kath Weston, “Political Ecologies of the Precarious,” Anthropological Quarterly 85, no. 2 (Spring 2012), pp. 429-455.

Big-Data, Behavior, and Power

Here are some preliminary thoughts I had on Big-Data as it pertains to human behavior.

The utility of Big-Data lies in its ability to predict the behavior of humans. But human behavior is affected by what we know: when my basketball coach tells me I am not bending my knees on my free throw, I change my behavior given this new knowledge. I bend my knees the next time around.

So what happens when we are given access to Big-Data, access to our own behaviors? Well, we see this play out in money-tracking apps. Because my overall spending for a month easily escapes my grasp, which is restricted to more day-to-day memories, seeing my total expenditure for the month is almost always surprising. I spend a lot. I then decide, on this basis, to spend less.

But, as I’ve said, the utility of Big-Data is its ability to predict behavior, and it seems at first that the money-tracking app is a good example of this. Yet, if I gave my app data to someone else while allowing myself to access it too, the other person cannot reliably predict my behavior, at least without knowing me personally. They must know how I would react to the data, and how I would react to the data about my reaction to the data, and how I would… The recursive interplay between my behavior and my knowledge of my own behavior generates an infinite pattern that is un-graspable, unpredictable. For that other person to successful predict my behavior using this app, I must not have access to it, and therefore not be able to change my behavior according to the data I see about myself. The same is true of Big-Data.

What I’m trying to say here is that Big-Data’s usefulness relies on the separation between the ones doing the predicting and the ones being predicted. This is why YouTube, Google, and all these companies cannot ever release details about the data they collect and the algorithms they use to make sense of it, because as soon as they do so, its (i.e. Big-Data’s) value is lost. It can no longer predict. In other words, Big-Data is predicated on power and domination. It is always asymmetric. It is not about how to implement it correctly.

If we are truly living in the age of Big-Data, as many have claimed, then really, what’s all the fuss about? After all, power and domination are nothing new.