Title: Let. Me. Die.
Subtitle: Pandas, Technology, and the End of the World
Date: 12/10/2019
Source: Retreived from https://downandoutdistro.noblogs.org 30/10/2019
Notes: When one ‘lives’ eternally in a cage, when the possibility of mortality is piece by piece stolen and the terrifying reality of an ‘immortal humanity’
comes closer every day, when being kept barely alive by this world is the cost of existing at all, and when all possibility of realizing the tiniest freedoms, the possibility of actually living, is stolen on the premise of keeping you safe, there can be only one demand to make of this nightmarish reality…. LET. ME. DIE.


1. The primary defense of civilization in this epoch (particularly in the western world) is the argument that civilization is extending 'life', or at least life expectancy.

2. Science tells that one can expect to live longer, healthier, and more productively than any generation before us.

3. Supposedly, better medical care, the ability to cure or contain many viruses and infections, the sterilization of environmental dangers and the reduction in generalized risk of reproducing oneself all contribute to the perspective that this world and its organization promotes life.

4. Technology courts our fear of death, with the promise of computers able to download our psyches, of the possibility of saving ourselves in some giant cloud of data, of 'living' forever.

5. At the same time; algorithms of advertisers and states already collect vast swathes of individualized data- music taste, eating habits, inner doubts and worries, relationship 'status', friendship circle, etc- and store them in databanks and devices that will rot far slower than any human body.

6. The process of androidification, which began with the inauguration of 'smart' phones into everyday life; and now continues with 'smart' appliances, homes, cities, is changing forever the nature not just of human 'life', but also the human body as we know it. One can now send a thought around the entire world in less than the time it takes to think it, and have that thought maintain 'eternally' in the network. The next steps, will likely include implantation of such technologies not only onto, but also into the human body[1].

7. One only has to look at the direction nano-technology and other 'cutting edge' science is facing to see this trend- clean up the mess of the last epoch (carbon eating technologies[2], 'recycling', ad nauseum), contain the danger that lurks in the darkness (mortality/extinction), and extend life once again into some imaginary golden forever.

8. Heaven is no longer a mythical place beside god, enshrined in culture and tradition, but a very concrete few square millimeteres of microchip and a wifi connection.

9. Even the finite existence of the habitat (the end of earth as hospitable planet due to ecocide, 'natural' disaster etc); is mitigated with the promise of an outer space ready humanity who will colonize the galaxy and escape death once more.

10. Beyond merely preserving human life, this epoch also takes it as duty to sterily preserve everything that human civilization has destroyed. Look at the zoos, the 'conservation projects', the imposition of humanities desire to live forever on species who by now would have happily ceased to exist without our interference (Pandas for example who for the most part refuse reproductive futurority [especially in zoos] and for whom has been created 'panda porn[3]', pheromone treatments, and artificial insemination to enforce to continuation of the species within captivity).

11. Everything must live. Everything must live forever (no matter the cost or consequence). Death is something we can escape. Quality is un-inportant, continuation is key.

12. In all of this, none seems to be asking the most simple question of all. Why? Why should a life last longer? Why should a life last forever? Why do we need to exist indefinitely?

13. And in not asking this question, humanity marches into a much truer, much realer death, than the corporeal ending of a single being. Mortality, is that which creates the possibility of living, really living- living without cage or petri dish, living dangerous, living at the risk of dying. Without death, their cannot be life.

14. The maintenance of 'life' at the cost of living. Safe and protected from the dangers of the outside, is building tighter and tighter confinements as to what living means, the whole civilization becomes a 'life support machine' and in exchange we except to exist entirely comatose.

15. The myth of heaven asked that one except the evils of the world for the promise of a glorious afterlife, the myth of technology enforces the evils of the world in exchange that one can exist forever inside of them.

16. Prison walls, asylums, schools, offices, homes, meant human life could be contained, preserved, protected (but never free to find form) within just a few square meters, computer technology reduces the size of the cage a thousand fold.

17. The question free beings must ask themselves in this epoch, is whether the cost of 'living' justifies the ever more clinical environment in which they are reproduced. One has to ask oneself: Do I want to survive? Or do I want to LIVE? The two are no longer the same.

18. Faced with the very real possibility that one might no longer be allowed to die- one comes to the demand as a form of refusal.

19. The cult of living- which is by paradox a cult of living death, must be destroyed.

20. Let the darkness in, let these fragile bodies wither and fade, let desert winds scatter the fragmented ashes of civilization, let the universe forget the marks we made.

21. Fragility, temporality, mortality are not things to be feared; but to be celebrated- "futile, meaningless, and short" are more likely synonyms of Freedom, than "eternal, technological, and contained" ever can be.


1. Connected to the maintenance of life as living death is the second promise of the walls of civilization, the promise of safety.

2. Safety is always illusionary, as the countless attentats, and ever changing airport security protocols reveal- yet its impositions are very solid. Take the traditional wall around a town or settlement (which offers the promise of 'protection from the outside threat- the barbarian); the wall can be undermined, scaled, even broken to pieces if one has time and motivation, it crumbles with age and without constant maintenance and can be bypassed simply by seducing the one who guards it. Yet, to the individual inside the wall, the towering mass of bricks seems both impenetrable and inescapable, and represents a very material disconnect from that which is outside (one cannot for example even see what is outside the walls).

3. Thus the illusion of safety, is stripped bare, not as a form of protection, but as a form of containment; only those who live inside the walls can be convinced of safeties impenetrability- anyone with will enough to exist beyond the walls can see the paper tiger for what it really is- a trap to prevent escape and not a defense against entry.

4. Todays walls are much more diffuse; produced on and in the psychic level in the schools and social relations, the walls are built up inside the minds of individuals who for so many generations have lived inside of them and now no longer need not to see the outside in order to be afraid of it.

5. The illusion of safety has permeated every aspect of daily life, what 'safety' means is never concretely defined; aside from the columns of foot-soldiers patrolling the streets and CCTV at every corner, there is no discursive definition of what it might mean to be 'safe' and no concrete description of what the danger really is.

6. Even radical milieus have adopted these logics, with demands for 'safe space', policies defining safety, and the imagining that one can create places or communities free from the 'dangers' of the outside world.

7. Safety is always premised in imaginary dangers- usually the dangers of the outside, the 'other', or most often mortality. In the name of being kept alive any number of repressive measures become normalized.

8. To assist or allow suicide is still illegal in most of the world[4], the cages of the mental hospitals and prisons are filled with individuals who present a 'danger' to the life of themselves or others.

9. The demand for safety, always walks hand in hand with the forces of domination. Be that tradition of Radical Feminism which demanded 'safer streets' for women against masked and racialized attackers (and resulted in huge police incursions into poor and racialized communities), or the push by LGBT charities for hate crime legislation to protect individuals from street harassment/harm (and which has been used as a 'catchall legislation' that sees vast increases in incarceration and penal punishments for as little as saying 'fuck' in a public space).[5]

10. A fitting example of the anthropocentric obsession with safety is the 'house cat'; a being for whom the entirety of its existence is passed within the confined walls of an apartment. Premised on the idea that the dangers of the outside world; getting lost, starving to death, being run over by a car- are so terrifying (from the human captors point of view) as to justify the ultimate cruelty and curtailment of freedom. The cat is kept entirely 'safe', in a sterile environment which cannot harm her; and yet can one say honestly that a being for whom long nights, restless hunts, a shrugging disregard for humanity are normal character traits- the four walls of a human made prison will bring her happiness?

11. The 'house cat' also serves as fitting analogy for our own lives- the masters of domination keep us safely contained in the cities, the workplace, the homes; and we may wriggle a little, excited by the promise of the gym or the swimming pool- but to go outside, truly outside of their world is not only forbidden but now impossible. We welcome the crushing wheels of the car or the neighbors dog to carry us away- danger signifies freedom.

12. Individuals oscillate between captor and captive as they internalize and reproduce the logic of safety. From the cop on the street corner, to the parent warning its children of the dangers of pedophiles, to the liberal queer askewing violent or confrontational action and enforcing passivity in the name of 'inclusivity'.

13. Individuals of this epoch must face the fact that nowhere is 'safe', and that anyone promising to provide safety is in fact only (re)producing captivity.

14. When entangled with the enforcers of safety- (the police or their representatives) one soon becomes aware, that the illusion of safety is not some absolute safety from harm, but some imagined parameter of safety defined by the apparatchiks and algorithms of domination.

15. When falling fowl of the enforces of safety, one quickly realities that their version of 'keeping you safe' in fact means keeping you under control, or more often saving you from imagined danger so that they can inflict their own very real harm upon you.

16. One can for example be stopped for driving the car too fast, for passing a red light too early, for trying to jump from a bridge, for exploring and abandoned warehouse, or for engaging in a physical confrontation, in all the examples the behavior will first been defined as 'dangerous' and the narrative usually follows "we are here to protect you". Naturally the moment one is in the hands of those enforcers of safety, she can expect to be beaten, tortured, confined in a cage, sexually assaulted, humiliated, bullied and harmed in any myriad of unnameable ways.

17. "Keeping you safe" is synonymous with maintaining the monopoly of danger, harm and violence.

18. It benefits domination to have as many imaginary dangers as possible at play in any given moment. The more, and scarier the dangers, the greater the playground for imagining ways to ensure 'safety'.

19. The ever increasing number of dangers which the civilized order is happy to integrate into its logic- be that the threat of terrorism, ecological disaster, petty crime, homophobia, gendered violence or racism justifies an ever increasing number of punishments, containments and cages.

20. In many 'liberal democracies' we see how the response to popular awareness of structural oppression has been to criminalize any individuals who are accused of perpetuating it (ignoring the reality that the state is always the biggest perpetrator). From hate crime legislation protecting 'oppressed minorities' to attempts to ban networks like tor (because thats where terrorists live) we see time and time again that the promise to keep us free from danger, warped into the very real application of harm.

21. The illusion of safety rests on a very fluid understanding or what and who represent danger. In the logic of domination, we are presented daily with the idea, that a heavily armed gang, enshrined with the right to murder, kidnap, rape, and torture (the police) are 'safe' and that some kid running a red light or walking whilst black represents danger.

22. This is further complicated by status's awarded to individuals based on presumed compliance/non compliance- the refugee is 'safe' the illegal immigrant is dangerous, the steel worker is 'safe' the sex worker is dangerous, the law abiding citizen is 'safe' the criminal is dangerous. The arbitrary awarding of the right to safety is in fact the real danger.

23. Such arbitrary awarding, mean that In the name of safety we have armed hooligans patrolling the streets with assault rifles- and one can go to jail for carrying a kitchen knife from store to homestead.

24. Anyone who believes, we are safe inside the walls is delusional at best and more likely suicidal.

25. Some 'good citizens' (white, rich, cis, hetro, law abiding) might be able to uphold the lie that they are safe inside the walls (even if they discount the toxic fumes and radio waves slowly annihilating them); but even they will be forced to admit their mistake when in the name of 'safety' they cannot leave their home cage except to go their (re)productive one.

26. More than all of this though, why do we need to be safe? Why have we allowed a fear of danger to incubate inside our minds and proliferate in our praxis? Do we even really know what we mean when we say we want to be safe? We are trapped in illusions curated by tyrants.

27. Safety might be illusionary, but danger can be very real. Not the imaginary dangers domination feeds its subjects in order to keep them servile- but the danger which domination itself lives in constant fear of.

28. To break from captivity, is to accept danger into ones life- not the false dangers which preclude safety; but the real dangers of active confrontation with those who claim to provide it (safety). Accepting real danger, means arming conflictuality against the state, the police, technology, pacifistic ideologues, and perhaps even oneself- it is the realization that even if nothing is worth dying/going to jail for, these possibilities are perhaps less terrifying than remaining safe (i.e. captive).

29. To perpetuate the illusion of safety, into every aspect of life is always the goal of domination, every time one arms conflictuality, imbues danger, creates fracture; safety will rush to plug the breach. Just as one has almost no chance of destroying civilization, there is little hope of destroying safety in its totality; one can chip away, and expand ruptures but one must always be prepared that the ruptures will create new forms, and enforcements of safety- the battle will be an endless one.

30. The fight against safety in and of itself, creates danger for the one who pursues it.

31. If one is to truly realize the illusion of safety, and from this realization act in order to destroy it; she must first welcome danger as a constant friend and companion.

32. Through the process of becoming dangerous, she must face the very real dangers inside the walls (repression, assault, murder), and open her heart to all the possible imaginary ones outside of them.

33. Domination will be at every door when one opens herself fully to danger. It will close tight ranks all around and try to force safety at any cost on the one who seeks it.

34. Danger must embody all the fear of the unknown, all the visceral terror of the lands outside the walls, it must plunge deep into the darkness and never shine a light.

35. If danger spreads, 'safety' will wither.


1. Futurority is the promise of civilization that the human species will continue.

2. Moreover, it is the promise that the 'right' human species will continue.

3. Beyond the promise, it is also the force that it MUST continue.

4. It is white, cis, and hetro; it is the nuclear family and 2.5 children- the house in the suburbs, and the promise of university educated grandchildren to blast into space.

5. Futurority is another way in which we are forced to live forever.

6. It is the legacy of humanity, but also it is the legacy of individual beings, therefore it involves applying force not only to societies reproduction but also to the reproductive capacities of individuals.

7. The force to reproduce civilization and its disciples is applied differently to different individuals but wherever it exists, it is always forced.

8. Sometimes reproducing civilization implies sterilization (for undesirables such as drug addicts, trans people etc), and other times it implies forced reproduction (denial of abortion, heterosexual indoctrination in schools, assimilation of queer sexualities into reproductive logics etc).

9. Historically and currently, this force is disproportionately applied to women and gender non conforming people; placing responsibility of reproduction and maintenance of life squarely in their hands, or wombs.

10. The program of severing women from the knowledge of herbal abortives[6], the rape and forced impregnation of black women during chattel slavery[7] (in order to produce more slaves), and the extraction of genetic materials and then sterilization of trans "patients" are all examples of this force.

11. Abortion is still illegal in many countries worldwide, and even when it is accessible rigid state guidelines are applied and the possibility to abort outside of the medical industrial complex is almost universally illegal; likewise infanticide is universally criminalized.

12. Individuals are separated from their own bodies, from the right to self determine their reproduction (or especially their non reproduction). Sexual organs capable of reproducing, are ultimately the property of the state- whether or not it chooses to exercise its ownership in a given moment.

13. The negative connotations imbued in such desperate characters as the lonely childless old women, the evil solitary gay men, and the pathetic street transsexual are all folklore troupes which (re)enforce the psychic pressure to reproduce rather than die alone or in shame.

14. A perhaps esoteric though none the less real example of the application of this force can be seen in the numerous Reddit threads and National Geographic 'exposes' on "natures worst mothers". Panda infanticide, for example, occurs in an extremely high number of pregnancies (Panda mothers regularly produce 2 infants during a pregnancy and in this case will kill or abandon at least one[8]), yet we are constantly bombarded with the idea that conserving Panda life is a worthwhile cause- the 'cute' panda bastion of conservationists worldwide, bestower of great revenue to domesticators and zoo keepers alike may also provide a shining light in exposing the application of force inherent in futurority; after all whoever heard of a forced breeding program for the Lichen Weevil[9]?

15. Civilization reproduces that which is of value to it and destroys all life which is not.

16. The continuum of futurority always implies the absorption of each new life into the horrors of domination, every new individual born is the property and product of domination, the new recipient of safety, the next candidate for immortality- the latest lamb to the slaughter.

17. Perhaps dominations cleverest tactic, has been to deny simultaneously self determination, and selectively prevent the reproduction of specific communities/groups- making reproduction appear (and in some cases genuinely be) an act of resistance- this paradigm continues to provide civilization with all the bio and necro political material it needs for its own manifestation.

18. When standing on the edge of a precipice between the seeming certainty of the collapse of the current epochs form and the horrific new world which may rise in its ashes- it is sometimes incomprehensible as to why individuals reproduce at all.

19. In the spiraling collapse, the decomposition, the apocalypse (however you choose to name the moment humanity currently finds itself at the center of) the potential for lines of fractious conflictuality to appear in the sphere of reproductive futurority seem infinite and alluring.

20. Yet thus far, the discursive and practical possibilities contained within world ending are ignored in favor of clinging to the idea of survival (and by extension reproduction).

21. The technophiles and modern day prophets of climate change denial dream of emergent colonies on mars, humanist expansion with technological aid, new life born off planet but inside the same civilization[10]; whilst a haphazard brigade of similarly dreamy ideologues on the so called left[11] fight an increasingly meaningless discursive battle against extinction- preaching moderation and 'ecology' in the name of continuing the species.

22. In the end both sides, though they may posture and present themselves endlessly in conflict are merely two sides of the same civilized coin.

23. Whether Eco-fascism or Techno-fascism will rule the next phase of decomposition changes little, the force of reproduction will inevitably remain under either condition though perhaps with mildly different parameters (the co-facists for example will likely place restrictions on the number of beings one can (re)produce especially on those inhabiting the 'global south'[12], whilst the Techno-fascists will likely see greater benefit in having those same persons (re)produce an endless supply of workers for Martian extractivism or other dangerous and brutal off planet projects[13]).

24. Though these realties may sound far off, extreme, or polarized, signs of there becoming already appear in the here and now and are far from 'extreme' when one considers the whole history of civilization in all its horror.

25. These gruesome yet moderate/modest continuations of 'business as usual' under new flags or ideologies will prove little more meaningful than rearranging chairs on the titanic- and ultimately both exist within the same sinking ship of 'civilized' humanity.

26. Of course, reducing all the future possibilities of domination to a dichotomy between Eco and Techno fascism is a somewhat reductive and lazy analysis- there are perhaps myriad other ways futurority may choose to articulate itself in the order of the civilized, though in this moment the two aforementioned incarnations of terror seem the most dominant of those vying for a position in or after the ashes.

27. The desire to analyse the future trajectories of terror, does not negate the fact that the present is also terrifying and horrific.

28. Even if it were possible to imagine that the future could be better, freer, or without domination; the terror of the present still presents adequate reason to reject futurority, to reject (re)production where and when possible.

29. To knowingly inflict the suffering of the now onto new life is a choice, a choice to domesticate another life inside the furnaces of civilization, a choice for which on must ultimately take responsibility if he is in a position to choose it.

30. At the same time, and paradoxically; the (re)production of those lives undesirable to futurority may be a form of resistance to domination- a resistance which carries great violence, pain, and suffering, but a resistance none the less.

31. When faced with this brutal double bind one is forced to choose between a resistance and an ending.

32. The unspoken blasphemy for those wishing to live beyond the walls lies in the total refusal of futurority (personal or societical).

33. The (re)production of society at large may be inescapable (since it is also non consensual) except in moments of direct conflict with it (society), but the personal refusal of futurority is perhaps, in moments, more likely achievable.

34. Staring extinction squarely in the face, perhaps even welcoming it; refusing reproductive futurority, accepting that there is No Future.

35. A mass 'die off' is likely approaching the human species; the task for radicals in this epoch lies in communizing this die off to include the insides of western civilization instead of merely allowing its unchecked continuation outside of it- to communize the 'die off' is to deny futurority.

36. To face and embrace a reality in which one is amongst the final generations of 'humanity' may be the closest thing to hope those struggling against the existent can expect.

37. If futurority falls civilization may crumble.

38. The end of futurority is the end of humanity, but not necessarily the end of individual projectualities.

39. The human being and it's reproduction are the social constructs and material realities of civilization, but the existence of wild beings and their proliferation outside the walls are something yet to be known.

40. Against ideologues who claim the future.

41. And tyrants who enforce tomorrows.

42. Against state ownership of reproductive capacity.

43. And the brutal taming of wild life.

44. Towards the fall of civilization.

45. And the death of futurority.


1. One cannot, and therefore does not beg freedom from tyrants.

2. Yet she may walk alone deep into the depths of The Lions Den, facing only death, and demand it.

3. The demand itself is in and of itself a demand for death- and certainly the tyrant will be forced to appease it. Allowing blasphemes to live has never boded well for such people.

4. In the moment of demand, freedom and death are inseparable.

5. Domination has inscribed itself upon, around and inside of us; such that the destruction of the totality is also the destruction of the self- the death of the being.

6. Whether or not a new, none self, an individuality will rise from the dying can never known before one crosses the threshold- but does that mean one should not try?

7. To allow oneself to dream of a self after society is almost as dangerous as dreaming of a society after society- No Future is not merely an expectation or an understanding of the current reality; but also a direct threat towards it.

8. The desire for world ending should not be confused with the desire to change or better the world. To destroy civilization, is to end the world, not to fix it.

9. Similarly the demand to embrace death, to be allowed to die should not be confused with a suicidal one; but rather understood as a desperate grasp towards the possibility of truly living, as an inseparable part of the struggle for life beyond the walls- for freedom.

10. The truly suicidal, are those who believe in the possibility of continuing life inside civilization- to accept existence on the terms of others is also to relinquish autonomy over it.

11. To be incubated inside a civilization which selectively: breeds, contains, murders, controls, confines, denotes, shapes, constructs, directs, influences, absorbs, identifies, and domesticates free wild life is to never really have lived at all- to die, on ones own terms, in such a condition is a form of refusal; a rebuttal of the logic of the whole which demands the maintenance of sterilized life.

12. In demanding death, on ones own terms, one demands something outside of the regular state of things- outside of the every day logic of domination; a demand that can never willingly be met only begrudgingly gifted in the process of war/decomposition.

13. One must look towards arming the 'Death Drive'[14], to all out war on the self and society; and through this process bring about an ending (one way or the other).

14. This process is not a revolutionary one, neither one which wishes to make a revolution- a revolution is something creative; there are no guarantees that revolutions bring endings and more often than not they bring tyrants.

15. For want of better words, one might call it insurrection, or anti social war; or at least it can be said that one who speaks with these words speaks of something close to the pursuit of death.

16. It must be said that there are no victories to be had in such a pursuit and one must not hope to be a winner. The nature of such a process implies many losses- though not all loss is to be lamented.

17. One must seek out the joy in loss, in the beauty of abandoning the self and the society- to accept that victories are the play things of warlords and generals and to embrace the act of doing without hope or reward is perhaps the first step in unbecoming,

18. Attack will reveal new roads along which the careful traveler may traverse reality.

19. The traverse may prove an endless, life long struggle, or it may pass rapidly face down in a gutter.

20. If done correctly it will, if nothing else, expose the true horrors of the civilized as its defenders rush to crush those in dissent.

21. Being crushed is preferable to being smothered.

22. Death is not a goal but a process.

23. Endings are not confirmations but negations.

24. Turn off the machines.



1. A group of Pandas is called 'an embarrassment'

2. In captivity, 60% of 'male' Pandas exhibit no sexual desire- big surprise!

3. Pandas live shorter lives in the wild than in captivity. :-)

4. More than 60% of Pandas born in Captivity die within the first week.

5. Pandas sometimes resorb, or absorb a fetus- terminating the pregnancy- this process and the reasons behind it are still a mystery to biological science, though perhaps not to anyone who ever spent time in prison?

6. Panda mothers frequently crush there young. In captivity the first months after birth involve round the clock observation and forced intervention to prevent this.

7. 'Female' Pandas are fertile just once a year, for a period of less than 72 hours.

8. All giant pandas are considered 'property' of the Chinese state, at the age of 4, any Panda bread in captivity in another country/state must by law/agreement be returned to China to enter the 'breeding population'

9. Despite having one of the highest bite forces of any carnivore, Pandas have elected to eat a herbivore diet. a decision which forces them to consume up to 30kg of food a day.

10. Pandas are considered solitary and 'unsociable', meeting others of their species just once a year to fuck- they will however take multiple sexual partners and fuck dozens of times in this period.

11. Many zoo's have great difficulty finding Pandas who are "behaviorally competent" (domesticator talk for understanding how to have sex)- and therefore use artificial insemination to enforce their reproduction.

12. More than half of newborn pandas die from diseases or from being accidentally crushed by their mothers

13. Although this text mostly focus' on the Panda i.e. Giant Panda's battles against civ, it's worth noting that red Panda's have a long history of escape attempts from a variety of zoos worldwide.

14. There is much argument even amongst so called scientists as to whether the Panda is a 'remnant species' i.e. it is becoming extinct 'naturally' or if human civilization is directly to blame. Either way- Let Them Fucking Die!


Dedicated with visceral hatred to all those who would incubate and sterilize 'lives' without the promise of freedom, to those who cage, torture and imprison, to those who send dissidents to the asylum for 'their own protection'. Dedicated with armed conflictuality to all the cops who 'save you' from falling from a rooftop or take you to the hospital after catching a bullet - only to beat and torture you on their terms. Dedicated with disdain for those who force the freezing of genetic materials in exchange for the right to hormonally transition and to those who encumber and control the possibility to abort 'life' from inside of you. Dedicated with love to the many Panda co-combatants fighting reproductive futurority '


[8]https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/08/150824-pandas-national-zoo-twins-animals-science/ https://blog.nus.edu.sg/lsm1303student2013/2013/04/11/panda-cute-wait-till-you-see-their-dark-side/

Amongst other places, some of the opinions about pandas were found in the following places:








[1] See implantation of NFC chips in people in Sweden. https://www.npr.org/2018/10/22/658808705/thousands-of-swedes-are-inserting-microchips-under-their-skin?t=1570529276200.

[2] See Journey Towards The Abyss- Scattered Reflections on the Techno World for a critique of nano-technologies being developed for this purpose or the recent development of Metal 'Trees' in Ireland for the same purpose: https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Metal-Trees-Suck-Up-CO2-From-Air.html as examples

[3] Zoo's and research facilities in China developed this technique which has now been used in dozens of cases. https://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/animals/panda-porn-and-other-desperate-measures-to-get-rare-species-to-mate.aspx

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_legislation

[5] See Dean Spade: 'Normal Life: Administrative Violence, Critical Trans Politics, and the Limits of Law' for a comprehensive critique of these trajectories or the United Kingdoms Section 5 of the Public Order Offenses Act as concrete example.

[6] See Silvia Federici: Caliban and the Witch.

[7] See Saidiya Hartman: In the Belly of the World: A note on Black Women’s Labor

[9] An endangered species of insect

[10] Nasa for example, produced a paper in 2016 outlining a possible strategy for the colonization of Mars https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a21330/nasa-wants-martian-resources-for-martian-colony/

[11] This trajectory is most exemplified (though not limited to) by the group 'Extinction Rebellion'

[12] Such prophets of the Eco Fascist 'Left' as David Attenboroughs who proposed ending food aid to the African Continent as a way to tackle 'overpopulation' and the discourses around 'overpopulation' in general unmask the potential directions off this trajectory. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/sorry-sir-david-attenborough-this-isn-t-the-way-to-tackle-over-population-8824385.html

[13] Although most of the current documents around outer space extractivism currently solicit the use of machines, one only has to look at the disproportionate distribution of current extraction projects requiring human labor in the 'global south' to see who will likely be drafted for off world projects and who will benefit from them. An interesting NASA solicitation from 2017 can be seen here: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-seeks-commercial-solutions-to-harvest-space-resources

[14] The 'Death Drive' is a conceptual framework first proposed by Lee Edelman in the text 'No Future' and later expanded upon in the journal Baedan vol I; it is the possibility contained within queerness to negate futurority and a negative, anti social turn against the future.