Artificial / Natural

I find it difficult, when discussing human/animal relationships, to avoid a “Save The Animals” sentimentality. Nature is a boundary we have created and placed certain ideals upon, yet still continue to violate. There is a need for ever expanding knowledge into a world that is not our own. Particularly, it seems, if of benefit to us. This is something I can understand to a degree, however feel that it just isn’t our place.
Crittercam is a prime example of a human “research tool” that is clearly overstepping a line. These cameras “allow scientists to study animal behaviour without interference by a human observer”. Sure, but the result is still a wild, majestic lion with a great big camera box around its neck.
Donna Haraway describes technology as an organ, an “infolding of the flesh”. In Material culture we discussed how we can “extend our senses”, a video camera simply being an extension of our sight. But should we be extending ourselves into somewhere we don’t belong?

Crittercam is designed for the purpose of observing animal behaviour in a way we otherwise couldn’t. This is something I initially doubted, the very presence of a human technology would surely alter an animals behaviour. However, I looked into a suggested documentary ‘Tigers: Spy in the Jungle’ that involved elephants carrying (badly) disguised cameras through the jungle to capture tigers in their private habitats. And honestly, it was wonderful. The animals showed no signs of disturbance and there was some really exciting footage. However, they didn’t have cameras glued to their backs.
What was it really illustrating to us that we need to learn?

Haraway explains how Crittercam may be used to not only understand an animals ecology but also show us how to change as a consequence. But from over a decades worth of data, has anything changed? Perhaps our zoos might expand, with more “accurate” enclosures for otherwise unobtainable creatures.
Wouldn’t that be lovely.