| Abstrakt: |
I In the context of animal mass deaths we learn that neither life nor death, nor connectivity nor kinship, nor earth's own empathy, nor a living creature's sweet desire to flourish with others is safe. Many nonhuman animals (including "pet" cats) move in and out of the category of killable, with the deaths of nonhuman animals who are discursively "massified" (such as "pests" or "farmed" animals) less critically questioned compared to those who are constructed as having "meaningful individual differences".[3] This indicates that particular framings render nonhuman species as either worthy of moral consideration, however limited, and therefore, individual, grievable and non-killable, or unworthy of moral consideration and therefore non-grievable and killable. In the current article we consider how ideas of risks to pure boundaries are used to move two species of nonhuman animals - that figure heavily in Australian media debates about "feral" and "pest" species - cats and kangaroos - into the category of "killable". Of Cats and Kangaroos: Tails of Shifting Boundaries The original database demonstrated that no nonhuman animals are seemingly immune from the human hunger to kill with nonhuman animals as different as crocodiles, sharks, brumbies (Australian "feral" horses), corellas, bats and koalas all being subject to voracious calls to kill. [Extracted from the article] |
